The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-0343 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No.&2- Jl3 ~ Civil Action - ( X ) Law ( ) Equity Charles W. Mitchell, Sr. 5016 East Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 Robert L. Myers 400 South York Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 versus Plaintiff(s) & Address( es) Defendants(s) & Address( es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue writ of summons in the above-captioned action. David W. Knauer David W. Knauer, P,C, 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 795-7790 Names! Adress/Telephone No. of Attorney Writ of Summons shaH be issued and forwarded to ( ) Attorney ( X ) Sheriff 0~o CJ~/ Signature MAtt ey Supreme Court ID No. 21582 Date: January 18. 2002 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HA VE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU, Date: JilllAtV(, I?: R (JcY)., / prothO"~ary&~~ ;/~ by~I11j'~ ep ty ( ) Check here if reverse is issued for additional information PROTIION, . 55 ~ "- 50 o ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ iJ --t'- Y'1 '6 ~ ~ =f:::> ~ V ~ I ' .~ d \.A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o '" i t- ~g ~ ~r. (:J) 'z C) -0 ~ ~ ~g ~ ~ ~ 0J ,--' :1; -rJ '..~t'~~1 t;:q ~ --:-1"""'" bb ".1 ,t, ~'\- :rl ~~O ,A"."'i'11 9 ~ " IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Charles W, Mitchell, Sr, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-343 Vs. Robert L. Myers Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO REISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS To The Prothonotary: Please reissue the following writ of summons for the above captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, KNAUER & ASSOCIATES, L.S.c. Date: February 13, 2002 !~ ~Jc ~ 6avid W,Knauer, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney I.D. No, 21582 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 795-7790 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No,O.9-'~l{3 el~:1 2002 Civil Action - ( X ) Law ( ) Equity Charles W. Mitchell, Sr. 5016 East Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 Robert L. Myers 400 South York Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 versus Plaintiff{s) & Address( es) Defendants( s) & Address( es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue writ of summons in the above-captioned action. David W. Knauer David W, Knauer. P.C, 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsbufl!. P A 17055 (717) 795-7790 Names/Adressrrelephone No, of Attorney _ Writ of Summons shall be issued and fOlwarded to ( ) Attorney ( X ) Sheriff 0w~ CJ.~/ Signature (Jf Att ey Supreme Court ID No. 21582 Date: Januarv 18. 2002 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HA VE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU, Date: J;1urxy If: ,f'(J@.. . i(;uY:;(", /~ "Y Prothonota by ~ j?1J ($~ ( ) Check here if reverse is issued for additional infonnation PROTHON, . 55 TRUE COpy FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof, I here unto set my hanc and the seal of said Cou t Carlisle. Pa. rhl fA ~ .Pe1J'1 --~~-~--"-""""'''''--.~'''''''''- ~ (') 0 0 e- N -n ;;': ..., ~(J:: r, " r1}P-: 0:> ,..-- Z:-X.1 "T'! 2(;. 0) .-~c~~~ ~:;::. ~~CJ -c .-Y-, ~~ :L'1 ?ZQ ...;.:" "":~C) l)? .>rn -u l~ ~c: Z ~ ~ ~ (T> -< SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2002-00343 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MITCHELL CHARLES W VS MYERS ROBERT L R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: MYERS ROBERT L but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of YORK County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On March 8th , 2002 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep York County Mileage 18.00 9.00 10.00 72.56 6.90 116.46 03/08/2002 KNAUER & ASSOC /~ S~~-:- -- R~~ Sheriff of cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this 13 ~ day of ~ ,;200 :L- qy. A.D. Q /'rI,;I~. J ~ prothonotar .' '3/1~ 36410 1~~ COUNTY OF YORK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SERVICE CALL (717) 771-9601 28 EAST MARKET ST., YORK, PA 17401 SHERIFF SERVICE PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN 2, 8~~'Yl~JM~i~il (02-343) 4, TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT 1, PLAINTIFF!S! Charles W. Mitchell Sr. 3, DEFENDANT!S! Robert L.Myers Writ of Smmons, reissued SERVE { 5, NAME OF INDIVIDUAL COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC, TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR SOLD, ...... Robert L. Myers ..,.. 6, ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT. NO" CITY. BORO, lWP., STATE AND ZIP CODE AT 500 Mumper Lane Dillsburg, ~ 17019 7, INDICATE SERVICE: 0 PERSONAL 0 PERSON IN CHARGE DEPUTIZE NOW Fe ruary ,20 I, SHERIFF 0 York - COUNTY to execute to law. This deputation being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. 8, SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: AIJITAN:E FEE PAID BY ATl'Y NOTE ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N,B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN. Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under wnhin writ may leave same without a watchman, in cU,stody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriff's sale thereof. 9, TYP~IdN~D_~r:Om3~ ~RI~lJ>Mnd&SI<j&~IATES 411-A EAST MAIN ST., MOCHANICSBUR3, PA 17055 12, SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed if notice is to be mailed), CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF 10, TELEPHONE NUMBER 11, DATE FILED (717) 795-7790 2/13/02 ~ ')~ 1~) 42, day of 49, DATE 51, DATE RECEIVED 1, WHITE - Issuing Authority 2, PINK - Attorney 3, CANARY. Sheriff's Office 4, BLUE - Sheriff's Office ~Vi'" ,,',,:'.A'f':!i\ , .' "... ,.,," , - _-,.,' <: "v':c;:':."'~","'!- !Ii tHO" T. -'-- ---_._------,._-~---.- ~ 1'~1. V j - 1 Jj l ~'r:_~ l !J,}t --,~ ! r\1\t~1 \",.-, ~:r=J ~ A =:1 t1 !G.~, .I1~h'" r.." ,~j !l.;'}~:'!jjj~H ::rll,nf1i~1J~J~?~~t'~ \~ .nl,J'i1jl'lI:;H<<'.Iin:r~~OG ,-; lC!~ 1;:1, '!I :";:; I ,.:1 ,"- j.< i~; 1) f '., ::::'1'1'.~ t . .." ...J ',,-,f Ii ,\!A -'::.,1\~1 ::Jf' II :..., VHJii;. ;ilH :r(~ 'll\';L: ., -"', !,\-; "'f " 4~ f::~ !"; '!';: _~li I / 7/ ,.., r"'~ /' -' <:::-...... ~ '->-_.;.l.l... LI,.l,:"f~".'_ .~l ~'C'''_oAU.I'' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Charles W. Mitchell, Sr. Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION LAW Vs. No. 02-343 Robert L. Myers Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS 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 LAVVYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 240-6200 NOTICIA Le han demaandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quieie defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes., usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en persoa 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte enforma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objections alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previa aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importanted para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABA..I0 PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 1 i'013 (717) 240-6200 David W. Knau r Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney 1.0. No. 21582 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsbur~J, PA 17055 (717) 795-7790 Date: March 7, 2003 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Charles W. Mitchell, Sr. Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION LAW Vs. No. 02-343 Robert L. Myers Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. The Plaintiff Charles W. Mitchell, Sr., 5016 E. Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. 2. The Defendant Robert L. Myers is an adult individual with an address of 400 York Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 3. At all times relevant herein, the Plaintiff was the owner and operator of a locksmith business that, inter alia, involved the sale and installation of locks and associated items, made duplicate keys, cut doors to install locks and dead bolts and opened vehicles and premises where thE~ owner had lost his or her keys or left them within the locked vehicle or premises. 4. At all times relevant herein, the Plaintiff was the owner and operator of a certain 1984 Chevrolet Box Van. 5. At all times relevant, the Defendant was the owner and operator of a certain vehicle. 6. On April 19, 2001 at or about 6:15 p.m., the Plaintiff's vehicle was proceeding in a westerly direction. . 7. The Plaintiff was in a long line of traffic and had his left hand turn signal activated. Another motorist in a long line of traffic in sin easterly direction motioned the Plaintiff through an opening of the line of traffic. The Plaintiff proceeded to make the left had turn. 8. As the Plaintiff was making his turn as aforesaid, the Defendant left the line of traffic facing east and in an attempt to avoid the~ long line of traffic was proceeding unlawfully in along the shoulder/berm of the easterly bound lane of Trindle Road as aforesaid. 9. As the Defendant was unlawfully proceeding along the shoulder/berm, his vehicle struck the Plaintiffs vehicle as it was completing its left hand turn. 10. The aforesaid collision was caused solely by the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of the Defendant in that he: a.) was operating his vehicle on the shoulder or berm of the road to attempt to avoid a line of traffic; b.) failed to see the Plaintiffs vehicle then and there making a lawful turn across the easterly lane of travel; d.) failed to avoid striking the Plaintiffs aforesaid vehicle; e.) struck the Plaintiffs vehicle; f.) violated the following section of the Motor Vehicle Code, 75 Ps.C.S.A. 102; 2718.103; 3304; 3313. 11. Solely as the result of the Defendant's carelessness, recklessness and negligence, the Plaintiff suffered the following damage to his locksets, keys and other inventories in the amount of $1,123.00 composed of the following inventories: a.) Quickset- Single Dead Bolt (15 sets) -- $34!5; b.) Quickset -Double Dead Bolt (10 sets) -- $2B5; c.) Quickset - Knobs (8 sets) -- $184; d.) Yale - Single Dead Bolts (4 sets) -- $80; e) Yale Double Dead Bolts (4 sets) -- $104; f.) Yale - Knob Sets (5 sets) -- $125 12. The force of the collision and the internal damage to the interior of the van caused the destruction of a key machine that could not be repaired. The value of that machine was $850.00. 13. In the locksmith business/profession, each manufacturer has key blanks numerically coded. It is customary and necessary in the locksmith business that the locksmith carry locks and keys made by numerous companies. Therefore, when a customer needs a duplicate key made or extra keys, the locksmith has a catalogue type book that identifies the lock and keys by numbers so that the locksmith can then make duplicate keys of Hach lock. The Plaintiff had his van customized on the inside with two four by e~ight pieces of plywood with hooks for different manufacturer's locks. When thE:! Defendant's vehicle struck his van, all of the keys were knocked off of their hooks onto the floor, much like a jigsaw puzzle. In order to put the keys back on their own hooks by number and manufacturer, the Plaintiff had the laborious job of putting the jigsaw puzzle together. That task took fifty hours and the Plaintiff valued his labor at $10.00 per hour for a total charge of $500. . . 14. The cost of repairing and replacing of the special interior particular to the Plaintiff's locksmith business is $519.75. The Plaintiff marks as Exhibit "AIt, attaches hereto and incorporates herein by reference thereto a true and correct copy of the repair estimate of Bruce Santos. 15. The cost of repainting and placing advertising on the panels of the van will be $508.80. The Plaintiff marks as Exhibit "B", attaches hereto and incorporates herein by reference thereto a true and correct copy of the repair estimate of Signfeld Custom Signs dated January 7,2003. 16. One of the requirements of the locksmith trade is that the smith must be able to use both arms because some installations require the use of a heavy duty drill. Since the collision, the Plaintiff has been unable to use his arm because of the shoulder injury. Dr. Ronald W. Lippe, a board certified orthopedic surgeon, attempted surgical repair of the shoulder. The initial surgery had not been successful. On February 25, 2003, Dr. Lippe, placed the Plaintiff under anesthesia to manipulate the shoulder to attempt to re!~ain range of motion for the Plaintiffs. As of the date of the verification to this Complaint, the Plaintiff was planning to undergo physical therapy as part of the rehabilitative process. 17. The Defendant appraised the vehicle solely as a vehicle not specially modified as the Plaintiff had modified his vehicle for the! locksmith trade at a $1,287.90 including the sales tax but the Defendant's estimate for retail value was $1,565 and a trade in value of $315. The Defendant's estimate was dated May 2, 2001 from ADP Autosource Instant Valuation. The Plaintiff marks as - Exhibit "e", attaches hereto and incorporates herein by reference thereto a true and correct copy of the said estimate. 18. Utilizing the Defendant's appraisal of the van at $1,287.90 plus the amounts set forth in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17', the total of those paragraphs is $4,787.90. 19. The Plaintiff estimates that the business' loss of income was at the rate of $15,000 per year since the accident on April 1 ~l, 2001. 20. The Plaintiff is a self-employed locksmith and has suffered the loss of business because of the injuries he suffered in the aforesaid collision. In particular the original surgery on his left shoulder has disabled him from performing various acts necessary in his chosen field of endeavor that requires the use of both arms. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor and against the Defendant for property damage in an amount not in excess of $25,000 and within the mandatory range for referral to arbitration. Date: March 7, 2003 Respectfully submitted, KNAUER & ASSOCIATES, L.S.C. ~~& Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney I.D. No. 21582 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsbur~~, PA 17055 (717) 795-7790 V E,R IF J CAT ION correct to the best of our information and belief. authorities, we hereby certify that the facts in the forecoina c!eadina are true and - - I _ Subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A 49'J4 relating to uns\'.'orn falsification 10 0_1_. . Ci:. 3 -;Z-c> 3 ~-'-U:. ~~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Charles W. Mitchell, Sr. Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-343 Vs. Robert L. Myers Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David W. Knauer, hereby certify that I did this 7th day of March, 2003, serve a true and correct copy of the Complaint by United States mail, first class, prepaid addressed as follows: Timothy P. Caslin Senior Claim Representative AIG Specialty auto P.O. Box 8220 Coraopolis, PA 15108-8220 e~0u~ Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney I.D. No. 21582 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 795-7790 o c:: ;::"'" -ot';' Si'..: zr, ~:~ ~: '?F: ):c~ (co :.-:y .:.2 fS Bit (-- ... ( , C', :") :::> ....1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CHARLES W. MITCHELL, SR., CIVIL ACTION LAW Plaintiff, GD No.02-343 v. ROBERT L. MYERS, , Praecipe for Entry ~f Appearance Defendant. FILED ON BEHALFi OF: , Defendant, ROBERTiL. MYERS. I COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR THIS , PARTY: . P. Brennan Hart, Esq uire Pa. I.D. No. 18123 PIETRAGALLO, BOSICK & GORDON 38th Floor, One Oxford Centre Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Telephone: 412.263.2pOO Telefax: 412.261.5*95 , , Finn Pa. I.D. No. 834 ! No, 02-343 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CHARLES W. MITCHELL, SR., CIVIL ACTION L~ W GD No.02-343 Plaintiff, v. ROBERT L. MYERS, Defendant. PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE To: THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA: KINDLY ENTER the appearance of P. Brennan Hart, Esquire, and the law firm ofPietragallo, Bosick & Gordon, as counsel of record for ROBERT L. MYERS, Defendant named in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, PIE~7N P. rennan Hart, Esquire Pa. J.D. No. 18123 38th Floor, One Oxford Centre Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: 412-263-2000 Counsel for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within document, Praecipe for Efit ::::an~ via Unit~::;::e::o:t~~~:l::::smge prepmd, on tills, fue David W. Knauer, Esquire KNAUER & ASSOCIATES, L.S.C. 41 I-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (Counsel for Plaint~ff) PIETRAGALLO, HOSICK & GORDON ztfES~ Pa. J.D. No. 18123 38th Floor, One Oxford Centre Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: 412-263-2000 Telefax: 412-261-5295 (') C ? lJ(Ci mrr-, Z-'- Zf C/')} , ~- , --'"'- "'~~ ~C=' p(~. Z' ---C, )>(:.: -7 :.'::i -< .... o w :Jr.. o -n ".~1 "= Il ,-np rn o _" C~ ;:::'-" ::J "-:j,O ;'c.:,cn -::-'::, "t> S:J -( :!:.:w :;;0 ~ OJ -0 :x w :::> -.-J IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CHARLES W. MITCHELL, SR., CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 02-343 vs. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER ROBERT L. MYERS, Defendant. FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, ROBERT L. MYERS COUNSEL OF RECORD: -11ajt\tle!: C~UlfS wJMrArIJ, Sf. ~:u_......... · . r P. BRENNAN HART PA LD. # 18123 Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor Pittsburgh,PA 15219 (412) 263-2000 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CHARLES W. MITCHELL, SR., CNIL ACTION Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 02-343 vs. ROBERT L. MYERS, Defendant. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Robert L. Myers, by and through his counsel, Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon and P. Brennan Hart, Esquire, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint averring as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. After reasonable investigation, this defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff s Complaint; therefore, said allegations are denied. 4. Admitted. 5. Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Complaint alleges insufficient specificity, precluding a meaningful response by this defendant. Paragraph 5 states "the defendant was the owner and operator of a certain vehicle." Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff s Complaint alleges neither make, model, nor year of a particular vehicle. Accordingly, this defendant is unable to provide any meaningful response to Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff s Complaint. 2 6. Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Complaint alleges insufficient specificity, precluding meaningful response by this defendant. Paragraph 5 does not allege the place or road where Plaintiff s vehicle was proceeding. 7. After reasonable investigation, this defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Complaint; therefore, said allegations are denied. 8. After reasonable investigation, this defendant IS without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff s Complaint; therefore, said allegations are denied. Further, the averments contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Complaint contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 9. Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, said allegations are denied. 10. Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, said allegations are denied. 11. Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff s Complaint constitutes conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, said allegations are denied. Regarding plaintiffs list of damages contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Complaint, after reasonable investigation, this defendant is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Complaint; therefore said are denied. 3 12. After reasonable investigation, this defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff s Complaint; therefore said averments are denied. 13. After reasonable investigation, this defendant IS without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs Complaint; therefore said averments are denied pursuant to. Defendant further avers that Paragraph 13's multiple averments have been mis-pled. 14. After reasonable investigation, this defendant IS without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff s Complaint; therefore said averments are denied. 15. After reasonable investigation, this defendant IS without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff s Complaint; therefore said averments are denied. 16. After reasonable investigation, this defendant IS without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff s Complaint; therefore said averments are denied. 17. Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs Complaint is denied as stated. It is admitted that the defendant received an estimate for the plaintiffs vehicle from ADP Auto Source Instant Valuation, dated May 2,2001. It is denied, however, that this appraisal was not based upon the modifications of plaintiff s vehicle for his locksmith trade. 18. Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint is denied as stated. Specifically it is denied that the defendant's appraisal of plaintiffs vehicle on May 2, 2001 from ADP Auto Source Instant Valuation did not include the modifications of plaintiff s vehicle for plaintiff s locksmith 4 trade. Moreover, after reasonable investigation, this defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to from a belief to the truth of the amounts and allegations set forth in paragraph 18; therefore, same are denied. 19. After reasonable investigation, this defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs Complaint; therefore same are denied. 20. After reasonable investigation, this defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff s Complaint; therefore same are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Robert L. Myers, respectfully requests that this Honorable court enter judgment in his favor and against the plaintiff with prejudice and cost of suit sustained. NEW MATTER 21. On or about February 20, 2003, Plaintiff Charles W. Mitchell signed a RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS relative to the April 19, 2001 automobile accident that occurred at or near Trindle Road, Hampden Township, Pennsylvania. A true and correct copy of this release is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 22. The first paragraph ofthis release states as follows: FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF the payment to me/us ofthe sum of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/1 00 ($25,000.00) and other good and valuable consideration, I/we, being of lawful age, have released and discharged, and by these presents do for myself/ourselves, my/our heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, release, acquit and forever discharge Robert L. Myers and New Hampshire Indemnity Company. .. of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims or demands for damages, costs, loss of services, expenses, compensation, or consequential damage and property damage resulting or to result from an 5 occurrence, or accident that happened on or about the 19th day of April, 2001 at or near Trind1e Rd., Hampden Twp, P A. See Exhibit A. 23. Mr. Mitchell added to the first paragraph a handwritten line that states, "This release is not intended to nor releases Nationwide Ins. Co. UM/UIM coverage or any other claims not involving Release." See Exhibit A. 24. The first paragraph of the "RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS" specifically releases Robert L. Myers from any and all causes of actions, claims or demands for damages, including loss of services, expenses, compensation, or consequential damage and property damage resulting in any way from the accident at issue in Plaintiffs Complaint. 25. Plaintiff's Complaint is alleging property damage, such as damage to his 10cksets and keys that were allegedly in his van at the time of collision, along with a key machine. 26. Plaintiff is further alleging the expense of his labor for repairing such items particular to his locksmith business. 27. Plaintiff also alleges the expense of the repairs to the repainting of the advertising signs on the panels of his van, which he alleges were damaged as a result of the Apri119, 2001 accident. 28. Finally, Plaintiff is alleging business loss of income at the rate of$15,000 per year since the accident on April 19, 2001, based on injuries he purportedly suffered in the April 19, 2001 accident. 29. However, the RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS expressly and specifically includes claims for loss of services, expenses, compensation, or consequential damage and property damage arising from the occurrence or accident that happened on or about the 19th day of April, 2001 at or near Trind1e Road, Hampden Township, Pennsylvania. 6 30. Notably, the Plaintiff did, by handwritten addition, specifically change the release to insure that it was not releasing Nationwide Insurance Company uninsured motorist or under- insured motorist coverage. It is significant that he made no other changes to the Release to exclude business loss expense or property damage relative to his locksmith trade from the agreement therein. 31. Accordingly, Plaintiffs claims in the instant complaint are specifically covered by the RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS, and, as a result, cannot be brought in the instant action. 32. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 33. The injuries or damages sustained by the plaintiff are the sole, proximate and direct result of intervening and superceding causes that were not in control of this defendant. 34. Plaintiffs claims can be barred or reduced by his own comparative negligence pursuant to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 35. Defendant exercised reasonable due care at all relevant times. 36. Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate the injuries and damages suffered. 37. In accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, this answering Defendant reserves to offer evidence at trial in support of the affirmative defenses that are reserved unto the defendants without the need of specific pleading. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Robert L. Myers, respectfully requests that this honorable court enter judgment in his favor and against the plaintiff, with prejudice and cost of suit sustained. 7 Respectfully submitted, PIETRAGALLO, BOSICK & GORDON ...~u rennan Hart, Esquire Donna A. Alexander, Esquire Attorneys for the Defendant, Robert L. Myers 8 Exhibit A MRR 21 2003 16:01 FR ~'S-cLRIMS 412 299 9153 Tn 14122615295 P.04/19 r--.. -""'"'. e JI"m RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS and 001100 harged, and. by uit and fore-ver FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF the payment to me/us of the sum ($2S,OOO.OO) and other good aOO valuable consideration. I1we. being of lawful ge these presents do for myscIf/ourselvcs. my/our heirs, executors. ;!tfmfntstrato diSCharge Robert L. Myers and New Hampshire . of and from any and aD actions, causes of action, claims or (fem;!nlJs for damages, com, loss 0 ices expenses, compensation, or consequemia.l damage aDd property damage resulting or to result froDl an ident that ~ on or about the 19th day of APr:, ,2001 at or near Trind1e Rd., Hunpden Twp, PA. T~ $. p..e e. / ~ ;YtI f I. Q~ +" KfJ~ ~/~QS MJti"'II/iJ~:l.s t:. 1A/I1/u/M C(JI'~t..IA 4J&I/dift,tAw~",f~/,~ we hereby acknowledge and assume all risk. chai'.ce or hailrrdiat the said Ibjuric:s or'danlage may be or become a permanent, progressive, greater. or lllOte extensive than is now tnown. anticjpated OI'~. No promise or inducement ~ which is DOt herein expressed has been made to melus, and in executing this release I/we do not rely upon any slate:ment Or repr~nt:lriWl made by any person, firm or corporation. hereby meased, or any agent. physician, doctor or'any other pet"son representing them or any of them. concerning the nature. extent or duration or said damages or losses or the legal liability ~efur. _ . " ' Uwe hereby acree to defend. iDdemnify and hold harmless New Ha1llpshire lndPmniry Companyand/or its member companies aI1d Its Payors. herein. from any aJJd aU lieusJprivncgcs not specifically considered or included in tbc above described payment and of which Payon have no prior DOdce. wriuen or otherwise. It is further agreed that in the event other parties are re5pODsible to the UDdersigned for damages as a result of this accident, the eXecution of this agreement shall operate as a satisfaction of t:he under:sigDed's claim agaimt such other patties to the extent of the pro rata sbate of the parties herein released. I/wc understand that this scrrl~ent is the compromise of a doubtful and disputed claim and that paymc:mt is not to be constrUed as an admissioD of liabiliry on the part of the persona, firms and cotpOratious hereby released by whom liability is ~ptessly dCDicd. I1we further srate that Ilwe have carefully read the foregoing release and know the CODtents thereof, and I/we sign the same as my/our own free act. JJ:i/Jt~ Address ~AA/ ~Sf:; U<;c.L,.qj; ~h<<vl!V< {1o 6 (" ) ) DATE: ~~ ~tJ.1 CAUTION! READ BEFORE SIGNING X I';~~!)/;~~ (SEAL) ) ) Address ) ) x (SEAL) II . .. 610AL019397TC verify that the statements contained in the foregoing AnSWer and NeW Matter are trUe and ~ I, P. BRENNAN HART, as attorney of record on behalf of Robert L. MyerS, correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that, if 1 knowingly This statement of verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. c.s. 9 make false statements, 1 may be subject to criminal penalties. //" ,// /.(/~~- ~Brennan Hart, Esquire Date: 3'1J5 / 11'1. 'A~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within ANSWER AND NEW MATTER have been served upon all known counsel of record this ~ay of May, 2003, via First Class United States Mail, addressed as follows: David W. Knauer, Esquire 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 Respectfu~itted, -r-O~/ P. rennan Hart, Esquire Donna A. Alexander Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon 38th Floor, One Oxford Centre Pittsburgh,PA 15219 (412) 263-2000 9 ~ io (") 0 0 c:: W ..on ~. c. -~ ~ -0 cr _..:~:" .~, ~,.. rn Ci , -< )J z --;.- , 1 ;.~I u~ .....l C1 , () r::: --- .......1'-') ., ::.r". j'-"! ; ~':J 2~ .-- ___r <..~ j; . , . , , rn c. J~ '~:\ :::> "!'-:-.,. -- "0 -< =< IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Charles W. Mitchell, Sr. Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-343 Vs. Robert L. Myers Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY TO NEW MATTER 21. Denied as alleged. The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that the only claim the Plaintiff released was the claim for personal injuries. Timothy P. Caslin was the adjuster who settled the personal injury claim only. The Plaintiffs counsel negotiated the language of the release for the personal injuries only and obtained the approval and authorization of Mr. Caslin and then made the changes of language of the release. In his letter of February 18, 2003, Plaintiffs counsel provided proposed revisions to the release to Mr. Caslin stating that: Please find enclosed the revisions to the release regarding the above named matter. I look fOlWard to your response. Thank you. Plaintiff's counsel in his letter of February 26, 2003 returned the executed release to Mr. Caslin and his lead paragraph stated that: Please find enclosed the executed Release for personal injuries only with modifications you approved, and authorization to obtain medical information. (emphasis added). The Plaintiff marks as Exhibits "A" and "8" respectively, attaches hereto and incorporates herein by reference thereto his letters of February 18, 2003 and February 26, 2003. The language and changes to the release the Defendant's insurer utilized was as follows: This release is not intended to nor releases Nationwide Ins. Co. UM/UIM or any other claims not involving release. The only claims outstanding after settlement of the personal injury claims were the claims not for personal injuries that are the claims reserved in the insertion of the release. The Plaintiff's counsel's letter of February 26, 2003 laid out in detail the remaining claims against the Defendant. The intention of the release was to release only the personal injuries and the release must be read to include the other claims that were set forth in the February 26, 2003 letter and the Plaintiff's complaint. If the Defendant did not understand that the non-personal injury claims were being preserved, it should have contacted the Plaintiff and either clarified release or informed the Plaintiff that the Defendant did not accept the settlement of the personal injury claims only with reservation of the non-personal injury claims. The following doctrines of law bar the Defendant's new matter defenses in paragraphs 21 through 30, inter alia, integration of the handwritten and the pre-printed terms, handwritten terms supersede pre-printed terms, unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, abuse of process, wrongful use of civil process, unfair trade practices and consumer protection law. The Plaintiff admits that Exhibit "A" of the Defendant's New Matter is partially accurate except for the portion of the handwritten entry that the photocopies obscured. 22. Denied as alleged. The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that the Defendant has not accurately copied the first paragraph of the release because the Defendant has placed selected words in bold that do not appear bold in the original document. In addition to the foregoing, the Defendant is estopped from arguing the release extinguished all claims because the Plaintiff's letter of February 26, 2003 specifically stated that the release only settled the Plaintiff's personal injuries and then set forth the remaining claims of the Plaintiff. When the Defendant received the executed release, he knew that the Plaintiff believed that the only matter released was the personal injury claims. At that point in time, the Defendant had a duty to inform the Plaintiff that he believed that the release applied to all claims and so informed the Plaintiff that it would not agree to separate the personal injury and the property damage part of the case. 23. Admitted. 24. Denied as alleged. The Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference thereto paragraph 21 of his reply to the Defendant's New Matter. 25. -28. Admitted. By way of further answer, the items the Plaintiff claims as damages in this action are the same items of damage listed in his letter of February 26, 2003 that is Exhibit liB" to this reply to new matter. 29. Denied as alleged. The Plaintiff avers to the contrary and incorporates herein by reference thereto paragraph 21 of the Plaintiff's reply to new matter. 30. Denied as alleged. The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that the Defendant has not accurately stated the language of the handwritten insert because the Defendant has left out the phrase the Plaintiff places in bold, i.e. This release is not intended to nor releases Nationwide Ins. Co. UM/UIM or any other claims not involving release. The Plaintiff avers that the remaining portion of the Defendant's paragraph 30 are conclusions of law to which no reply is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of settlement. 31. Denied as alleged. The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that paragraph 31 of the Defendant's new matter are conclusions of law to which no reply is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 32. The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that paragraph 32 of the Defendant's new matter are conclusions of law to which no reply is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 33. The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that paragraph 33 of the Defendant's new matter are conclusions of law to which no reply is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 34. The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that paragraph 34 of the Defendant's new matter are conclusions of law to which no reply is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 35. The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that paragraph 35 of the Defendant's new matter are conclusions of law to which no reply is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 36. The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that paragraph 36 of the Defendant's new matter are conclusions of law to which no reply is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 37. Denied as alleged. The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that the Pa.R.C.P. No. 1030 requires the Defendant to set forth all affirmative defense unless specifically excluded by that rule. That rule does not provide or permit reservation of affirmative defenses. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor and against the Defendant on the Defendant's New Matter. Respectfully submitted, KNAUER & ASSOCIATES, L.S.C. Date: May 16, 2003 fJl j} ~~~~ ~e, squire Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney 1.0. No. 21582 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 795-7790 Knauer & Associates, LSC Attorneys-at-Law 411A. East Main Street, Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 Telephone: (717) 795-7790 Fax: (717) 795-7793 Email: knauer@earlv.com David W. Knauer February 18, 2003 Timothy P. Caslin AIG Specialty Auto P.O. Box 8220 Coraopolis, P A 15108-8220 RE: Your Insured: Robert Myers Claimant: Charles W. Mitchell, Sr. Claim No.: 61OAL019397TC Policy No.: 7024573 DOL: 4-19-01 Dear Mr. Caslin: Please find enclosed the revisions to the release regarding the above named matter. I look forward to your response. Thank you. Very truly yours, /"'-C.~ f'-;-\rc':\/.7- , . I" .' ,~ . . _J 'G'L-j LJ David W. Knauer DWK: bm Enclosure CC: Mr. Mitchell, Sr. Company\Mitchell\02-18-03\ltr Knauer &. Associates, LSC Attorneys-at"Law 411A. East Main Street, Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 Telephone: (717) 795-7790 Fax: (717) 795-7793 Email: knauer@earlv.com David W. Knauer February 26, 2003 Timothy P. Caslin AIG Specialty Auto P.O. Box 8220 Coraopolis, P A 15108-8220 RE: Your Insured: Robert Myers Claimant: Charles W. Mitchell, Sr. Claim No.: 610AL019397TC Policy No.: 7024573 DOL: 4-19-01 Dear Mr. Caslin: Please fmd enclosed the executed Release for personal injuries only with modifications you approved, and authorization to obtain medical information. My client also has provided me the calculations of the property damage, to wit: a.) Quickset- Single Dead Bolt (15 sets) -- $345; b.) Quickset -Double Dead Bolt (10 sets) -- $285; c.) Quickset - Knobs (8 sets) -- $184; d.) broken key machine -- $850; e. ) Yale - Single Dead Bolts ( 4 sets) -- $80; f.) Yale Double Dead Bolts (4 sets) -- $104; g.) Yale - Knob Sets (5 sets) -- $125 The total for all additional damaged items is $1,973. With respect to the damaged inventory, I questioned my client with respect to retail or second hand sale of the damaged inventory. He informed me that within the trade, he could not sell the damaged inventory as new and that there is no second hand market for damaged goods. In addition to the foregoing, he has a claim for restocking the keys for $500. That figure is based on a labor component of$1O.00 per hour. I questioned him as to that item as well. He informed me that each manufacturer may have several thousand keys that are numerically coded. Before the accident he had two 4.x 8 sheets of plywood on each side of the van with hooks. He had those keys placed in numeric:al sequence on the hooks. When your insured collided with my client's vehicle, all of the keys were thrown on the floor. After the repair and replacement of the hooks and shelves is completed, he must then tediously read each key's code number and place it on its own hook until the thousands of keys he had in the vehicle are back in their proper sequential order. The final item ofloss is for the business' loss caused by the injuries he suffered. His shoulder injury has prevented him from utilizing both arms. In the locksmith business, when a lock is installed, especially a dead bolt or other large lock, he must use a heavy duty drill to drill out the door so that he can install the: lock. He cannot use the drill because of his shoulder injury and therefore the business cannot install the locks. Installation of locks is a very large part of his business. Consequently, the only work he can perform is work involving the use of only one arm or his hands. On February 25,2003, his orthopedic surgeon manipulated his shoulder under anesthesia. He reported to me that the pain was intense and that it was too early to determine whether the manipulation was successful in its attempt to restore range of motion. If the manipulation was successful, in restoring range of motion, he will still need to build up strength in the shoulder so that he can use both hands in his work. I have apportioned the $2,500 settlement offer as repair of the vehicle, restoring the interior of the vehicle to its pre-accident set up and the repainting of the signs based on the estimates I provided to you for the signs and cabinetry. We previously provided the estimates for the latter two matters and are valuing the van repair as $1,500. Those items constituted the $2,500 settlement offer your extended. The final item of damage is the lost income to the business. Since the accident he has been unable to use both arms as aforesaid with the resultant adverse impact on the business. His total estimate of the past loss to the business since the accident on April 19, 2001 is $30,000. The projection of continued loss to the business going forward is based on the projection of$15,000 per year. Very truly yours, 1:/,11'r, ~!/ r l..~,; I.) .! , -) \.....~- ~-- - j David W. Knauer DWK: bm Enclosure CC: Mr. Mitchell Company\Mitchell\02-26-03\ltr IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Charles W. Mitchell, Sr. Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION LAW Vs. No. 02..343 Robert L. Myers Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David W. Knauer, hereby certify that I did this 16th day of May, 2003, serve a true and correct copy of the Reply to New Matter by United States mail, first class, prepaid addressed as follows: P. Brennan hart, Esquire Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon 38th Floor, One Oxford Circle Pittsburgh, PA 15219 ~t~:~ Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney 1.0. No. 21582 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 795-7790 (:-' ~~~ -r) , '-t .c< ~{ r~; i d:_:: j; ;.~; ~Vr , .f..) r.- ::J J C Ii -<- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CHARLES W, MITCHELL, SR., Plaintiff, vs, ROBERT L. MYERS, Defendant. #813820 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION CASE NO,: 02-343 Code DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT NON PROS Filed on behalf of Defendant, Robert L. Myers Counsel of Record for this Party: p, Brennan Hart, Esquire PA ill. #18123 Amy N, Williamson, Esquire PA ill, #90657 PIETRAGALLO, BOSICK & GORDON Firm #834 The Thirty-Eighth Floor One Oxford Centre Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 263-2000 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION ) ) CASE NO.: 02-343 ) ) ) ) ) ) CHARLES W, MITCHELL, SR., vs, ROBERT 1. MYERS, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT NON PROS AND NOW comes the Defendant, Robert 1. Myers, by and through his attorneys, Pietragallo Bosick & Gordon, and files the within Motion for Entry of Judgment Non Pros, averring as follows: 1. Plaintiff initiated this action on March 7, 2003. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges various injuries sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident. 2, In response, Defendant filed his Answer and New Matter on or about May 7, 2003, 3, In response to Defendant's Answer and New Matter, Plaintiff filed a Reply to New Matter on or about May 16, 2003, 4. There has been no docket activity whatsoever since Plaintiff filed his Reply to New Matter on May 16, 2003, 5, There has been no docket activity for almost two years in this case, (A true and correct copy of the docket of the Court of Conunon Pleas of Cumberland County in this action is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".) In fact, Plaintiffs counsel has done absolutely nothing to move this case forward since filing his Reply to New Matter almost two years ago. 6, In order to dismiss a case for inactivity, a defendant must establish the following: #813820 a. there must be a lack of due diligence on the part of plaintiff in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude; b, plaintiff must have no compelling reason for the delay; and c. the delay must cause actual prejudice to the defendant. Shope v, Eagle, 710 A.2d 1104, 1107 (Pa, 1998). 7. In the present case, it is clear that Plaintiff has failed to proceed with the prosecution of this matter, Further, Plaintiff has provided no compelling reason for the delay, 8, Moreover, since approximately two years have passed since the cause of action allegedly occurred, and the parties' and material witnesses' memories have faded, What is more, Plaintiff has failed to schedule and/or conduct any depositions or discovery in this matter in an effort to preserve testimony and/or evidence, 9, As such, Defendant asserts that, due to the dilatory approach of Plaintiff in proceeding in this matter, this Defendant has suffered substantial diminution in his ability to defend this case, #813820 -2- WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Defendant, Robert 1. Myers respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order granting his Motion for Entry of Judgment Non Pros and that all claims against him be dismissed, Respectfully submitted: PIETRAGALLO, BOSICK & GORDON B~4JtU;C- p, Brennan Hart, Esq, Amy N, Williamson, Esq, The Thirty-Eighth Floor One Oxford Centre Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 263-2000 Attorneys for Defendant, Robert 1. Myers #813820 -3- EXHIBIT A PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Civil Case Print Page 1 20.n? nJ)343 MITCHELL CHARLES W (vs) MYERS ROBERT L Reference No, . : Case Type...,,: WRIT OF SUMMONS Judgment, . . . , . : .00 Judge Assigned: Disposed Desc. : ------------ Case Comments ------------- Filed. , . , . , . , : Time........, : Execution Date Jury Trial. . . . Disposed Date. Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: 1/18/2002 3:45 0/00/0000 0/00/0000 ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info MITCHELL CHARLES W SR 5016 EAST TRINDLE ROAD MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 MYERS ROBERT L 400 SOUTH YORK STREET MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 PLAINTIFF KNAUER DAVID W DEFENDANT HART P BRENNAN ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries * ******************************************************************************** 1/18/2002 2/13/2002 3/08/2002 4/10/2002 4/10/2002 4/10/2002 3/10/2003 3/28/2003 5/07/2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION-WRIT OF SUMMONS ISSUED ------------------------------------------------------------------- PRAECIPE TO REISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS - BY DAVID W KNAUER ESQ FOR PLFF SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED, Case Type: WRIT OF SUMMONS Ret Type.: Out of County Litigant.: MYERS ROBERT L SERVED 2/28/02***** Address.,: 500 MUMPER LANE Cty/St/Zp: DILLSBURG, PA 17019 County Nm: YORK Ret Date.: 03/08/2002 Costs,',.: $116.46 Pd By: KNAUER & ASSOC 03/08/2002 ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED. N C~s~ Type: SUBPOENA Ret Type.: Regular N Lltlgant,: GORDON JESSIE N Address.,: 102 WEST GARFIELD STREET N Cty/St/Zp: SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 N Hna To: HOLLY EVANOV (ROOMMATE) N Shf/Dpty.: GERALD WORTHINGTON N Date/Time: 04/05/2002 1655:00 N Costs.".: $0.00 Pd By: 00/00/0000 N -------------------------------------------------------------------N SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED. N C~s~ Type: SUBPOENA Ret Type.: Regular N Llt1gan~.: DUDEK KRISTI N Address..: 102 WEST GARFIELD STREET N Cty/St/Zp: SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 N Hna To: HOLLY EVANOV N Shf/Dpty.: GERALD WORTHINGTON N Date/Time: 04/05/2002 1655:00 N Costs....: $0.00 Pd By: 00/00/0000 N -------------------------------------------------------------------N SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED. N C~s~ Type: SUBPOENA Ret Type.: Regular N Lltlgant.: EVANOV HOLLY N Address. .: 102 WEST GARFIELD STREET N Cty/St/Zp: SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 N Hna To: HOLLY EVANOV N Shf/Dpty.: GERALD WORTHINGTON N Date/Time: 04/05/2002 1655:00 N Costs,...: $0.00 Pd By: 00/00/0000 N -------------------------------------------------------------------N COMPLAINT - BY DAVID KNAUER ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFT - BY P BRENNAN HART ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANSWER AND NEW MATTER - BY P BRENNAN HART ESQ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within DEFENDANT'S MOTION F~~ ETRY OF JUDGMENT NON PROS has been served upon all known counsel of record thi~ day of April, 2005, via First Class United States Mail, addressed as follows: David W. Knauer, Esquire 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 ~(/4/ &Z Ve; t-/,--- #813820 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION ) ) CASE NO.: 02-343 ) ) ) ) ) ) CHARLES W, MITCHELL, SR" vs, ROBERT L. MYERS, Defendant. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _ day of April, 2005, upon consideration of the within Motion for Entry of Judgment Non Pros, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the foregoing Motion is GRANTED and this action is dismissed, with prejudice, The Prothonotary is hereby instructed to mark the docket in this action closed, BY THE COURT: J. #813820 ---------- ('") c ....' ~:_:~; ,....-' C' ~\" .~ -- ,-.J ;.. ,-,.. ,":') t',.) - CHARLES W. MITCHELL, SR., PLAINTIFF v, ROBERT L. MYERS, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 02-0343 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this -yt} day of April, 2005, a Rule is entered against plaintiff to show cause why a judgment of non pros should not be entered, Rule returnable fifteen (15) days after service, .~avid W, Knauer, Esquire For Plaintiff p, Brennan Hart, Esquire For Defendant :sal /f\~ -W\\\\o..'('(\2>o~,EsO' By t~Court, \J 1\;,< ~'.- :-'. (!'ri. O';J \1 lH 1\'"'17 -::. " 0- C(J(i JlJl~ -- David W, Knauer, Esquire Attorney I.D, No. 21582 Knauer & Associates, L.S,C. 411-A E. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Knauer@early,com 717-795-7790 717-795-7793 Fax IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Charles W. Mitchell, Sr, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-343 Vs. Robert L. Myers Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT NON-PROS within 20 days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Date: May 5, 2005 Respectfully submitted, KNAUER & ASSOCIATES, L.S.C. f2~~ David W, Knauer, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney 1.0, No, 21582 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 795-7790 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT NON-PROS 1. Denied as alleged. Prior to March 7, 2003, the Plaintiff and the Defendant's insurer settled the personal injury portion of the claim, The suit commenced in this action was only for economic and property damages, not personal injuries, Pursuant to Pa.R.C,P. No, 1019(g), the Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference thereto the Complaint. 2. - 3. Admitted. 4. Denied as alleged, The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that he filed his Plaintiff's Answers to the Defendant's Interrogatories under cover letter dated June 28, 2004 to the Prothonotary. According to the docket the Plaintiff obtained on May 4, 2005, the Prothonotary docketed the aforesaid Answers on June 29, 2004, The Plaintiff marks as Exhibit "A," attaches hereto and incorporates herein by reference thereto a true and correct copy of the docket. The Plaintiff had copied the Defendant on his letter of June 28, 2004 to the Prothonotary and provided the Defendant the Answers under cover letter of June 28, 2004. The Plaintiff marks as Exhibit "8" his counsel's letters of June 28, 2004 and incorporates them herein by reference thereto, The Defendant's counsel has those Answers in his own file. 5, Denied as alleged, The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that the Plaintiff has responded to the Defendants discovery as aforesaid. The Defendant's silence is proof of that because the Defendant's counsel under the cover letter of 2 July 13, 2004 by p, Brennan Hart, Esquire, requested provision of answers to the Defendant's interrogatories and enclosed a Motion to Compel unless same were provided. The Plaintiff marks as Exhibit "C", attaches hereto and incorporates herein by reference thereto a true and correct copy of the July 13, 2004 letter of Mr. Hart and his proposed Motion to Compel. Subsequent to that letter the Plaintiff's counsel spoke with Mr. Hart to call his attention the fact that he had already had the answers to the interrogatories. Subsequent thereto, Plaintiff's counsel and Mr. Hart had discussed settlement of the case and Plaintiff was waiting for Mr. Hart's reply to the settlement demand. Additionally, by letter dated August 17, 2004, Amy N, Williamson informed Plaintiff's counsel that she was assisting Attorney Hart and was in receipt of the Plaintiff's discovery responses, The Plaintiff marks as Exhibit "D", attaches hereto and incorporates herein by reference thereto a true and correct copy of the August 17, 2004 letter of Ms. Williamson, 6. Denied as alleged. The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that paragraph 6 of the Defendant's motion is a conclusion of law to which no reply is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 7. Denied as alleged. Since the summer of 2004, the Plaintiff avers to the contrary that he is a diabetic who is approximately 84 years old and has been having health problems including neuropathy that has deprived him of any sensation in his lower legs and has required his attention. The Plaintiff had provided that information to defense counsel. 3 8, - 9. Denied as alleged. The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that the Defendant's allegations are boilerplate because witnesses to the vehicular accident are the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff is the only witness as to his economic losses, 9, Denied as alleged. The Plaintiff avers to the contrary that paragraph 9 of the Defendant's motion is a conclusion of law to which no reply is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and strict proof thereof is demanded at time oftrial. NEW MATTER 10. Prior to February 26, 2003, the Plaintiff and the Defendant settled the personal injury portion of the case but not the property damage portion of the case for the sum of $25,000, A release for the personal injury portions of the case was executed, Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P, No, 1019(g), the Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference thereto his Reply to New Matter that has the aforesaid letters and release attached as Exhibits. 11, As a matter of convenience, the adjuster for the Defendant, Mr. Timothy Caslin, had requested the Plaintiff to sign a personal injury release but agreed that the property damage claim was not released. Pursuant to Pa.R.C,P. NO.1 019(g), the Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference thereto his Reply to New Matter that has the aforesaid letters and release attached as an exhibit. 12, Despite the aforesaid agreement the Defendant in his New Matter pled the Release as a defense. Pursuant to Pa,R.C.P. No, 1019(g), the Plaintiff 4 incorporates herein by reference thereto the Defendant's Answer and New Matter. 13. After the Plaintiff received the aforesaid Answer and New Matter, he spoke with Mr. Hart who agreed to seek confirmation from Mr. Caslin, 14. After Mr. Hart conferred with Mr. Caslin, he agreed to withdraw the allegations of his New Matter. However, as of the date of this reply, the Defendant has not withdrawn that position. 15. Although the Defendant had agreed to withdraw those allegations, the Plaintiff had to file a reply to the Defendant's New Matter. Pursuant to Pa.R.C,P, No. 1019(g), the Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference thereto the Defendant's Answer and New Matter. 16, The Defendant's conduct in filing the Defendant's Motion for Entry of Judgment Non Pros is brought in bad faith and is vexatious conduct because: a.) the Defendant's counsel has the Plaintiffs Answers to the Defendant's Interrogatories in his file; b,) the Defendant failed to attach the complete docket sheet to their Motion for Entry of Judgment Non Pros thereby committing fraud on the Court; 5 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor and against the Defendant on the Defendant's aforesaid motion and prays that Your Honorable Court will award counsel fees and costs for defense of the Defendant's aforesaid Motion, Date: May 5, 2005 Respectfully submitted, KNAUER & ASSOCIATES, L.S.C. tJJf(~ David W, Knauer, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney 1.0. No, 21582 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 795-7790 6 085048015042005 PYS510 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Civil Case Print Page 1 2002-00343 MITCHELL CHARLES W (vs) MYERS ROBERT L Reference No. . : Case TVPe"...: WRIT OF SUMMONS JUdgme~' t..,'" .00 Judge' ssigned: BAYLEY EDGAR B Dispos d Desc, : - - - - - -j- - - - - - Case Comments - - - - - - - - - - - -- Filed. . , , . . . . : Time, , . ....., : Execution Date Jury Trial. . . , Disposed Date. Higher Crt 1,: Higher Crt 2,: 1/18/2002 3:45 0/00/0000 0/00/0000 *******~************************************************************************ G~neral Index Attorney Info MITCHEL~ CHARLES W SR PLAINTIFF KNAUER DAVID W 5016 EA T TRINDLE ROAD MECHANI SBURG PA 17055 MYERS R BERT L DEFENDANT HART P BRENNAN 400 SOU H YORK STREET MECHANI SBURG PA 17055 ******* * Date ******* 1/18/2 02 2/13/2 02 3/08/2 02 3/10/2 03 3/28/2 03 5/07/2 03 5/19/2 03 6/29/2 04 4/13/2 05 4/20/2 05 ************************************************************************ Entries * ************************************************************************ - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION-WRIT OF SUMMONS ISSUED ----~-------------------------------------------------------------- PRAECIPE TO REISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS - BY DAVID W KNAUER ESQ FOR PLFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED, Case Type: WRIT OF SUMMONS Ret Type.: Out of County Litiganc,: MYERS ROBERT L SERVED 2/28/02***** Address, .: 500 MUMPER LANE Cty/St/Zp: DILLSBURG, PA 17019 County Nm: YORK Ret Date.: 03/08/2002 Costs"..: $116.46 Pd By: KNAUER & ASSOC 03/08/2002 ------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINT - BY DAVID KNAUER ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFT - BY P BRENNAN HART ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANSWER AND NEW MATTER - BY P BRENNAN HART ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- REPLY TO NEW MATTER - BY DAVID W KNAUER ESQ FOR PLFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO DEFTS INTERROGATORIES - BY DAVID W KNAUER ESQ FOR PLFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT NON PROS BY P BRENNEN HART ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - DATED 4/20/05 - A RULE IS ENTERED AGAINST PLFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A JUDGMENT OF NON PROS SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED - RULE RETURNABLE 15 DAYS AFTER SERVICE - BY THE COURT EDGAR B BAYLEY J COPIES MAILED 4/20/05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY ******* ************************************************************************ * Escrow Information * * Fees Debits Beo Bal pvmts/Adl End Bal * ********************************~********~******~******************************* WRIT TAX 0 SETTL JCP F .00 .00 ,00 .00 35,00 .50 5.00 5.00 35.00 ,50 5.00 5.00 ------------------------ ------------ 45.50 45.50 .00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Informatio * ******************************** EXHIBIT ~******************************* j A Knauer & Associates, LSC Attorneys-at-Law 411A. East Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Telephone: (717) 795-7790 Fax: (717)795-7793 Email: knauer@earlv.com David W, Knauer www.knauerlaw.com June 28, 2004 Curtis R, Long Cumberland County Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle,PA 17013 RE: Mitchell v. Myers, No, 02-343 Dear Mr. Long: Please find enclosed for filing the Plaintiff's Answers to Defendants Interrogatories By copy of this letter, opposing counsel has been served a copy of the foregoing discovery answers. Thank you, 8~~, David W. Knauer DWK: bm Enclosure CC: Mr, Hart, Esquire Mr, Mitchell Company\mitchell\06- 28-04 \1 tr EXHIBIT I 13 Knauer & Associates, LSC Attorneys-at-Law 411A, East Main Street, Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 Telephone: (717) 795.7790 Fax: (717) 795.7793 Email: knauer@earlv.com David W, Knauer www.knauerlaw.com June 28, 2004 P. Brennan Hart, Esquire Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon 38th Floor, One Oxford Circle Pittsburgh, PA 15219 RE: Mitchell v, Myers Dear Mr. Hart: Please find enclosed the Plaintiff's Answers To Defendants Interrogatories and submittal letter to the Prothonotary. Thank you, ~~ David W, Knauer DWK: bm Enclosure CC: Charlie Mitchell Company\mitcheJl\06- 28-04 II tr PIETRAGALLO BOSICK & GORDON ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE TH1RTY-EIGHTll FLOOR ONE OXFORD CENTRE PITISBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15219 TELEPHONE NO.: 412-263-2000 FACSIMILE NO" 412-261-5295 p, Brennan Hart, Esquire File No, AIGAUTO-62003 Direct Dial No" (412) 263-4347 E-mail: PBH@PBandG.com July 13, 2004 avid W, Knauer, Esq, Il-A East Main Street echanicsburg, P A 17055 Re: Charles W. Mitchell, Sr. v, Robert L. Myers Cumberland County, PA No. 02-343 ear Mr. Knauer: Plaintiff was served with Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for roduction of Documents Directed to Plaintiff on May 19, 2004, To date, I have not received laintiff's responses to the same, Kindly advise as to the status of Plaintiff's outstanding iscovery responses, In the event that I do not hear from you by the end of the month, I will roceed with filing the enclosed Motion to Compel. Thank you very kindly, Very truly yours, ?tULttifv-I/ze-d-/tUJ p, Brennan Hart lis nc10sure # 40583 I Ohio (140) 282-6705 Dn "'v!\nln EXHIBIT West Virginia (304) 748-4246 f (' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION ) ) CASE NO.: 02-343 ) ) ) ) ) ) CHARLES W. MITCHELL, SR., vs, ROBERT L. MYERS, Defendant. MOTION TO COMPEL AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Robert L. Myers, by and through his counsel, Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon and P. Brennan Hart, Esquire, and files the following Motion to Compel averring as follows: 1, This cause of action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 19,2001. Plaintiff initiated this cause ofaction via Complaint on March 7, 2003, 2, On May 19, 2004, Defendant served its first set of Interrogatories and Request for roduction of Documents on Plaintiff, 3, To date, Plaintiff has not filed any responses to the discovery requests. 4, Defendant is prejudice in its effort to properly defend its claim without the scovery responses, # 40589 WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order compelling Plaintiff to produce discovery responses within the next twenty (20) days of the date of the attached Order. Respectfully submitted: PlETRAGALLO, BOSICK & GORDON By: P. Brennan Hart, Esq. PA!D. #18123 The Thirty-Eighth Floor One Oxford Centre Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 263-2000 Attorneys for Defendant, Robert L. Myers 740589 -2- CERT~CATEOFSERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within MOTION TO COMPEL bas been served upon all known counsel of record this _ day of July, 2004, via First Class United States Mail, addressed as follows: David W. Knauer, Esquire 411-A East Main Street Mecbanicsburg, P A l7055 I t", PIETRAGALLO BOSICK & GORDON ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE THIRTY -EIGHTH FLOOR ONE OXFORD CENTRE PllTSBURGH. PENNSYLVANlA 15219 .,~~~~ ~o~J -----------~~------_._-- TELEPHONE NO.: 412-263-:WOO FACSIMlLENQ.: 412-261-5295 J.my N. Williamson tur File No.: AIGAUTO-62003 Direct Dial No.: (412) 263-1837 E-mail: ANW@PBandG.com August 17,2004 avid W. Knauer, Esq. 11-A East Main Street ecbanicsburg, P A 17055 Re: Charles W. Mitchell, Sr. v. Robert L. Myers Cumberland County, PA No. 02-343 ear Mr. Knauer: Please be advised that I am assisting Attorney Hart with the handling of tbe above- aptioned matter. I am in receipt of your client's discovery responses. Upon review of the sanle, would like to request signed authorizations for the release of the following records: 1. Good Hope Family Physicians 2. Ronald W. Lippe, M.D. 3. Nationwide Insurance Company (first party file) I have enclosed the appropriate authorizations for the release of these records. Kindly ave your client sign the same and retum to my attention at your earliest convenience. In addition, I would like to schedule Mr. Mitchell's deposition at tins tinle. Kindly ontact me with his dates of availability. Very trulY yours, 4?e~ Amy N. WillialllSon /klv 752080 I Ohio ~740) 282-6705 I Penns Ivania EXHIBIT West Virginiu (J04)748-4246 I () IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Charles W. Mitchell, Sr. Pia i ntiff CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-343 Vs. Robert L. Myers Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David W. Knauer, hereby certify that I did this 5th day of May, 2005, serve a true and correct copy of the Reply To The Defendant's Motion For Entry Of Judgment Non Pros by United States mail, first class, prepaid addressed as follows: P. Brennan hart, Esquire Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon 38111 Floor, One Oxford Centre Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Q~g&-- David W. Knauer Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney 1.0. No. 21582 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 795-7790 () c '" c;::> c.:~ en o .1 :;rj -< I U'; -(~1 LA' ~) -.I - - . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CHARLES W. MITCHELL, SR., Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT L. MYERS, Defendant. #827191 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION CASE NO.: 02-343 PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT NON PROS Filed on behalf of Defendant, Robert L. Myers Counsel of Record for this Party: P. Brennan Hart, Esquire PA rD. #18123 Amy N. WilliaI11son, Esquire PArD. #90657 PlETRAGALLO, BOSICK & GORDON Firm #834 The Thirty-Eighth Floor One Oxford Centre Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 263-2000 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION ) ) CASE NO.: 02-343 ) ) ) ) ) ) CHARLES W. MITCHELL, SR., vs. ROBERT 1. MYERS, Defendant. PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT NON PROS TO: DENNIS E. LEBO - CLERK OF COURT Kindly withdraw the Motion for Entry of Judgment of Non Pros filed on behalf of Defendant, Robert 1. Myers. Respectfully submitted: PIETRAGALLO, BOSICK & GORDON By:c/l!t//-etc;'-. P. Brennan Hart, Esq. Amy N. Williamson, Esq. The Thirty-Eighth Floor One Oxford Centre Pittsburgh, PA 152/9 (412) 263-2000 Attorneys for Defendant, Robert 1. Myers #827]9] . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT NON PROS has been served upon all known counsel of record this I O'h day of May, 2005, via facsimile, to the following individual: David W. Knauer, Esquire 4l1-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 G>/tlttt(;(;t~ #827'191 C'] -'il :-:;~ {~, ; r:- - , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CHARLES W. MITCHELL, SR., Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT L. MYERS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION CASE NO.: 02-343 PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE Filed on behalf of Plaintiff, Charles W. Mitchell, Sr. Counsel of Record for this Party: David W. Knauer, Esquire PA ill. #21582 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg P A 17055 (717) 795-7790 J I , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CHARLES W. MITCHELL, SR., Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION ) ) CASE NO.: 02-343 ) ) ) ) ) ) vs. ROBERT L. MYERS, Defendant. PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE TO: DENNIS E. LEBO - CLERK OF COURT Please mark the docket in the above-captioned action settled and discontinued as to all claims against AIG Speciality Auto and Robert L. Myers, pleaded on behalf of Plaintiff, Charles W. Mitchell, Sr. Dated: November ;8"2006 Respectfully submitted: By:OJ/)y-- David W. Knauer, Esq. 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 795-7790 Attorney for Plaintiff , . . , , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE has been served upon all known counsel of record this ~ of November, 2006, via first-class U. S. Mail, to the following counsel of record: P. Brennan Hart, Esq. Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon, LLP One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor Pittsburgh PA 15219 (') C- O?-' -u itJ t'rlf t! ~(, ~J"- r-' < ~S ;:''''C ~ .< ~ c:> c:::::> c::r" % C) -< N \.0 ~ :i! ~~ :!J :0 0::> -"i." I::n 00 am ~ -< -0 :x ~ o