Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-0185GETSON & SCHATZ, P.C. BY: Robert B. B. Schatz, Esquire Brian H. Getson, Esquire I.D. No.: 17209/76314 230 South Broad Street Suite 1001 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 520-4000 C:. -v 3 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDARWI Z 1 M r ? rr - 3 AUDI OF AMERICA, INC.: . 3 0 MCI -C --? co C cC -rt c1 :ZF =? Q r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUSTIN F. ACRI, Plaintiff V. AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: CIVIL DIVISION NO.: 2012-185 Civil ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of defendant Audi of America, Inc. in the above matter. GETSON & SCHATZ, P.C. O RT B. B. SCHATZ, S IRE e? (--l BRIAN H. GETSON, ESQUIRE 0ft43A999HH8 V1 TI, PROTHONOTAR" 1112 FEB 10 V40 9* 5G CUMB PENNSYLVAN A TY GETSON & SCHATZ, P.C. BY: Robert B. B. Schatz, Esquire Brian H. Getson, Esquire I.D. No.: 17209/76314 230 South Broad Street Suite 1001 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 520-4000 To: /?? You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed W t--,/ within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may b tered again you. A orney for Defenda ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AUDI OF AMERICA, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUSTIN F. ACRI, Plaintiff V. AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant : CIVIL DIVISION : NO.: 2012-185 Civil ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT AUDI OF AMERICA, INC. Audi of America, Inc. ("Audi") through its attorneys, Getson & Schatz, P.C., by way of answer says: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to D0t#3A959W95 11 the truth of the allegations of this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. 2. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is denied that the address and principal place of business for defendant Audi of America, Inc. is located at 3800 Hamlin Road, Auburn Hills, MI 48326. The correct address is 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, VA 20171. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are admitted. 3. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that answering defendant provides express, limited written warranties for new Audi vehicles sold or leased by authorized Audi dealers in the United States, which limited warranties may or may not remain in effect for their duration if the vehicle is subsequently purchased used. Said warranties speak for themselves and are contained in the vehicle's warranty book. Furthermore, there is a copy of a document attached to plaintiff's complaint as Plaintiff's Exhibit "A" upon whose face appears the name Justin F. Acri as Purchaser for a used 2009 Audi A4 bearing vehicle identification number WAULF78K19A074641 (the "vehicle") on or about June 26, 2010. It is denied that the vehicle at issue herein was manufactured by answering defendant. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no further response is required. 4. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the vehicle at issue herein was purchased in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is Bft03A939WB5 without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. Moreover, by way of further answer, Exhibit "A" speaks for itself. 6.-8. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that answering defendant provides express, limited, written warranties for new Audi vehicles sold or leased by authorized Audi dealers in the United States, which limited warranties may or may not remain in effect for their duration if the vehicle is subsequently purchased used. The terms of the Audi limited, express, written warranties speak for themselves and are contained in the vehicle's warranty book. Furthermore, the 4-year/50,000 mile warranty is a base warranty applicable from the date of the initial delivery of the vehicle to the first purchaser of the vehicle at issue herein. All other factual allegations of these paragraphs are denied. The remaining allegations of these paragraphs are legal conclusions and, as such, no further response is required. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual allegations of this paragraph and, therefore, DOt43A299®B8 v1 -3- they are denied. Moreover, by way of further answer, it is specifically denied that repair attempts have been ineffective, that the vehicle at issue herein is impaired or has no value or that the vehicle cannot be used for its intended purposes. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no further response is required. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and, therefore, they are denied. Moreover, by way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the vehicle at issue herein has any defects, conditions, and/or non-conformities which substantially impair its use, value and/or safety. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions. Furthermore, Exhibit "B" speaks for itself. COUNT I - 14AGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY IMPROVEMENT ACT 11. Answering defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 10 as though each were set forth fully herein at length. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual allegations of this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no further response is required. 06t63A9999BB v1 -4- 13. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no response is.required. To the extent that the allegations of this paragraph are not legal conclusions, they are denied. 14.-16. Denied. The allegations of these paragraphs are legal conclusions and, as such, no response is required. To the extent that the allegations of these paragraphs are not legal conclusions, they are denied. 17. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendant agreed to perform warranty repairs. The terms of the vehicle's limited, express, written warranties speak for themselves and are contained in the vehicle's warranty book. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no response is required. 18. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no response is required. To the extent that the allegations of this paragraph are not legal conclusions, they are denied. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual allegations of this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. Moreover by way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the vehicle has any defects,,malfunctions, and/or non- conformities which substantially impair its use, value and/or safety. 3Ot#3A899®P9 v1 -5- To the contrary, the vehicle at issue herein is free of defects, malfunctions, and/or non-conformities and fit for its intended use without misuse. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no further response is required. 20. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no response is required. To the extent that the allegations of this paragraph are not legal conclusions, they are denied. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual allegations of this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no further response is required. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual allegations of this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no further response is required. 23. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendant has failed to comply with its warranties, that plaintiff has suffered damages herein, or that defendant has violated the Magnuson-Moss Act or the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. To the contrary, the vehicle at issue herein is free of defects and non-conformities and fit for its intended use without misuse. The 00&G3A999888 v1 -6- remaining allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no further response is required. To the extent that the remaining allegations of this paragraph are not legal conclusions, they are denied. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual allegations of this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no further response is required. 25. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no further response is required. To the extent that the allegations of this paragraph are not legal conclusions, they are denied. 26. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no response is required. To the extent that the allegations of this paragraph are not legal conclusions, they are denied. 27. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no response is required. To the extent that the allegations of this paragraph are not legal conclusions, they are denied. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in its favor with attorneys fees, costs and other relief which the Court may deem just. 136413A999688 vi -7- COUNT II - PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 28. Answering defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 27 as though each were set forth fully herein at length. 29.-35. Denied. The allegations of these paragraphs are legal conclusions and, as such, no response is required. To the extent that the allegations of these paragraphs are not legal conclusions, they are denied. 36. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no response is required. Moreover, by way of further answer, to the contrary, the conduct of answering defendant was reasonable and prudent at all times relative to the issues herein. 37. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions and, as such, no response is required. To the extent that the allegations of this paragraph are not legal conclusions, they are denied. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in its favor with attorneys fees, costs and other relief as the Court may deem just. NEW MATTER 38. The allegations described in plaintiff's complaint were 00t03A999ffB9 v1 ^ 8 - caused by the actions of plaintiff which acts amount to negligence, assumption of the risk, superseding cause and misuse of the product. 39. The Comparative Negligence Act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania applies to this cause to reduce and/or eliminate plaintiff's cause of action. 40. Plaintiff's sole rights, if any, are governed by the terms, provisions, remedies and limitations set forth in the limited, express written warranties delivered to plaintiff at the time plaintiff took possession of the subject vehicle. 41. Answering defendant did not sell or lease the subject vehicle to plaintiff and cannot be held liable for revocation of acceptance. 42. The damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff are the result of negligent actions or omissions of other individuals or entities and are due in no part to a breach of any warranty or to the conduct of answering defendant. 43. Upon information and belief, plaintiff subjected the vehicle at issue to abuse, misuse and/or may have been negligent relative to the use, maintenance and service of the vehicle at issue, thus causing the vehicle behavior alleged in the Complaint. 44. Plaintiff's complaints concerning certain operational characteristics of the subject vehicle, if proven to be true, do not substantially impair the use, value and/or safety of the vehicle. 45. Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against answering defendant. H0t#3A999®B9 v1 -9- 46. If it is determined that plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the sale or lease price of the vehicle in question, then answering defendant is entitled to a recoupment of the vehicle. 47. Upon information and belief, plaintiff has not complied with the specific terms of the vehicle's written warranty or the Magnuson- Moss Act prior to filing this action and, thus, is not authorized under the terms of the warranty or the statute to bring this action. 48. All demands for consequential and out-of-pocket expenses are precluded by the terms of the vehicle's express, limited, written warranties. 49. Upon information and belief, plaintiff's claims are precluded by the equitable doctrines of laches, waiver and/or estoppel. 50. Upon information and belief, the vehicle was or may have been modified by third parties which acts as a superseding cause as to any claim against answering defendant. 51. Upon information and belief, the statute of limitations bars all of plaintiff's claims herein. 52. Upon information and belief, the complaint must be dismissed since plaintiff's claims have or may have been discharged in compliance with the doctrine of accord and satisfaction and/or the execution of a written release between the parties. 53. No applicable warranties were breached by the defendant. 54. Any implied warranty applicable to the vehicle identified in the complaint was expressly excluded and/or limited so as to be D01#3A899B78 v1 -10- inapplicable to the claims identified in the complaint. 55. The non-conformities or conditions alleged by the plaintiff do not presently exist. 56. The non-conformities or conditions alleged by the plaintiff did not exist, but were the result of the driving characteristics of the plaintiff. 57. The cause of action is insufficient to support a claim for multiple damages under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment in its favor with attorneys fees, costs and other awards which the Court may deem just. GETSON & SCHATZ, P.C. BY: ROFEPT B.B. SCHATZ, UIRE At rney for Defendant Suite 1001. 230 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 215-520-4000 BY : ;?Q r- -, I ? . (rat BRIAN H. GETSON, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant Suite 1001. 230 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 215-520-4000 20103AR99®P9 v1 -11- V E R I F I C A T I O N ROBERT B.B. SCHATZ, ESQUIRE, verifies that he is an attorney representing Audi of America, Inc.; that he is authorized to make this verification; and that the statements made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter of Audi of America, Inc. are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 PA. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. c- BY: ROB B.B. SCHATZ, ES E Att rney for Defendant Suite 1001. 230 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 215-520-4000 003#3A299WB5 vi .. ,).--1 Es CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, ROBERT B.B. SCHATZ, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that a copy of Defendant Audi of America, Inc.'s Answer with New Matter has been served on the following individual(s) by U.S. Mail, postage paid this date to: Robert A. Rapkin, Esquire Kimmel & Silverman, P.C. 30 E. Butler Pike Ambler, PA 19002 BY: RO E B.B. SCHATZ, E U E A rney for Defendant- Suite 1001. 230 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 ID: ctf fsvc 97 ma - y. rnccl - n _TJ CO -0 Xfl 1 %_0 ? Q --S cr, .'.4 HOt#3A9993H9 v1 i+t jf 'TrIIlC+:Ty 2912 FEB 10 PM 1: 16 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Justin Acri, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, NO.: 2012-185 CIVIL vs. Audi of America, Inc., PROOF OF SERVICE Defendant. Filed on behalf of Plaintiff: Justin Acri COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR THIS PARTY: Robert A. Rapkin, Esquire Identification No. 61628 KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Pike Ambler, PA 19002 (215) 540-8888 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Justin Acri, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, V. No.: 2012-185 CIVIL Audi of America, Inc., Defendant. PROOF OF SERVICE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Service of the complaint regarding the above captioned matter was made to Audi of America, Inc., 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, VA 20171, on 01/24/2012, via U.S. First Class Mail, Certified /Return Receipt Requested. A representative of Defendant signed the return receipt on 01/26/2012, a copy of which is attached. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Pike Ambler, PA 19002 (215) 540-8888 Item 4 N a P ftm 1, 4DaMry chain ¦ Print your cramp and addre 0 on tt'la r vverse so that we can rectum the oard to you. ¦ Attach thle card to the back of the mal"m,, or on the front N spade permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Volksl,vagen Group of America. Iz ?b? 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive Herndon, VA 20171 A. X ? Agent EL Received by (Pri#ied Nleme) D. Is d*my address dplbrent mom bm 1? ? Yes If YES, enter dovery address below. ? No s. Type MsN ? ZE weee Md d RS4rm Raoslpt for M rdise ? hMAW Mali ? CA.D. 4. ROdftW D*VWy? Oft Fb* 13 Mw 2. Artlde Number ' (frerxObrIhrmsw%t&AsW 7010 'd` 180 ,13,000 0475 0036 PS Form 3811, February 2 OM' Domestic Retcar? Roca" lar25e54024t-rNa %-.4 r GETSON & SCHATZ, P.C. BY: ROBERT B. B. SCHATZ I.D. NO. 17029 230 South Broad Street, Suite 1001 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 (215) 520-4000 Phone (215) 520-4001 Fax I?IE w k0T1j0N0TAR`i Attorney for D Audi of Americ f nh PM 3: G2 CUMBERLAND COUNTY P1=NNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUSTIN F. ACRI, Plaintiff CIVIL DIVISION V. AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., NO. 2012-185 Civil Defendant PRAECIPE FOR SUBSTITUTION OF VERIFICATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the Verification of Robert Cameron, General Manager, Product Liason of Audi of America, Inc. for the Verification of Robert B. B. Schatz which was attached to the Answer with New Matter of Defendant Audi of America, Inc. to Plaintiff's Complaint which was filed with the Court on February 10, 2012. GETSON & SCHATZ, P.C. Attorney for Defendant, Audi of America, Inc. BY: BERT B. B. SCHATZ STATE OF NEW JERSEY SS COUNTY OF BERGEN ROBERT CAMERON, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am General Manager, Product Liaison of Audi of America, Inc., a defendant in the within matter and I am authorized to sign this verification. I have read the foregoing Answer with New Matter and I am familiar with the contents thereof. I certify that the foregoing is true of my own knowledge, with the exception of those matters stated to be upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. ROBERT CAMERON Sworn to and subscribed / before' me is !6' ay of f'l'i V 14 2012. Notja['ry Public ID: CAMAF Justin Acri CHRISTOPHER LEWIS NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY My Commission Expires Sept. 15, 2016 H0t43A9999B5 v1 V E R I F I C A T I O N ROBERT B.B. SCHATZ, ESQUIRE, verifies that he is an attorney representing Audi of America, Inc.; that he is authorized to make this verification; and that the statements made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter of Audi of America, Inc. are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 PA. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: ROBjEW B. B. SCHATZ, ES E Att rney for Defendant Suite 1001. 230 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 215-520-4000 DOWA999M v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, ROBERT B.B. SCHATZ, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that a copy of Defendant Audi of America, Inc.'s Praecipe for Substitution of Verification has been served on the following individual(s) by U.S. Mail, postage paid this date to: Robert A. Rapkin, Esquire Kimmel & Silverman, P.C. 30 E. Butler Pike Ambler, PA 19002 BY a / be, il i (IRE - tt ?z 1 t5 , ti . ?C:t1X'1'G , L u' e 1001. 230 South iladelphia, PA 19102 215-520-4000 oad Street ID: ctfofsvc Robert A. Rapkin, Esquire ° Identification No. 61628 KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Pike Ambler, PA 19002 (215) 540-8888 JUSTIN ACRI ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cumberland County V. c rn ca m AUDI OF AMERICA, IN C. N0.2012-185 CIVIL : f== 38. Denied .:11' 111-<> 1 CD PLAINTIFF'S ANSWFR TO NEW MATTER OF ?CD EEFENDANT, AUDI OF AMERICA.-INC. The allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of tr.i£'.1. 39. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. Thy allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of tria.'. 41. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is i' demanded at the time of trizil. 42. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 43. Denied. Thy:, allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsi,?e pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of tria' . 44. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained hereii, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trill. 45. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsiv.- pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 46. Denied. Thy; allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein',, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 47. Denied. Thf allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any t . r allegations contained herei,i, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 48. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of tri,.1. 49. Denied. T:' "? allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained b-,rein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 50. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsi?'e pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herei-I, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 51. Denied. < The, allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 52. Denied. T hi,- allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 53. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or i i law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 54. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of tri,-J. 55. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsive pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained hereir, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 56. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsit' a pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 57. Denied. ThE allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of fact and/or law to which no responsi?'(e pleading is required. However and to the extent there are any allegations contained herein, such allegations are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of triad. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment against Defendant in an amount equal to the contract price of the subject vehicle, plus all collateral charges and attorney fees. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. By: Ro No. 61628 Xttorney for Plaintiff 30 East Butler Pike Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 (215) 540-8888 VERIFICATION Robert A. Rapkin. Esquire, states that he/she is the attorney for the Plaintiff herein; that he/she is acquainted with the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer to New Matter; and that same are true to the best of his/her knowledge, information and belief. This statement is being made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.. i 30 East Butler Pike Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 (215) 540-8888 By: Ro ? A. Rapkin, Esquire entification No. 61628 Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert A. RapkiA, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, do hereby certify that I served all parties with true and correct copies of the foregoing Answer to New Matter, by placing same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage Paid addressed as follows: Brian H. Getson, Esq. Getson & Schatz 230 South Broad Street Suite 1001 Philadelphia, PA 19102 KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. By: RoberrA. Rapkin, Esquire Identification No. 61628 Attorney for Plaintiff 30 East Butler Pike Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 (215) 540-8888 Date: 20th day of February,, 2012 CJ ) c-! CV C"°3 CV i.;? L.i3 ?? ,._? ?__? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Cumberland County, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION Justin Acri Plaintiff, vs. Audi of America, Inc., Defendant. c'3 C= r,, C= , Z rn C r. .,? D o ca NO.: 2012-185 CIVILco tv .. 4CD o y>z w o -? o PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above-captioned matter as settled and discontinued. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Ra] KIMMEL & Attorneys for , P.C. CERTIFICA This is to certify that a true and Discontinue, and End was served on July confirmed, to: Robert B. Schatz Getson & Schatz 230 South Broad Street Suite 1001 Philadelphia, PA 19102 215-520-4000 TE OF SERVICE correct copy of the within Praecipe to Settle' 10, 2012, via U.S. Mail and facsimile, receip? Robert A. Rap squire KIMMEL & ERMAN, P.C.