Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-2972TIMOTHY RONAGHAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION-LAW -0 CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP, ?? ? L? ?1 ^Y? ° LLC AND GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC ?. Defendants, JURY TRIAL REQUESTED NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set torth in the t6llowing 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 tiling in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORAMTION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before, the Court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the Court. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or ficaring. TIMOTHY RONAGHAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION-LAW CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP, LLC AND GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendants, : JURY TRIAL REQUESTED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, TIMOTHY RONAGHAN, by and through his attorney Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, and avers in support of his complaint as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for money damages brought pursuant to common law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania due to the negligence of Defendants, CEDAR- PENNSBORO COMMONS, LLC, (hereinafter `'Cedar Permsboro Commons'") AND GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC (hereinafter "Giant") 2. It is alleged that Defendants Giant, as the tenant of Cedar Pennsboro Commons did allow a bicycle to be chained to a cart barrier adjacent to the entrance of their store 3. Plaintiff. Timothy Ronaghan, did trip and fall over the hazard created by the bicycle obstructing the pathway, suffering bodily injuries. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, is an adult individual residing at 102 Austin Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 5. Defendant, Cedar Pennsboro Commons, is a foreign registered LLC authorized to do business in the state of Pennsylvania. 6. Defendant, Giant, is a foreign registered LLC authorized to do business in Pennsylvania. FACTS 7. Previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 8. On May 15, 2010, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan went to Cedar Pennsboro Commons to purchase groceries at Giant, located in 310 East Penn Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17025. 9. Adjacent to the pathway designated by a green carpet entering said store was a cart barrier that consisted of a pipe in the shape of an upside down U. A photograph of said barrier is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 10. Plaintiff entered the store without incident, nor did he notice any obstacles or hazards in the entryway. 11. Upon exiting Giant, there was a bicycle chained to said barrier, with the wheel of said bicycle encroaching upon the pathway entering into Giant. 12. As Plaintiff was leaving the entrance of the store, he was tripped up by the unseen wheel of the bicycle that was encroaching upon the pathway, falling into the roadway. 13. Plaintiff had been a customer of the Enola Giant location on numerous previous occasions and had never seen a bicycle chained to the metal barrier. and was therefore not expecting one to be in said location. 14. Neither Defendant Giant, nor Defendant Cedar Pennsboro Commons had posted any signs or warnings that any obstacles or hazards were present. 15. As Plaintiff fell to the pavement, he attempted to brace himself with his left ann.. and in doing so he jarred his left wrist, shoulder, and his neck. 16. Plaintiff immediately reported the fall to store manager Mark Hoover. 17. Mr. Hoover remarked to Plaintiff that he had been asking for a bike rack. "but they won't (live it to me." 18. Upon a subsequent conversation at a later date between the Plaintiff and Mr. Hoover, Mr. Hoover remarked that he reviewed the surveillance tape and said, "you took quite a tumble. I"m just glad a car wasn't coming by." 19. Plaintiff suffered injuries to his left wrist from the fall, and after months of continued pain, said injuries required surgery which was performed on March 2, 2011 by Dr. Robert Maurer of Orthopaedic Surgeons of Central Pennsylvania. COUNTI NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT CEDAR PENNSBORO COMMONS, LLC 20. Previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 21. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of Cedar Pennsboro Commons, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a. In Failing to maintain the pathway adjacent to the entrance of Giant in a safe condition to insure that the Plaintiff or any other patrons would not be caused to trip and fall as a result of obstacles or hazards which existed and which were known or should have been known to the Defendants by proper inspection of the premises; b. In failing to remove any obstacles or hazards from said pathway when they knew, or should have known that there would be heavy foot traffic due to the pathway's use as a route of ingress and egress to/from Giant; c. In failing to provide a proper safe place to park and chain a bicycle: d. By allowing a bicycle(s) to be chained to a metal barrier adjacent to the entranceway of the Giant store; and r:;. Otherwise failing to exercise the degree of care required under the circumstances. ??. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, the plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, has suffered injuries to his left wrist that required a left wrist pisiform excision and. pisotriquetral synovectomy. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 24. As a. direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has been compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to spend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and may be required to expend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants" negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has been, and may in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties, to his great detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. ?h. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan continues to suffer from numbness in his left pinky, all the way to the fingertip. Said numbness hinders his ability to type, an important aspect of his employment. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence. Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and will continue to endure the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 28. Plaintiff Tim Ronaghan believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan, seeks damages from Defendant, Cedar Pennsboro Commons LLC, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT II NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC 29. Previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 30. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of Giant Food Stores, LLC, generally and more specifically as set forth below: f. In Failing to maintain the pathway adjacent to the entrance of Giant in a safe condition to insure that the Plaintiff or any other patrons would not be caused to trip and fall as a result of obstacles or hazards which existed and which were known or should have been known to the Defendants by proper inspection of the premises; g. In failing to remove any obstacles or hazards from said pathway when they knew, or should have known that there would be heavy foot traffic due to the pathway's use as a route of ingress and egress to/from Giant, Ii. In failing to provide a proper safe place to park and chain a bicycle; i. By allowing a bicycle(s) to be chained to a metal barrier adjacent to the entranceway of the Giant store; and j. Otherwise failing to exercise the degree of care required under the circumstances. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, has suffered injuries to his left wrist that required a left wrist pisifor?n excision and. pisotriquetral synovectoiny. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has been compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to spend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and may be required to expend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 34. As a. direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has been, and may in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties, to his great detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 35. As a. direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan continues to suffer from numbness in his left pinky, all the way to the fingertip. Said numbness hinders his ability to type, an important aspect of his employment. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and will continue to endure the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 37. Plaintiff Tim Ronaghan believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, seeks damages from Defendant, Cedar Pennsboro Commons LLC, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. Date: ?? Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Lee Mandarino, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 312895 Attorney for Plaintiff TIMOTHY RONAGHAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ?. CIVIL ACTION-LAW CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP, LLC AND GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendants, JURY TRIAL REQUESTED VERIFICATION I, Timothy Ronaghan, verify that the statements in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: Timothy Rona an SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith? ofurrtry? ??.?1 Chief Deputy r. Richard W Stewart ' j Solicitor - COO, I''I' Timothy Ronaghan vs. Case Number Giant Food Stores, LLC 2012-2972 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 05/14/2012 02:41 PM - Shawn Gutshall, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on May 14 2012 at 1441 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Giant Food Stores, LLC, by making known unto Jeff Hayes, Security Officer for Giant Food Stores, LLC at 1149 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct cgpy of the same. 4S?NSHk EPUTY SHERIFF COST: $34.45 May 22, 2012 SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF .w c MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire ID #73632 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Our File No. 07091-tba CMR Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC TIMOTHY RONAGHAN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 12-2972 VS. : CEDAR-PENNSBORO CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMMONS GP, LLC and GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC, in the above captioned case. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMA GGIN By: - Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Giant ID# 73632 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Dated: May 29, 2012 MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire ID #73632 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Our File No. 07091-tba CMR Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC TIMOTHY RONAGHAN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 12-2972 vs. : CEDAR-PENNSBORO CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMMONS GP, LLC and GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on May 29, 2012 I served a copy of Defendant Giant Food Store's Entry of Appearance via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, postage prepaid as follows: Lee Mandarino, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC c/o Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. 44 South Bayles Avenue, Suite 304 Port Washington, NY 11050 Christopher M. Reeser 4. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire ID #73632 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Our File No. 07091-00324 Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC TIMOTHY RONAGHAN Plaintiff vs. CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP, LLC and GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 12-2972 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Plaintiff initiated this matter by way of Complaint filed on May 11, 2012. 2. Defendant Giant Food Stores was served with Plaintiffs Complaint on May 17, 2012. Therefore, Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint are timely. 3. Plaintiffs Complaint sounds in negligence and arises out of a May 15, 2010 trip and fall incident at the Cedar Pennsboro Commons and Giant Food Store located at 310 East Penn Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Plaintiff alleges he exited Giant and tripped over the wheel of a bicycle that was chained to an upside down U-barrier. (Plaintiffs Complaint, paragraphs 9-12). Plaintiff claims his injuries resulted from "a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of Giant Food Stores, LLC, generally and more specifically as set forth below:..." (Plaintiffs Complaint, paragraph 30). 6. Plaintiff further contends his injuries were the result of Giant Food Stores, LLC "otherwise failing to exercise the degree of care required under the circumstances." (Plaintiffs Complaint, paragraph 300)). PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PLEAD WITH SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY 7. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a), material facts of which a cause of action is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form. 8. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2), a party may file a Preliminary Objection where a pleading fails to conform to law or rule of court. 9. Also, Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3), permits a party to file a Preliminary Objection where there is insufficient specificity in a pleading. 10. Where specificity is lacking, preliminary objections shall be filed to avoid an attempt by Plaintiff to assert new or previously undisclosed theories after the running of the applicable statute of limitations at or near trial. Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, 461 A.2d 600 (Pa. 1983). 11. Plaintiffs Complaint is insufficiently specific at Paragraph 30 where Plaintiff alleges Giant Food Stores, LLC was negligent, "generally and more specifically" as set forth in the subparagraphs outlined in the remainder of the Complaint. 2 12. Also, Paragraph 300) "otherwise failing to exercise the degree of care required under the circumstances" is vague and unspecific. 13. Accordingly, under Pa.R.C.P. 1019 and Connor, Plaintiffs Complaint is not sufficiently specific informing Defendant of the allegations against it, and should be stricken. WHEREFORE, Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant its Preliminary Objection and either strike Paragraph 30 and 300) from Plaintiffs Complaint, or require Plaintiff to file a more specific Complaint. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION TO STRIKE PARAGRAPH 30, SPECIFICALLY ANY ALLEGATIONS OF "RECKLESSNESS" 14. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) requires a pleading to state material facts of which a cause of action is based in a concise and summary form. 15. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2), a party may file a Preliminary Objection where a pleading fails to conform to law or rule of court. 16. Also, consistent with Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3), a party may file a Preliminary Objection where there is insufficient specificity in a pleading. 17. Although Plaintiff has not made a claim for punitive damages, Pennsylvania Courts have permitted presentation of the claim at trial where there are allegations of "recklessness" pled. See, e.g., Feld v. Merriam, 458 A.2d 742 (Pa. 1994). 18. Plaintiff should not be able to preserve a claim for punitive damages by alleging conclusory allegations of recklessness as Plaintiffs Complaint lacks any factual support for such a claim in accordance with Rule. 1019(a) and Feld. 19. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Complaint at Paragraph 30, specifically the allegations of "recklessness" should be stricken. WHEREFORE, Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant its Preliminary Objection and strike the allegation of recklessness from Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEM IN By: C p er M. Reeser, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores ID# 73632 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Dated: June 4, 2012 4 MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire ID #73632 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Our File No. 07091-00324 Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC TIMOTHY RONAGHAN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 12-2972 vs. CEDAR-PENNSBORO CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMMONS GP, LLC and GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on June 4, 2012 I served a copy of Defendant Giant Food Store's Preliminary Objections via First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows: Lee Mandarino, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC c/o Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. 44 South Bayles Avenue, Suite 304 Port Washington, NY 11050 Christopher. M" Reeser U1 ' PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) 1 , C? +a' ?'`' e TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within malitfon ate 3 xt . o Argument Court.) _ --------------------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE Nt4S` LVA HIA (entire caption must be stated in full) Timothy Ronaghan vs. Cedar-Pennsboro Commins, GP, LLC and C-ialiA VOOd S ys LAG 0 No. 12-2972 Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC's Preliminary Objections 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Lee Mandarino, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Name and Address) Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman 8 Goggin, 4200 Crums Mill Road, Harrisburg, PA 17112, counsel for Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC (b) for defendants: Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC c/o Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. 44 South Bayles Avenue, Suite 304 Port Washington, NY 11050, Defendant (Name and Address) 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: July 13, 2012 Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire Signature Print your name Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC June 4, 2012 Attorney for Date: INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. pv? % 19.75pd aldy, Cwrabass ? TIMOTHY RONAGHAN, Plaintiff, V. CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP, LLC AND GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendants, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN CIVIL ACTION-LAW • ? EsT+ ? rv JURY TRIAL REQUESTED -a NOTICE 4 --- v ITi--- You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in he 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 u fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE AB TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORAMTION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY O] LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply w th the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities a .,id reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the Court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any heart g or business before the Court. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to a y hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. TIMOTHY RONAGHAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN V. CIVIL ACTION-LAW CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP, LLC AND GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendants, : JURY TRIAL REQUESTED AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, TIMOTHY RONAGHAN, by and through his attorney E. Rominger, Esquire, and avers in support of his complaint as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for money damages brought pursuant to common law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania due to the negligence of Defendants, CEDAR- PENNSBORO COMMONS, LLC, (hereinafter "Cedar Pennsboro Commons") AND GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC (hereinafter "Giant") 2. It is alleged that Defendants Giant, as the tenant of Cedar Pennsboro Commons did a bicycle to be chained to a cart barrier adjacent to the entrance of their store 3. Plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, did trip and fall over the hazard created by the bicycle obstructing the pathway, suffering bodily injuries. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, is an adult individual residing at 102 Austin Drive, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 5. Defendant, Cedar Pennsboro Commons, is a foreign registered LLC authorized to do business in the state of Pennsylvania. 6. Defendant, Giant, is a foreign registered LLC authorized to do business in Pennsyl FACTS 7. Previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 8. On May 15, 2010, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan went to Cedar Pennsboro Commons to purchase groceries at Giant, located in 310 East Penn Drive, Enola, Cumberland C Pennsylvania, 17025. 9. Adjacent to the pathway designated by a green carpet entering said store was a cart barrier that consisted of a pipe in the shape of an upside down U. A photograph of said barrier is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 10. Plaintiff entered the store without incident, nor did he notice any obstacles or hazards the entryway. 11. Upon exiting Giant, there was a bicycle chained to said barrier, with the wheel of said bicycle encroaching upon the pathway entering into Giant. 12. As Plaintiff was leaving the entrance of the store, he was tripped up by the unseen of the bicycle that was encroaching upon the pathway, falling into the roadway. 13. Plaintiff had been a customer of the Enola Giant location on numerous previous occasions and had never seen a bicycle chained to the metal barrier, and was therefore expecting one to be in said location. 14. Neither Defendant Giant, nor Defendant Cedar Pennsboro Commons had posted any signs or warnings that any obstacles or hazards were present. 15. As Plaintiff fell to the pavement, he attempted to brace himself with his left arm, and in doing so he jarred his left wrist, shoulder, and his neck. 16. Plaintiff immediately reported the fall to store manager Mark Hoover. 17. Mr. Hoover remarked to Plaintiff that he had been asking for a bike rack, "but they won't give it to me." 18. Upon a subsequent conversation at a later date between the Plaintiff and Mr. Hoover, Mr. Hoover remarked that he reviewed the surveillance tape and said, "you took quite a tumble. I'm just glad a car wasn't coming by." 19. Plaintiff suffered injuries to his left wrist from the fall, and after months of continued pain, said injuries required surgery which was performed on March 2, 2011 by Dr. Maurer of Orthopaedic Surgeons of Central Pennsylvania. COUNTI NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT CEDAR PENNSBORO COMMONS, LLC 20. Previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 21. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Cedar Pennsboro Commons, as set forth below: a. In Failing to maintain the pathway adjacent to the entrance of Giant in a safe condition to insure that the Plaintiff or any other patrons would not be caused to trip and fall as a result of obstacles or hazards which existed and which were known or should have been known to the Defendants by proper inspection of premises; b. In failing to remove any obstacles or hazards from said pathway when they or should have known that there would be heavy foot traffic due to the pathway' use as a route of ingress and egress to/from Giant; c. In failing to provide a proper safe place to park and chain a bicycle; and d. By allowing a bicycle(s) to be chained to a metal barrier adjacent to the entranceway of the Giant store. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, the plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, has suffered injuries to his left wrist that required a left wrist pisiform excision and pisotriquetral synovectomy. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has been compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to money for medicine and/or medical attention, and may be required to expend money the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has been, and may in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily to his great detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 26. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Timothy continues to suffer from numbness in his left pinky, all the way to the fingertip. Said numbness hinders his ability to type, an important aspect of his employment. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and will continue to endure the same the future, to his great detriment and loss. 28. Plaintiff Tim Ronaghan believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, seeks damages from Defendant, Cedar Pennsboro Commons LLC, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT II NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT GIANT FOOD STORES. LLC 29. Previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 30. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Giant Food Stores, LLC, as set forth below: a. In Failing to maintain the pathway adjacent to the entrance of Giant in a safe condition to insure that the Plaintiff or any other patrons would not be caused to trip and fall as a result of obstacles or hazards which existed and which were known or should have been known to the Defendants by proper inspection of premises; b. In failing to remove any obstacles or hazards from said pathway when they or should have known that there would be heavy foot traffic due to the pathway' use as a route of ingress and egress to/from Giant; c. In failing to provide a proper safe place to park and chain a bicycle; and d. By allowing a bicycle(s) to be chained to a metal barrier adjacent to the entranceway of the Giant store. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, has suffered injuries to his left wrist that required a left wrist pisiform excision and pisotriquetral synovectomy. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has been compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to money for medicine and/or medical attention, and may be required to expend money the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has been, and may in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily to his great detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Timothy continues to suffer from numbness in his left pinky, all the way to the fingertip. Said numbness hinders his ability to type, an important aspect of his employment. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and will continue to endure the same the future, to his great detriment and loss. 37. Plaintiff Tim Ronaghan believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, seeks damages from Defendant, Cedar Pennsboro Commons LLC, in an amount in excess of the compulsory, arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Date: Lee Mandarino, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 312895 Attorney for Plaintiff ". ]J TIMOTHY RONAGHAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION-LAW CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP, LLC AND GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendants, : JURY TRIAL REQUESTED VERIFICATION I, Timothy Ronaghan, verify that the statements in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: /Y IN2, T' thy Ron ghan TIMOTHY RONAGHAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAI V. CIVIL ACTION-LAW CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP, LLC AND GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendants, JURY TRIAL REQUESTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 23, 2012, I mailed a copy of Amended Complaint to the following persons at the following addresses by U.S. Mail, postage paid: Christopher Reeser, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores Michael Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson, LLP Payne Shomaker Building 240 N. Third Street, 9tn Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC i Date: V Lee Mandarino, Esq. 155 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 312895 l 1,'THE PRO HONOTARy 2012 JUL 30 PM 3: 39 CUMERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire ID 473632 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Our File No. 07091-00324 Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC TIMOTHY RONAGHAN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 12-2972 vs. CEDAR-PENNSBORO CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMMONS GP, LLC and GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Lee Mandarino, Esquire Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rominger & Associates Rawle & Henderson, LLP 155 South Hanover Street Payne Shoemaker Building Carlisle, PA 17013 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Attorney for Plaintiff Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with New Matter Crossclaim within (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be filed against you. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN-&-MGGIN By: Chri er M. Reeser, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Giant ID# 73632 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Dated: July 27, 2012 F` { EU -OFFICE TPI P O T"ONO TAk y 1012 JUL 30 PPS 3: 4 0 CUMSERLAtiD COUNTY PFNNS YLVANIA MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire ID #73632 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Our File No. 07091-00324 Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC TIMOTHY RONAGHAN Plaintiff vs. CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP, LLC and GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 12-2972 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GIANT FOOD STORES LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIM 1. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that an action for money brought by the Plaintiff against Defendants. It is denied that Defendant Giant Food Stores, was negligent and denies that money damages should be awarded in this matter. 2. Denied. The bicycle in question was chained to the barrier without the knowlf of any Giant Food Store employee. 3. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan did trip and fall over something on May 15, 2010. What Plaintiff tripped over precisely is unknown. The allegations regarding injuries are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 4. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 5. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 6. Admitted. FACTS 7. No responsive pleading required. 8. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that on May 15, 2010, Plaintiff Timothy Ronaghan was at the Giant store located within Cedar Pennsboro Commons. The remainder of the allegation of paragraph 8 is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 9. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that there is a "cart barrier" on sidewalk of the store in the shape of an upside down U. A photograph of the barrier was not attached to the Amended Complaint. The allegation that there was a green carpet designating pathway at the time of the incident is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 10. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 11. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that at some point on May 15, 2010, a bicycle was chained to the upside down U shaped cart barrier. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph 11 is denied as Defendant Giant does not know when the bicycle was chained to the upside down U or whether the bicycle encroached upon any pathway. 12. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff tripped over some object and fell as he was leaving the store on May 15, 2010. The remainder of the allegations paragraph 12 is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 2 13. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 14. Admitted. 15. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 16. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff reported a fall to Giant Store Manager Mark Hoover. It is denied that the report was immediate as answering Defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of that allegation. 17. Denied. Mark Hoover does not have a specific recollection of his conversation with Plaintiff. 18. Denied. Mark Hoover does not have a specific recollection of his conversatioi with Plaintiff. 19. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). COUNTI Negligence of Defendant Cedar Pennsboro Commons, LLC 20-28. The allegations in paragraphs 20-28 are directed at a party other than Defendant and therefore, no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC requests judgment be entered in i favor. COUNT II Nedi ence of Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC 29. No responsive pleading required. 30. The averments of Paragraph 30 and subparagraphs 30(a)-30(d) are con law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that said averments in of 3 30 and subparagraphs 30(a)-30(d) are deemed to be factual, those averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 31. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 32. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 33. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 34. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 35. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 36. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 37. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC requests judgment be entered in its favor. NEW MATTER 38. Plaintiffs claims or any amendment to those claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 39. Plaintiffs claims are barred or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 PA.C.S. §7102. 40. In the event that there was a dangerous condition on the property owned and controlled by Defendant, which is specifically denied, Plaintiffs claim is barred because the condition was open and obvious and therefore, Plaintiffs were on notice of said condition. 41. To the extent that there was a dangerous or defective condition on Defendants' property, which is specifically denied, Defendants did not create and were not on notice of sa dangerous condition. 4 WHEREFORE, Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC requests judgment be entered in its favor. CROSSCLAIM Giant Food Stores, LLC v Cedar-Pennsoboro_ Commons, GP, LLC 42. Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC incorporates it Answer and New Matter to paragraphs 1-41 by reference as if set forth at length. 43. Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC joins Co-Defendant Cedar-Pennsoboro Commons, GP, LLC based upon the allegations contained in the Amended Complaint which incorporated herein without adoption to protect Giant Food Stores, LLC's right of contribution WHEREFORE, Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC seeks judgment against Co- Defendant Cedar-Pennsoboro Commons, GP, LLC. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEM G GGIN By: Chris op er M. Reeser, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Giant ID# 73632 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Dated: July 27, 2012 VERIFICATION I, Bruce Astrachan, hereby state and aver that I have read the foregoing document which has been drafted by my counsel. The factual statements contained therein are true and correct tc the best of my knowledge, information and belief although the language is that of my counsel, and, to the extent that the content of the foregoing document is that of counsel, I have relied up( counsel in making this Verification. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ? -- 0 709 1-0 03 24/AWNM 6 Giant Food Stores, Inc. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire ID #73632 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Our File No. 07091-00324 Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC TIMOTHY RONAGHAN COMMON COURT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 12-2972 vs. CEDAR-PENNSBORO CIVIL ACTION -- LAW COMMONS GP, LLC and GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do certify that on July 27, 2012 I served a copy of Defendant Giant Food Store's Answer with New Crossclaim via First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows: Lee Mandarino, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson, LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant mar-Pennsboro Commons GP, Christopher M. Reeser RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Gary N. Stewart Identification No.: 67353 By: Michael T. Traxler Identification No.: 90961 Payne Shoemaker Building, 9th Floor 240 N. Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-7700 2012 JUL 31 AN 11: 53 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Attorneys for Defendant, Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC TIMOTHY RONAGHAN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-2972 CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP,: LLC and : GIANT FOOD STORE, LLC Defendants. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of defendant, Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC in the above-referenced matter. RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: : Gary N. Stewart, Esquire Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant, Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC 5641936-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on today's date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing entry of appearance was served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon all attorneys of record, addressed as follows: Lee Mandarino, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Plaintiff Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 Counsel for Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By:? , Gary N. Stewart, Esquire Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Dated: -71 30//x 5641936-1 ED gOTAR' CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Gary N. Stewart Identification No.: 67353 By: Michael T. Traxler Identification No.: 90961 Payne Shoemaker Building, 9 h Floor 240 N. Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-7700 TO THE WITHIN NAMED PARTIES: You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM, within twenty (20) days from the date of service hereof or default judgment will be entered against you. RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP Michael T. Traxler Attorneys for Defendant, Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC TIMOTHY RONAGHAN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-2972 CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP,: LLC and GIANT FOOD STORE, LLC Defendants. ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM OF DEFENDANT, CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP, LLC TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes defendant, Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC, by and through its attorneys, Rawle & Henderson, LLP, and file the following Answer with New Matter to plaintiff's Amended Complaint and in support thereof, aver as follows: Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be 5642026-I required, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial i deemed material. 2. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the averments contained within this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 3. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way further answer, to the extent that this paragraph is an averment of plaintiff's alleged damages, it is denied, since after reasonable investigation answering defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 4. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the averments contained within this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 5. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 5642026-I 6. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the contained within this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 7. Answering defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 6 of plaintiff's Amended Complaint as if the same are set forth at length herein. 8. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the averments contained within this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 9. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the averments contained within this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 10. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the averments contained within this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 11. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the averments contained within this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 5642026-1 12. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the averments contained within this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 13. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the averments contained within this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 14. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the averments contained within this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. Further denied as it is irrelevant as to whether signs or warnings were posted considering the condition alleged by plaintiff was open and obvious. 15. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way further answer, to the extent that this paragraph is an averment of plaintiff s alleged damages, it is denied, since after reasonable investigation answering defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 5642026-1 16. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the averments contained within this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 17. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the averments contained within this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 18. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the averments contained within this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 19. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way further answer, to the extent that this paragraph is an averment of plaintiff's alleged damages, it is denied, since after reasonable investigation answering defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 5642026-1 COUNTI NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT CEDAR PENNSBORO COMMONS LLC 20. Answering defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 19 of plaintiff s Amended Complaint as if the same are set forth at length herein. 21. (a. - e.) Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way further answer, to the extent that this paragraph and its subparts are an averment of plaintiffs alleged damages, it is denied, since after reasonable investigation answering defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts, and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that the answering defendant was negligent. To the contrary, it is believed and averred that answering defendant acted properly, appropriately and according to accepted procedures at all times material hereto. 22. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way further answer, to the extent that this paragraph is an averment of Plaintiff s alleged damages, it is denied, since after reasonable investigation answering defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further answer, it is specifically and 5642026-1 unequivocally denied that the answering defendant was negligent. To the contrary, it is believed and averred that answering defendant acted properly, appropriately and according to accepted procedures at all times material hereto. 23. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way further answer, to the extent that this paragraph is an averment of Plaintiff's alleged damages, it is denied, since after reasonable investigation answering defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that the answering defendant was negligent. To the contrary, it is believed and averred that answering defendant acted properly, appropriately and according to accepted procedures at all times material hereto. 24. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way further answer, to the extent that this paragraph is an averment of Plaintiff's alleged damages, it is denied, since after reasonable investigation answering defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that the answering defendant was negligent. To the contrary, it is believed 5642026-1 and averred that answering defendant acted properly, appropriately and according accepted procedures at all times material hereto. 25. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way further answer, to the extent that this paragraph is an averment of Plaintiff's alleged damages, it is denied, since after reasonable investigation answering defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that the answering defendant was negligent. To the contrary, it is believed and averred that answering defendant acted properly, appropriately and according to accepted procedures at all times material hereto. 26. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way further answer, to the extent that this paragraph is an averment of Plaintiff's alleged damages, it is denied, since after reasonable investigation answering defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that the answering defendant was negligent. To the contrary, it is believed and averred that answering defendant acted properly, appropriately and according to 5642026-1 accepted procedures at all times material hereto. 27. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may required, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way further answer, to the extent that this paragraph is an averment of Plaintiff's alleged damages, it is denied, since after reasonable investigation answering defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that the answering defendant was negligent. To the contrary, it is believed and averred that answering defendant acted properly, appropriately and according to accepted procedures at all times material hereto. 28. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way further answer, to the extent that this paragraph is an averment of Plaintiff s alleged damages, it is denied, since after reasonable investigation answering defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that the answering defendant was negligent. To the contrary, it is believed and averred that answering defendant acted properly, appropriately and according to accepted procedures at all times material hereto. 5642026-1 WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC, requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against the plaintiff, and that answering defendant be awarded appropriate costs and fees. COUNT II NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT GIANT FOOD STORES LLC 29. Answering defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 28 of plaintiff's Amended Complaint as if the same are set forth at length herein. 30. -37. The averments contained in these paragraphs and their sub-parts refer to a defendant other than the answering defendant; accordingly, no affirmative response is required. To the extent affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied and conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and are further denied as conclusions of law to which no affirmative responses are required. WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against the plaintiff, and that answering defendant be awarded appropriate costs and fees. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF 38. No omissions or conduct on the part of answering defendant contributed to plaintiff s injuries and damages, if any. 39. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 40. Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, if any. 41. The negligence of plaintiff bars his right to recover completely, or reduces his claims based upon the extent of his negligence under the doctrine of comparative negligence. 5642026-1 42. Plaintiff engaged in risky conduct and consciously chose to assume that risk. 43. Defendant exercised due care at all times. 44. The subject area was not in an unsafe or hazardous condition at the time of alleged accident. 45. The condition of the subject area or object which allegedly caused plaintiff injuries was an open and obvious condition. 46. The damages complained of by plaintiff pre-existed, or are unrelated to, incident which is the subject matter of the Amended Complaint. 47. Plaintiff's alleged injuries were proximately caused, in whole or in part, by the fault of third parties for whom defendant is not legally responsible. 48. Service of process was improper and/or insufficient. 49. Any damages awarded to plaintiff must be reduced by the amount of any collateral source of compensation to plaintiff including, but not limited to, insurance, social security, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation or employee benefits. 50. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrines of Laches, Waiver and/or Estoppel. 51. At the time of the events complained of by plaintiff, defendant had no notice or knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition set forth in the Amended Complaint. 52. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against answering defendant upon which relief can be granted. 53. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because answering defendant did not owe any duty to Plaintiff. 5642026-1 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL The answering defendant hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues that are triable. RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Gary N. Stewart, Esquire Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Date: -7/s6lJo2 Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC 5642026-1 VERIFICATION MICHAEL T. TRAXLER, ESQUIRE, hereby states that he is a member of the law of Rawle & Henderson LLP, attorneys for defendant, Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC, that he is authorized to take this verification on behalf of said defendant. The undersigned verifies that he has read the within pleading and that the same is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements set forth in said pleading are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. MICHAEL T. TRAXL R, ESQUIRE DATED: 7 15el l??- 5642026-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on today's date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon all attorneys of record, addressed follows: Lee Mandarino, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Plaintiff Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 Counsel for Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: "1'Llr '-- Gary N. Stewart, Esquire Dated: 7 1 3 u /l.-)- Michael T. Traxler, Esquire 5642026-1 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Gary N. Stewart Identification No.: 67353 By: Michael T. Traxler Identification No.: 90961 Payne Shoemaker Building, 9 h Floor 240 N. Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-7700 < ` z C-- Attorneys for Defendant, Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC TIMOTHY RONAGHAN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-2972 CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP,: LLC and GIANT FOOD STORE, LLC Defendants. ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS, GP, LLC TO NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC 42. Answering defendants hereby incorporate their Answer, New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims to plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as if the same were fully set forth herein at length. By way of further answer, the averments set forth in paragraph 42 are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, answering defendants deny that they are solely liable to the plaintiff, jointly or severally liable to the plaintiff or liable over to Giant Food Stores, LLC by way of contribution and/or indemnity. 43. The averments set forth in paragraph 43 are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that any injuries or damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff were caused by defendants, Cedar- 5711854-1 Pennsboro Commons, GP, LLC. Answering defendants further deny that they are solely liable to the plaintiff, jointly or severally liable to the plaintiff or liable over to Giant Food Stores, LLC by way of contribution and/or indemnity. WHEREFORE, defendants, Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC, demand that judgment be entered against plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan, and all co-defendants. RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP Date By: Gary N. Stewart, E quire Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC 5711854-1 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on today's date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon all attorneys of record, addressed as follows: Lee Mandarin, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Plaintiff Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 Counsel for Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP Dated: By: Gary N. Stewart, Esquire Michael T. Traxler, Esquire 5711854-1 -_~}'~`~F ~~~IQ~O~At~~ ~- ~ ~ ,~. 3: D5 4~ 2~~2 ~~~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ,~,~~~ER~ Y~°y ANUP ~~~tiS MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire ID #73632 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Our File No. 07091-00324 Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC TIMOTHY RONAGHAN Plaintiff vs. CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP, LLC and GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 12-2972 CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC'S REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM OF 'ENDANT CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS, GP, LLC PURSUANT TO Pa.R, 1031.1 59. No responsive pleading required. 60. The allegation in paragraph 60 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC requests judgment be entered in it favor. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN B~QGGIN By: ~ ~--3-- Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Giant ID# 73632 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Dated: August 9, 2012 2 MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire ID #73632 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Our File No. 07091-00324 Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC TIMOTHY RONAGHAN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 12-2972 vs. CEDAR-PENNSBORO CIVIL ACTION -LAW COMMONS GP, LLC and GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do certify that on August 9, 2012 I served a copy of Defendant Giant Food Store's Reply to Cedar- Commons' Crossclaim via First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows: Lee Mandarino, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson, LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant /-7 Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, istopher M. Reeser t i ~ i ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ t „ MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire ID #73632 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-6` 1-3509 Our File No. 07091-00324 .Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC TIMO"THY RONAGHAN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff vs. CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP, LLC and GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC No. 12-2972 CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants DEFENDANT GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL FULL, COMPLETE AND VERIFIED DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFF 1. Plaintiff initiated this matter by way of Complaint filed on May 11, 2012. 2. Plaintiff s Complaint sounds in negligence and arises out of a May l S. 2010 trip and fall incident at the Cedar Pennsboro Commons and Giant Food Store located ax 310 East Penn Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant served Plaintiff with Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents with correspondence dated June 21, 2012. See true and correct copy ofdefense counsel's correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. To date, Plaintiff has not objected, nor has he served responses to Defendant's discovery requests. ~. Pursuant to Rule 4009.12(a), a party upon whom a request is served must serve an answer, including objections to each numbered paragraph in the request and produce the requested documents to which there is no objection. Pa.R.C.P. 4009.12(a). 6. Pursuant to Rule 4006(a)(2), answers to written Interrogatories must be answered fully and completely unless objected to. Pa.R.C.P. 4006(a)(2). 7. Without plaintiffs responses to Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC"s Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Defendant is unable to prepare its defense to this matter. 8. Counsel for Defendant Giant attempted to resolve this matter without the intervention of this I~onorable Court:, but to date has been unsuccessful. Defense counsel wrote plaintiffs counsel requesting responses to Defendant's Interrogatories, Expert Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents on August 13, 2012, September 14, 2012 and October 5, 2012. See copies of defense counsel's correspondences attached hereto as Exhibit. B. 9. Pursuant to Cumberland County Local Rule 208.3(a)(9), undersigned counsel certifies that on October 22, 2012 he sought concurrence of this motion with plaintiff s counsel. Plaintiffs counsel did not provide a response. WHEREFORE, Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant its Motion to Compel full, complete and verified responses to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents, Interrogatories and Expert Interrogatories, from Plaintiff within 20 days, or Plaintiff shall risk further sanctions upon Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC's further application to this Court. 2 Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL DE HEY WARNER COLEMAN; GO IN ~~~. ~-- By: _ Christop er M. Reeser, Esquire Attorney far• Defendant Giant Food Stores ID# 73632 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 Dated: November , 2012 3 ~j l i _~ MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN ~ GOGGIN Bethlehem Wihnirtgton e ) ) Doylestown pl P R O P E~~ i O N A I. C O R P O R A T I O N WWW.IDSC$i1Si1CICI111CLC~.COn1 Harrishur 8 A]ROR King of Prussia Philadelphia Pittshurgh Sczanton FLOarne Pt. Lauderdale Jacksonville 42(10 Crums Mill Road, Suite B • Harrisburg, PA 17112 wdhamsP°~ °a;,;"d° P (717) 651-3500 • Fax (717} 651-9630 N~~>>~>~ Cheery Hill Roseland NErv Yoxx New York Direct Dial: 717-651-3509 Email: cmreeser@mdwcg.com June 21, 2012 Lee Mandarino, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Timothy Ronaghan v. Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC and Giant Food Stores, LLC Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas; No. 12-2972 Claim No. 094/102917 D/L: 5-1.5-2010 MDWCG File No. 07091-00324 Dear Mr. Mandarino: Enclo sed please find the following discovery demands that defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC, hereby serves upon Plaintiff, Timothy Ronaghan: (X) Interrogatories directed to Plaintiff; (Xj Expert Interrogatories directed to Plaintiff; and (Xj Request for Production of Documents directed to Plaintiff. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. Very truly s, i .. C er M. Reeser CMR/ljw A REGIONAL D~r~L^.s;irlcATiorv Law FIRM Paxxsyt,vwxin DErawwxe cc: Michael Trailer, Esquire w/ends. ,~ RF~;~.-~~~~~ C>~~r~~~-~_ ~_iz~cATiort Lnw F~~M MARSHAI.I.~ DEIVNEHEY~ WARIVER~ COLEMAN c~ GOGGIN Psxxsnvuvu Dsrawnac 8ethiehem Wilmington Doylestown ,s P~ o a s s r o v n L C o R e O x e i o nr www.marshalldennehey.com Ede :Harrisburg oaro Alaon King of Prussia Philadelphia Fronrne 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B • Harrisburg, PA 17112 Pittsburgh ~v~~Pott Ft. Lauderdale Jor~a°`"e (717) 651-3500 • Fax (717) 651-9630 NswJseasY T~'"pa Cherry Hill ]3oseland NstvYostc New York Direct Dial: 717-651-3509 Email: cmr~eeser@,mdwcg.com August 13, 2012 Lee Mandarino. Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RF.: Timothy Ronaghan v. Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC' and Giant Food Stores, LLC Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas; No. 12-2972 Claim No. 094/102917 D/L: 5-15-2010 MDWCG File No. 07091-00324 Dear Mr. M~lndarino: In reviewing my file, I see that we served Interrogatories, Expert Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents in the above-captioned matter on June 21, 2012. Responses to those discovery requests are now overdue.. Please advise if there is any reason why we cannot expect answers to our written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within the next 10 days. I would like to continue to move this matter forward to a resolution. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ~,.,- r Christopher M. Reeser CMR/lj w ec: Michael T. Traxler, Esquire MARSH-BALL Il}ENre(EHE~ WARNER. COLEMAN &GOGGIN A ['ROFhS~It.)I~AL CORPOR~TI~N 4200 Crums Mi11 Road, Suite B ~ Harrisburg, PA 17112 (7l 7) 651-3500 Fax (717) 651-9630 Direct Dial: 717-651-3509 Email: cmreesernmdwcg~com September 14, 2012 VIA FAX ONLY Lee Mandarino, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 f'ENNSY"L~AI~!lA DELAWARE Bethlehem 1Nilmington Daylestown ', C)H10 Erie ', Cleveland Harrisburg King of Prussia ~~ 1'LORIL~A f='hiladelphia ! Ft. Lauderdale i Jacksonville Pittsburgfi ', prlando Ssrantnn ~~,! Tampa <71hW {fk'.SCY NEwYC)RK merry Hill ', Long Island f~oseland New York City RE: Timothy Ronaghan v. Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC and Giant Food Stores, LLC Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas; No. 12-2972 Claim No. 094/102917 D/L,: 5-15-2010 MDWCG File No. 07091-00324 Dear Lee: I spoke with you about two weeks ago regarding this matter, and you advised that you were close to finalizing answers to our discovery. I have: still not yet received same. If I do not have your discovery answers within. the next five days, I will have no choice but to proceed with a motion to compel. Please let me hear from you regarding the status of this. Very truly yours, Christopher M. Reeser CMR/ljw cc: Michael T. Traxler, Esquire MARSHALL D E N N E H E Y WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN ---- ATT'ORNEYS-AT-LAW PA NJ DE OH F;L ~~Y 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B, Harrisburg, PA 17112 FACS[MILE TRANSMISSION SHEET TO: COMPANY: TELEPHONE, FAX NUMBER(S): Lee Mandarino, Esquire Rominger & Associates 717-241-60 7 0 717-241-6878 Michael T. Traxler, Rawle & Henderson, LLP 717-234-7700 717-234-7710 Esquire ATTORNEY: Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire NUMBER: 501 OUR FILE #: 0709100324 DATE: 09/14/12 ORIGINATOR: Lisa J. Wallace Direct Dial 717-651-3520 CASE NAM E: Ronaghan v. Giant CLAIM #: NUMBER OF PAGES: (including cover page) ~ IF COPY IS ILLEGIBLE OR INCOMPLETE PLEASE CALL (717) 651-3500 IMMEDIATELYFOR RETRANSMISSION L OUR F'AX NUMBER IS: (717) 651-9630 (This space to be used for short or supplemental messages) ***CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*** The documents accompanying this telecopy transmission contain information from the law firm of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin which is confidential and/or legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named on this transmission sheet. If you are not the intended recipient. you are hereby notified that you should refrain from reading the contents of the transmission, that anr' disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of a.ny action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited, and that the documents should he returned to this Firm immediately. fn this regard, if you have received this telecopy in error, please notify us by telephone immediately sa that we may arrange for the return of the original documents to us. Group Send Report Job number Date Number of pages Start time End time Successful nbrs Fax numbers 707 09-14 10:33am 002 09-14 10:33am 09-14 10:35am 52416878 52347710 Page 001 Date & Time: 09-14-12 10:35am Line 1 717-651-9630 line 2 f~achine ID MDWC&G Unsuccessful nbrs. Pages sent Job number :707 *~~ SEND SUCCESSFUL *** HALL L7ENNEHEY WARI~7ER COLEMAN S>` GOGGIN ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW PA NJ DE OH FY_ NY 4200 Cruets Mill Road, Suite 13, Tiarrisburg, PA 171 12 I+'ACSIMIL>v TRANSMISSION SHEET TO: CO MFANY: T~LTP'HONE FAX NVMBFR(35): Leo Mandaritzo, Esquire Rozni:zger Bc As50C1f1.tC3 717-241-6070 717-241.-6878 Michael T. Traxler, Rawle: 8t I~eriderson, LLP 717-234-7700 717-234-7710 Esquire ATTORNEY: Chrisiopl-scr M_ Reese:•, Esquire NUMBER: SOI OUR FYLE st: 0709 1 003 24 owTfi: 09/14/12 ORIGINATOR: Lisa J_ Wallace Direct Dial '717-651-3520 CASE. NAME: Ronaghan v_ Grunt CLAIM ~: NUNIBEIZ OI: PAGES: (iacludfag cover page) IF COPY" IS ILLEpIBLE OR INCOMPL .ETE PLFr1SE C 4 ~ / (7I 7) GSI 3500 IMMEDIATELY FOR RETRANSMISSION I The dou..menu geoomPiu[Yiny uiis ieleeopy uaitsmlaslon eon[gL[ lnlbrm¢tlon E'om rite IqW iirtti oT Mnrshall. Onru[ahey, Wnm¢r_ Coleman 8c GoQgin wh:N[ iy contitlon[Ial and/or [oQe11y privpoQetl. 7Ttis informnHon Is loran dad only for rho use of the individual or ans![y nwmcd on thin ironrmission shosi. tf yvv sire no[ isle in[atded reciplani. you qro h¢rsby nod Tied shoe yeu should ro![ain 6rnn teodinp the oorirena. of the gansmission, u[nt uny dlaolosure, oopying, tlla[ribti[lon the eking of any nol.ion in txllmo¢ on tha ooments otihis wleoopiod intbrittatlen In saiMy pprohlbic¢d, wnA that rho documonb should bo rotyrnod to thfs Fi[m immstlist¢ly. [n [his roaard, if you havo r¢oalvad rltla teiooopy in erto , pieiua notlly ua by Wlaphone lmmadlgw(y so chat wo may grrati¢e for [h¢ ronrn oaf iho oritinnl doeumm[s [o us_ MARSHALL DENIM EHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 4200 Cruets Mill Road, Suite B ~ Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3500 ~ Fax (71"7) 651-9630 Direct DiaE. '717-651-3509 Email: cmreeser(a~mdwcg;.com October 5, 2012 Lee Mandarino, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 PENNSYLVANIA ~ DELAWARE Bethlehem Wilmington Doylestown OHIO Erie Cleveland Harrisburg King of Prussia ~ FLORIDA i Ft. Lauderdale Philadelphia ~ Jacksonville Pittsburgh I Orlando Scranton Tampa NEW ~ERSF.Y NEW YORK Cherry Hill Long Island Roseland New York City RE: Timothy Ronaghan v. Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC and Giant Food Stores, LLC Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas; No. 12-2972 Claim No. 094/102917 D/L: 5-15-2010 MDWCG File No. 07091-00324 Dear Lee: I am enclosing for your review a copy of the surveillance videotape showing your client's fall. The camera which captured the fall is located against the front of the store and therefore, does not show the area which is under cover at the front of the stare. What you will see two customers exiting to a crosswalk and then your client falling into the street almost immediately thereafter. Perhaps you will :note that the customer that your client was behind was a young girl in perhaps her late teens or early twenties. Yow- Complaint indicates that your client spoke with the store manager, Mark Hoover, following the incident. In fact, the Complaint references statements that Hoover made regarding the fall itself and the lack of a bike rack. What is not stated in the Complaint, but what I expect Hoover will testify to, is that your client also admitted that he was distracted because he was looking at the girl who was crossing the crosswalk in front of him. instead of paying attention to where he was going. And obviously, other customers, including the customers that were walking in front of your client, were able to circumnavigate the bicycle that was allegedly attached to a pole on the sidewalk without incident. I am thinking that this case is not going to play well for your client in Cumberland County. That point notwithstanding, in the interest of saving defense costs and attempting to reach a resolution in this case, I have Lee Mandarino, Esquire October 5, ~'.Ol? Page been authorized to make a joint offer on behalf of Giant and Co-Defendant Cedar-Pennsboro Commons, GP, LLC in the amount of $3,000 to resolve this case. I am enclosing for your review a sample Release that Giant mandates be used. when it settles any case. It is essentially a standard release with hold harmless language and a confidentiality provision. As part of the consideration for resolving the case (in addition to the payment of settlement fimds), is the use of this release language. Therefore, from Giant's perspective, please consider the language of the release to be part of the negotiated terms of the settlement and not a mere formality. Whether or not Cedar-Pennsboro would be agreeable to the release that I have enclosed, or whether they would require a separate release would be up to them. But if we are going to resolve this case, the form release attached is required, and we will not settle the case without the use of this form. Please discuss this offer with your client immediately and let me know if it is acceptable. As you know, we served discovery long ago, and we gr~ulted an extra week extension for you to provide us answers to that discovery. That extension has since expired. In the event that we do not hear from you within the next ten days with regard to a very meaningful response to our offer, or by providing us discovery answers, we will proceed with a motion to compel. Please let us hear from you. Very trul ours, Christopher M. Reeser CMR/ljw cc: Michael Traxler, Esquire i ,'., ~ : ` ~ ~ ~,. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire ID #73632 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA. 17112 717-651-3509 Our File No, 07091-00324 Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC TIMOTHY RONAGHAN COURT OF COMMON PLF,AS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL,VANiA Plaintiff No. 12-2972 vs. CEDAR-PENNSBORO CIVIL ACTION -LAW COMMONS GP, LLC and GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Coggin, do hereby certify that on November 5, 2012 I served a copy of Defendant Giant Food Store's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Plaintiff via First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows: Lee Mandarino, Esquire Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rominger & Associates Rawle & Henderson. I_LP 155 South Hanover Street Payne Shoemaker Building Carlisle, PA 17013 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Attorney for Plaintiff Harrisburg, PA 17101 911torney for Defendant '~ cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC ~,:~ Christopher M. Reeser '~ MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire ID #73632 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3 509 Our File No. 07091-00324 Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC TIMOTHY RONAGHAN Plaintiff vs. CEDAR-PENNSBORO COMMONS GP'; LLC and GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 12-2972 CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW this ~~ day of /t~Uy , 2012, upon consideration of Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC's Motion to Compel, and any response therefore, said Motion is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve full, complete and verified responses to Defendant Giant Food Store, LLC's Interrogatories, Expert Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order or 1 suffer further sanctions upon application of this Court as provided under Rule 4019 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. ~,.~.~ By ~ourt• J. Distribution List: / Lee Mandarino, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff / Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson, LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant Cedar-Pennsboro Commons GP, LLC c -~ 3 rn~ ~~ U,r -'G T'' r- ~ -~ a v e-a ~ c7 37 ~ z --~ ~~ 0 0 c W -~ w -, :z: -~; rrti ~,:.. rn Obi --~ r.~ x -~~ a~ ~ ~:, ~~'; / Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crams Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant Giant Food Stores SOP; « ~ua.'l~~ ~~~/3/ia ~~ 2