Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-4579 r r ?._ F ILED-OHr- ILA. u; HE PROTHONOTAR) 7017 JUL 23 Ph !: '38 CUMBERLANO COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TODD ACRE AND SHERRY ACRE, ET UX. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA c\NRI i-I1l\\T?l\ IJ/,\I:\I.'. 1!AP.\101IVS PIII\.I':\I',i111111111:1,111., P:\PI I1111V1 IN Tf RVATRiN%I.. I\< ? n r iir NO. 0`' s PfV( o Defendant Civil Term NOTICE TO DEFEND YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINSTTHE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY AN ATTORNEY AND FILLING 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 JUDGEMENT 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 13Y THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PEOPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD "TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE. GO TO THE TELEPHONE OR THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 Q? % p3'7S 1 a gag ? BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 Swede Road Attorney for Plaintiff(s) (610) 277-4700 FAX 277-4888 Norristown, PA 19401-1745 Id. No. 28400 Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, et ux, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 217 Hickory Lane CUMBERLAND COUNTY Shippensburg PA 17257 Plaintiffs Civil Action Law versus Garrett Stanton 233 Shippensburg Mobile Estates Shippensburg, PA 17257 and Pizza 4 All 2, LLC 300 South Fayette Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 and Papa John's Pizza 300 South Fayette Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 and Papa John's USA, Inc. 2002 Papa John's Blvd. Louisville, KY 40299 and Papa John's International, Inc. 2002 Papa John's Blvd. Louisville, KY 40299 Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your de- fenses 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 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 LAW- YER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET HELP. LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA Telephone: (717) 249-3166 COMPLAINT 8,12, 1:48pm -1- BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 S de Road Ncrristown, PA 19 01-1745 1. Plaintiff, Todd Acre, is an individual, citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing therein at 217 Hickory Lane, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257. 2. Plaintiff, Sherry Acre, is an individual, citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing therein at 217 Hickory Lane, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257. 3. Plaintiffs, Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, are married, and are individuals, citizen. and residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing therein at 217 Hickory Lan Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257. 4. Defendant, Garrett Stanton, is an individual, citizen and resident of the Common- wealth of Pennsylvania, residing therein at 235 Shippensburg Mobile Est, Shippensbur , Pennsylvania 17257. 5. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC is a limited liability company and Papa John's Pi franchisee in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a place of business at 300 South Fay Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257, which employed Defendant, Garrett Stanton September 5, 2010, doing business as Papa John's Pizza. 6. Defendant, Papa John's Pizza is a restaurant/store (#3630) with a place of at 300 South Fayette Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257 which employed, Garrett Stanton on September 5, 2010. 7. Defendant, Papa John's USA, Inc. is a corporation and franchisor of Papa. John r Pizza, with a registered office at 2002 Papa John's Blvd., Louisville, Kentucky 40299 that owned/operated and or franchised a business at 300 South Fayette Street, Shippensbur , Pennsylvania 17257 to franchisee/Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, which employed Defendant, Garrett Stanton on September 5, 2010. 8. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. is a corporation and franchisor of Papa John's Pizza, with a registered office at 2002 Papa John's Blvd., Louisville, Kentucky 40299 that owned/operated/franchised a business at 300 South Fayette Street, Shippensbur , Pennsylvania 17257 to franchisee/Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, which employed Defendant, Garrett Stanton on September 5, 2010. 9. Defendants, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC., Papa John's Pizza, Papa John's USA, Inc. Papa John's International, Inc. at all times relevant hereto, acted through its employee, servants, workmen or agents. 07/18/12, 1 :51 pm -2- BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 Swede Road Norristown, P 19401-1745 10. At all times relevant herein, Defendant, Garrett Stanton was an employee, agent servant, or workman of Defendants, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Papa John's Pizza, Papa John's USA Inc., Papa John's International, Inc., and working within the course and scope of hi employment with ' said Defendants at the time of the September 5, 2010 accident with Plaintiff Todd Acre. 11. All paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated by reference into all counts this complaint, as if set out in full. COUNT I, NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT, GARRETT STANTON 12. On September 5, 2010, Plaintiff, Todd Acre was operating his motorcycl southbound on Baltimore Road, Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 13. Concurrently, Defendant, Garrett Stanton, was operating an automobile, whil working for said Defendants, southbound on Baltimore Road, Southampton Townshil Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 14. The automobile operated by Defendant, Garrett Stanton struck and injure Plaintiff, Todd Acre. 15. Defendant, Garrett Stanton, was negligent, and careless, in that he: a. Rear-ended Plaintiff's motorcycle as Plaintiff, Todd Acre was to make a left turn onto Willow Drive; b. Operated his motor vehicle at an excessive speed under the stances; c. Failed to keep a proper lookout; d. Failed to have his motor vehicle under proper and adequate control the situation warranted; e. Failed to regard the point, position and safety of Plaintiff; f. Violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3361 regarding the operation of a motor upon the public highway. 16. The negligence of the Defendant, Garrett Stanton was the factual cause of damage and injuries to Plaintiffs, Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, which are more fully descri below. COUNT II, NEGLIGENCE; PIZZA 4 ALL 2, LLC 07/18/12, 1:51pm -3- BOYD SPE 21 Norristown, MR, ESQUIRE Swede Road X19401-1745 17. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, is vicariously liable for the acts of it's employee, Defendant, Garrett Stanton, who was working in the course and scope of his employment wi f h said Defendant at the time of the accident. 18. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC is franchisee of Papa John's USA, INC. and John's International, Inc. doing business at 300 South Fayette Street, Shippensburg, Pennsyl as Papa John's Pizza. 19. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC was negligent as it failed to adequately supervise, or screen their employees and delivery drivers. 20. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC was negligent as it required their emploj - ee/delivery man, Defendant, Garrett Stanton to work long and excessive hours, causing him be driving in an unsafe physical condition. 21. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC was negligent as it failed to check and verify driving records of Defendant, Garrett Stanton prior to the September 5, 2010 accident. 22. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC was negligent as it failed to develop, require, institute safety training for it's delivery drivers and the delivering of orders to it's 23. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC was negligent as it imposed a time restricti delivery policy on it's delivery drivers, which caused Defendant, Garrett Stanton to drive vehicle in an unsafe manner on September 5, 2010. 24. The negligence of Pizza 4 All 2, LLC was the factual cause of the damages injuries suffered by Plaintiffs, Todd and Sherry Acre, which are more fully described belov . COUNT III, NEGLIGENCE; PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA 25. Defendant, Papa John's Pizza is vicariously liable for the acts of it's employe, Garrett Stanton, who was working in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant at the time of the accident. 26. Defendant, Papa John's Pizza was negligent as it failed to adequately supervise, or screen their employees and delivery drivers. 27. Defendant was negligent as it required their employee, Garrett Stanton to long and excessive hours, causing him to be driving in an unsafe physical condition. 28. Defendant was negligent as it failed to check and verify the driving records Defendant, Garrett Stanton prior to the September 5, 2010 accident. 07/18/12, 1:51pm -4- BOYD SPE 21 Norristown, :R, ESQUIRE Swede Road 19401-1745 29. Defendant was negligent as it failed to develop and institute safety training and/or procedures for the delivery of customer's orders. 30. Defendant was negligent as it imposed a time restrictive delivery policy with itJ s delivery drivers, which caused Defendant, Garrett Stanton to drive his vehicle in an unsa#e manner on September 5, 2010. 31. The negligence of Defendant, Papa John's Pizza was the factual cause of damages and injuries suffered by Plaintiffs, Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, which are more described below. COUNT IV, NEGLIGENCE; PAPA JOHN'S USA, INC. 32. Defendant, Papa John's USA, Inc. is vicariously liable for the acts of it1s employee, Defendant, Garrett Stanton, who was working in the course and scope of employment with said Defendant at the time of the accident. 33. Defendant, Papa John's USA, Inc. is vicariously liable for the acts of Franchise+. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2 LLC's employee, Garrett Stanton, who was working in the course scope of his employment. 34. Defendant, Papa John's USA, Inc. was negligent as it failed to adequately trail, supervise, or screen their employees and deliver drivers. 35. Defendant, Papa John's USA, Inc. was negligent as it required their employe, Garrett Stanton to work long and excessive hours, causing him to be driving in an physical condition at the time of the alleged accident. 36. Defendant, Papa John's USA, Inc. was negligent as it failed to check and the driving records of Defendant, Garrett Stanton prior to the September 5, 2010 accident. 37. Defendant, Papa John's USA, Inc. was negligent as it failed to develop institute safety training and/or procedures for the delivery of customer's orders by its employee. 38. Defendant, Papa John's USA, Inc. was negligent as it imposed a time restricti delivery policy with it's delivery drivers of Franchisee, Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2 LLC, whi caused Defendant, Garrett Stanton to drive his vehicle in an unsafe manner on September, 2010. 39. Defendant, Papa John's USA, Inc. as Franchisor, has daily control or right control over Franchisee, Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2 LLC's. daily operations and procedures - 5- BOYD SPE ER, ESQUIRE 21 0 Swede Road 07/18112, 1:51pm Norristown, P 19401-1745 it relates to safety training and delivery procedures for the delivery of customers orders by their employees. 40. The negligence of Defendant, Papa John's USA, Inc. was the factual cause of damages and injuries suffered by Plaintiffs, Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, which are more ful described below. COUNT V, NEGLIGENCE; PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. 41. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. is vicariously liable for the acts Defendant, Garrett Stanton, who was working in the course and scope of his employment the Defendant at the time of the accident. 42. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. is vicariously liable for the acts franchisee, Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2 LLC's employee, Garrett Stanton, who was working in course and scope of his employment: at the time of the accident in question. 43. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. was negligent as it failed to train, supervise, or screen their employees and delivery drivers. 44. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. was negligent as it required to their policy, employee Garrett Stanton to work long and excessive hours, causing him to driving in an unsafe physical condition at the time of the accident. 45. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. was negligent as pursuant to it's policy, failed to check and verify or have franchisee, Pizza 4 All 2 LLC, check and verify driving records of Defendant, Garrett Stanton prior to the September 5, 2010 accident 46. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. was negligent as it failed to and institute safety training and/or procedures for the delivery of customer's orders by employees/delivery drivers, which includes Defendant, Garrett Stanton. 47. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. was negligent as it imposed polici and procedures with it's delivery drivers of franchisee, Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC., whi caused Defendant, Garrett Stanton to drive his vehicle in an unsafe manner on September, 2010. 48. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. had daily control or right of over franchisee, Pizza 4 All 2 LLC's daily operations and procedures as it relates to training and delivery procedures for the delivery of customer orders by it's employees. 07/18/12, 1:51pm -6- BOYD SPE 21 Norristown, :R, ESQUIRE Swede Road 19401-1745 49. The negligence of Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. was the factual cause of the damages and injuries suffered by Plaintiffs, Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, which ape more fully described below. COUNT VI, DAMAGES, TODD ACRE 50. Plaintiff, Todd Acre, has suffered L1 and L2 fractures; L1 20% collapse, L2 10 collapse, cervical sprain, concussion, torn chest muscles, urological injuries, stomach injuries, intestinal injuries, kidney injuries, all of which are permanent,; shock and injuries to his muscles, tendons, ligaments, tissues, bones, discs, connecting tissues thereto, nerves and nervous system, some or all of which may be continuing and permanent. 51. Further damages include expenditure by Plaintiff of various sums of money medical treatment and care, drugs and medication, all in an effort to treat and cure himself his injuries and ills, some or all of which may be continuing and permanent. 52. Further damages include anxiety, nervous tension, physical and mental pain suffering, some or all of which may be continuing and permanent. 53. Further damages include a loss and diminution of earnings and earning potential, some or all of which may be continuing and permanent. 54. Further damages include property damage to the motorcycle that plaintiff w riding, accessories to the motorcycle, and plaintiff's helmet, boots, clothing, and other apparel. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Todd Acre claims compensatory damages from Defendant, Garrett Stanton, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Papa John's Pizza, Papa John's USA, Inc., and John's International, Inc. in an amount in excess of the arbitration limit, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §7361(b)(2), plus interest, attorney fees and costs. COUNT VII, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM DAMAGES, SHERRY ACRE 55. As a result of the negligence, recklessness and/or carelessness of the Defendant, Garrett Stanton, Pizza 4 All 2 LLC, Papa John's Pizza, Papa John's USA, Inc. and Papa John International, Inc., and the injuries suffered by Plaintiff's spouse, Todd Acre, Plaintiff, Shen Acre seeks damages for loss of services, companionship and consortium suffered in the past at which Plaintiff expects will be suffered in the future. - 7- BOYD SPEN ER, ESQUIRE 210 Swede Road 07/18/12, 1:51 pm Norristown, P 19401-1745 56. The negligence of Garrett Stanton, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC., Papa John's Pizza, Paps John's USA, Inc., and Papa John's International, Inc. was the factual cause of the damages suffered by Plaintiff, Sherry Acre. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Sherry Acre, claims compensatory damages from Defendan Garrett Stanton, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Papa John's Pizza, Papa John's USA, Inc., and PE John's International, Inc. in an amount in excess ofthe arbitration limit, 42 Pa.C.S. §7361(b)(2), plus interest, attorney fees and costs. DATED: July 18, 2012 intiffs, Todd Acre Sherry Acre BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 210C Swede Road 07118/12, 1:51 pm Norristown, PA 19401-1745 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Civil Complaint are true and correct to the best my knowledge, and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties 18 PA. C.S, Subsection 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: Signature (6/02) SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff ?,?y?t4At ?11liafirrF,tJody S Smith ° 2AUG23 AM l0r Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart "'j°) w t51 Solicitor Todd Derek Acre (et al.) vs. Pizza 4 All 2, LLC (et al.) Case Number 2012-4579 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 08/14/2012 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant to wit: Garrett Stanton, but was unable to locate him in his bailiv?ick. He therefore returns the within Complaint and Notice as not found as to the defendant Garrett Stanl . on. Current resident at 233 Shippensburg Mobile Estates, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257 advised Deputies they have never heard of Garrett Stanton. 08/14/2012 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant to wit: Papa Johns Pizza, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the within Complaint and Notice as not found as to the defendant Papa Johns Pizza. Request for service at 300 S. Fayette Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257 is located in Franklin County. 08/14/2012 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant to wit: Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the within Complaint and Notice as not found as to the defendant Pizza 4 All 2, LLC. Request for service at 300 S. Fayette Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257 is located in Franklin County. SHERIFF COST: $115.45 August 20, 2012 SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson t-"~ Sheriff s ~' ~g11~11o tit I FI III ~('Pf.1,td ~ ~_J "~ _ -`~ '"1 Jody S Smith ~ -~ ` ~~~-~ Chief Deputy : ~ _ ~ ~ ~. = ' 7 ". . ,~ ~- ~ ~ ~~ `='~ Richard W Stewart ' -,. y Solicitor " _-. j'~4 4 Todd Derek Acre (et al.) ' ~~~~~ - Case 11'umber vs. 2012-4579 Pizza 4 All 2, LLC (et al.) SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 10/19/2012 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Franklin County, Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 10/19/2012 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Papa Johns Pizza, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Franklin County, Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 11/02/2012 The requested Complaint & Notice served by the Sheriff of Franklin County upon Brie Griffith Mong, who accepted for Papa Johns Pizza, at 300 S. Fayette Street, Southampton Township, Shippensburg, PA 17257. Dane Anthony, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to and made part of the within record. 11/02/2012 04:09 PM -The requested Complaint & Notice served by the Sheriff of Franklin County upon Brie Griffith Mong, who accepted for Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, at 300 S. Fayette Street, Southampton Township, Shippensburg, PA 17257. Dane Anthony, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to and made part of the within record. SHERIFF COST: $53.00 November 26, 2012 SO ANSWERS, v-+ RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2012-00284 T COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; COUNTY OF FRANKLIN TODD DEREK ACRE ET AL VS PIZZA 4 ALL 2 ET AL ANGEL L LAVIENA Deputy Sheriff of FRANKLIN County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMP CIVIL ACTION was served upon PIZZA 4 ALL 2 the DEFENDANT at 1609:00 Hour, on the 2nd day of November 2012 at 300 SOUTH FAYETTE STREET SOUTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 by handing to a true and attested copy of COMP CIVIL ACTION together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing . 0 0 _____ Service .00 ANG A Affidavit .00 Surcharge .00 By .00 eputy Sheriff .00 11/19/2012 BOYD SPENCER ESQ ~~ and Subscribed to before ~>/ ~ / 1 'F'~' day of ~~/ ~ A.D. -~I-~-~-ah ~ O ~`'~ COMMONW~EN~jSYLVANIA T IAL S RICHARD D. McCARTY, Notary F'ubiic Chambersburg t3oro., Franklin County My Commtaskm t~lres Jan 29, 2015 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2012-00284 T COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF FRANKLIN TODD DEREK ACRE ET AL VS PIZZA 4 ALL 2 ET AL ANGEL LAVIENA Deputy Sheriff of FRANKLIN County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within QOMP CIVIL ACTION was served upon PAPA JOHNS PIZZA the DEFENDANT at 1606:00 Hour, on the 2nd day of November 2012 at 300 SOUTH FAYETTE STREET SOUTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 by handing to a true and attested copy of QOMP CIVIL ACTION together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing .00 ---~ - Service .00 ANGEL LAV 'A ~ _ Affidavit .00 Surcharge .00 By .00 Dep Sheriff .00 11/19/2012 BOYD SPENCER ESQ Sworn and Subscribed to before thisr'~!""~-stay of J ~~~ A.D. w ~ _ n. RICHARD p. ~~ i ~"`' V"" Chambe ~~N' Notary Public My Comm Boro.' Franklin County Expires Jan 29, 2015 f 1 BARRY A. KRONTHAL, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 55672 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-8114 Facsimile: (717) 975-8124 E-Mail: bkronthal@margolisedelstein.com ;:~~i` i Vii: t't~'~l ~ ~~r~ ~,.~ , .j 2~!?DEC -3 pp~ ~: 2 ~~j~~~~Zla 2 +~~PJtVSYL Ar~gNTYPefenaantsor apa John's USA, Inc. and Papa John's International, Inc. 59250.4-00033 TODD ACRE AND SHERRY ACRE VS. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GARRETT STANTON, PIZZA 4 ALL 2, LLC, NO. 12-4579 PAPA JOHN' S PIZZA, PAPA JOHN'S USA, INC., AND CIVIL ACTION-LAW PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Papa John's USA, Inc., and Papa John's International, Inc., with regard to the above-captioned matter. Date: ! ~ ~ Z..r MARGOLIS ED TEIN ---~-~ ~ Barry A. Kron~halJ ID# 55672 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-975-8114 Attorney for Defendants, Papa John's USA, Inc. Papa John's International, Inc. ,f , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I have this ~ day of ~ , 2012, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: Service by First Class Mail. Postage Prepaid, Addressed as Follows: Steve Kinett, Esquire Boyd Spencer, Esquire 2100 Swede Road Norristown, PA 19401-1745 Garrett Stanton 233 Shippensburg Mobile Estates Shippensburg, PA 17257 Pizza 4 A112, LLC Papa John's Pizza 300 S. Fayette Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN By: M:`JndirU AIG\59250.4-00033 Acre v Vapa JohnslPleadings\EOA.11-1612.wpd BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 Swede Road Attorney for Plaintiff(s) (610) 277-4700 FAX 277-4888 Norristown, PA 19401-1745 Id. No. 28400 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Todd Acre and Sherry Acre et ux, Plaintiffs, I Civil Action - Law versus No. 12-4579 Garrett Stanton, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Papa John's Pizza, Papa John's USA Inc., Papa John's International Inc. Defendant AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF MAIL PURSUANT TO R.403 STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND vC cp, r, I, Boyd Spencer, Esquire being duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says as follows: 1 . I am the attorney for Plaintiffs, Todd and Sherry Acre in the above entitled action. On July 23, 2012, 1 filed with the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas a Civil Complaint on behalf of my clients, against Defendants, Papa John's USA, Inc, and Papa John's International, Inc., among others. A copy of this Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. 1 further depose and say that on October 15, 2012, 1 caused to be transmitted, by a form of mail requiring a signed receipt, a copy of the filed civil complaint in this action (reinstated on October 4, 2012) to the following Defendants: Papa John's USA, Inc, 2002 Papa John's Blvd, Louisville, KY 40299 and Papa John's International, Inc. 2002 Papa John's Blvd., Louisville, KY 40299. The address of which is the home address and principal place of business for each said Defendants. A copy of my transmittal letters are attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 3. 1 further depose and say that I thereafter received back from the postmaster of 2002 Papa John's Blvd, Louisville, KY 40299 on October 21, 2012 two return receipts bearing the notation of October 18, 2012 and the signature of Larry Lewis (authorized person to accept service at said address for Defendants), representing proper service pursuant to Rule 403. The official return receipts are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". )3R BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 Swede Road Norristown, PA 1 9401-1 745 DATED: February 19, 2013 oy Spencer, Esq. pt rney for Plaintiffs ?" ! 35am -2- BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 Swede Road Norristown, PA 19401-1745 .. VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION the statements in the attached Affidavit of Service and the attachments thereto, are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 feeating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I arr subject to punishment. I, Boyd Spencer, hereby state and verify and certify that DATED: _4 -? Boyd Spencer, Esq. EXHIBIT A i. ' V ,J If wRLA r ' CJ;ii'T? !="15'r'LYAA i'ODD ACRE AND SHERRY .ACRE, ET UX. Plaintiff Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA NO 10 - 'S?9 lU(? 20 Civil Term NOTICE TO DEFEND l Ol I I,\\ I lil,l.\ til 1") 1\ C O( IZ I II Y'" \\ ISI I I O DI I I \I) \( \1 \S I I III (I \I\1? til I I UR I I1 I\ 1 111: I OI.LO\\ 1\( I)AGI ti. l Ol VII'S I l \I?I. 1(' 110\ \\ I I I II\ I \\ I \I) (20) I).\l ` Al 11.1Z I lfl? ('0\11)1.%\1\ I 1\(> \OI [(,I ARI SI:R\111). 131 I:\ I I.I\1I\( \ \\1\111 I1 \ 11)1)1.;1!\1.1\('I ITRSMAI f \' OIZ IIN '\\ /\I IORNFY \Nf) I II I.l\G I\ \41ZIII\( \1 1 1 11 1111 ( OI'R I YOUR DI :I I'NSI S OR O13.II:(' (IONS 10 1 f ll: (I.,?l:\1S Sla 1 O1Z 111 1( \(\S I YOI YO( \RI \k ARM-D I I IA 1 11 YOl' I Ali I O I)O SO 1111 ('r\SI. MAY I)RO('l:l.l) \41111(1 I 1 OI \\U .\ It 1)GI:I\1l.N I MAY 131: I:NI 1,11:1) A(iAINS I Y01. 13Y I'lll. ('(M R I \\ I 11101 1 1 11\11111 R \OI R I I OR :1N1' MUNI;) (TAIMI1) 1\ 1111. C'O\9P1.,\I\l OR I OR 1\1 UI III IZ (1 .11\1 OR RI 1.11.1 RI.O( l;S 11:l) 131 1111. PI .'\I\ 111 1 . )'Ol I I. \10\1 ) OR III ()III R I l OIZ O I 111 R RIGI I I S \11)OR IAN 11 0 YOl 1 Ol SI IOl1.1) I NKI I.Iw, I'.1I'I IZ I U YOl R I \\\ ) I.fZ 11 O\( I 11 ) Ol I)O \OI II \\ I \ I..\111 I.IZ OIZ ( \\\Oi \1.1 OIZU O\I_ GU I O i III: I i 1.1'110\1 ()I,) 1111 O1 1 R I ?I IORIIIMI(m IOI.1\I)\\IIIRI lOi ( \\ (1) III;(iV Ilfll' CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof, I here unto set my hand and the slal,of said Capri at arlisle, Pa. Tnis _ clay of ' 20 //-? yf Prothonotary ?°?c- BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 Swede Road ? (610) 277-4700 FAX 277-4888 Norristown, PA 19401 1745 Id. No, for Pl, 284l 0 00 Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, et ux, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 21 7 Hickory Lane CUMBERLAND COUNTY Shippensburg PA 17257 Plaintiffs Civil Action Law versus Garrett Stanton 233 Shippensburg Mobile Estates Shippensburg, PA 17257 and Pizza 4 All 2, LLC 300 South Fayette Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 and Papa John's Pizza 300 South Fayette Street Shippensburg, PA 1 1257 and Papa John's USA, Inc. 2002 Papa John's Blvd Louisville, KY 40299 i and Papa John's International, Inc. 2002 Papa John's Blvd. Louisville, KY 40299 Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth to the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and nonce are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your de- fenses 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 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 LAW- YER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET HELP. LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA Telephone. (717) 249-3166 COMPLAINT 1h; -1- BOYD SPFNCER, ESQUIRE ? 1 Q() Swetip 1 noar1 Nwristown, PA 19401. ' LIt, I. Plaintiff, Todd Acre, is an individual, citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing therein at 217 Hickory Lane. Shippensburg, Pennsylvania !7257. ?. Plaintiff, Sherry Acre, is an individual, citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsvlvania. residing therein at 217 Hickory Lane, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 172.57. _3. Plaintiffs, Todd Acre and Sherrv Acre, are married, and are individuals, citizew, and residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing therein at 217 Hickory Lane, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257. 4. Defendant, Garrett Stanton, is an individual, citizen and resident of the Common- wealth of Pennsylvania, residing therein at 235 Shippensburg Mobile Est. Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257. 5. Defendant. Pizza 4 All 2, LLC is a limited liability company and Papa John's Pizza franchisee in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a place of business at 300 South Favette Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257, which employed Defendant, Garrett Stanton on September .5. 2010. doing business as Papa John's Pizza. 6. Defendant, Papa John's Pizza is a restaurant/store (#3630) with a place of husiness at 300 South Fayette Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17271 which employed. Defendant, Garrett Stanton on September 5, 2010. 7. Defendant, Papa John's USA, Inc, is a corporation and franchisor of Papa John', Pizza, with a registered office at 2002 Papa John's Blvd.. Louisville. Kentucky 40299 that owned/operated and or franchised a business at 300 South Fayette Street, Shippensburg. Pennsylvania 17257 to franchisee/Defendant. Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, which employed Defendant. Garrett Stanton on September 5, 2010. 8. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. is a corporation and franchisor of Papa John's Pizza, with a registered office at 2002 Papa John's Blvd., Louisville, Kentucky 40299 that owned/operated/franchised a business at 300 South Fayette Street, Shippensburg. Pennsylvania 17257 to franchisee/Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, which employed Defendant. Garrett Stanton on September `i, 2010. y. Defendants. Pizza 4 All 2, LLC., Papa John's Pizza, Papa John's USA, Inc. and Papa John's International, Inc. at all times relevant hereto, acted through its employees. servants, workmen or agents. 18 12 1 51Dni -2- EQYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 Swede Road Norristown. PA 19401 1740 10. At all times relevant herein. Defendant, Garrett Stanton was an employee, agent, servant, or workman of Defendants, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Papa John's Pizza, Papa John's USA. Inc., Papa John's International, Inc., and working within the course and scope of till" emplovment with said Defendants at the time of the September 5, 2010 accident with Plaintiff. Todd Acre. 11. All paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated by reference into all counts of this complaint, as if set out in full. COUNT 1, NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT. GARRETT STANTON 12. On September 5, 2010, Plaintiff, Todd Acre was operating his motorcycle southhound on Baltimore Road, Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 13. Concurrently, Defendant, Garrett Stanton, was operating an automobile, while working for said Defendants, southbound on Baltimore Road, Southampton Township. Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 14. The automobile operated by Defendant, Garrett Stanton struck and injured Plaintiff, Todd Acre. 15. Defendant, Garrett Stanton, was negligent, and careless, in that he: a. Rear-ended Plaintiff's motorcycle as Plaintiff. Todd Acre was stopped to make a left turn onto Willow Drive: b. Operated his motor vehicle at an excessive speed under the circum- stances; c. Failed to keep a proper lookout: d. Failed to have his motor vehicle under proper and adequate control as the situation warranted, e. Failed to regard the point, position and safety of Plaintiff: f. Violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3361 regarding the operation of a motor vehicit upon the public highway. 16. The negligence of the Defendant, Garrett Stanton was the tactual cause of the damage and injuries to Plaintiffs, Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, which are more fully described below- COUNT 11, NEGLIGENCE. PIZZA 4 ALL 2, LLC '9 51pm -3- BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 Swede Road Norristown, PA 19401 1 745 17. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, is vicariously liable for the acts of it's employee. Defendant. Garrett Stanton, who was working in the course and scope of his employment with said Defendant at the time of the accident. 18. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC is franchisee of Papa John's USA. INC. and Papa John's International, Inc. doing business at 300 South Fayette Street. Shippensburg, Pennsylvania as Papa John's Pizza. 19. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC was negligent as it failed to adequately train, supervise, or screen their employees and delivery drivers. 20. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC was negligent as it required their employ- ee/delivery man, Defendant. Garrett Stanton to work long and excessive hours. causing him to be driving in an unsafe physical condition. 21. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2. LLC was negligent as it failed to check and verify the driving records of Defendant, Garrett Stanton prior- to the September 5, 2010 accident. 22. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC was negligent as it failed to develop, require, and institute safety training for it's delivery drivers and the delivering of orders to it's customers. 23. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC was negligent as it imposed a time restrictive delivery policy on it's delivery drivers, which caused Defendant, Garrett Stanton to drive his vehicle in an unsafe manner on September 5, 2010. 24. The negligence of Pizza 4 All 2, LLC was the factual cause of the damages and injuries suffered by Plaintiffs, Todd and Sherry Acre, which are more fully described below. COUNT 111, NEGLIGENCE; PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA. 25. Defendant, Papa John's Pizza is vicariously liable for the acts of it's employee, Garrett Stanton, who was working in the course and scope of his employment with said Defendant at the time of the accident. 26. Defendant, Papa John's Pizza was negligent as it failed to adequately train. supervise, or screen their employees and delivery drivers. 27. Defendant was negligent as it required their employee. Garrett Stanton to work long and excessive hours, causing him to be driving in an unsafe physical condition. 28. Defendant was negligent as it failed to check and verify the driving records l Defendant, Garrett Stanton prior to the September 5, 2010 accident. ' ? Q ' 5 1 prn - 4 BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 Sweoe Road No.ristown, PA 19401 174F, 29. Defendant was negligent as it failed to develop and institute safety training and/or procedures for the delivery of customer's orders. 30. Defendant was negligent as it imposed a time restrictive delivery policy with it's delivery drivers, which caused Defendant, Garrett Stanton to drive his vehicle in an unsafe manner on September S, 2010. 31. The negligence of Defendant. Papa John's Pizza was the factual cause of' the damages and injuries suffered by Plaintiffs, Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, which are more fully described below. COUNT 1V, NEGLIGENCE; PAPA JOHN'S USA, INC. 32. Defendant, Papa John's LISA. Inc. is vicariously liable for the acts of it's employee. Defendant, Garrett Stanton, who was working in the course and scope o1 his employment with said Defendant at the time of the accident. 33. Defendant, Papa John's USA. Inc. is vicariously liable for the acts of Franchisee. Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2 LLC's employee, Garrett Stanton, who was working in the course and scope of his employment. 34. Defendant. Papa John's USA, Inc. was negligent as it failed to adequately train, supervise, or screen their employees and deliver drivers. 37_ Defendant, Papa John's USA, Inc. was negligent as it required their employee. Garrett Stanton to work long and excessive hours. causing him to be driving in an unsafe physical condition at the time of the alleged accident. 36. Defendant, Papa John's USA. Inc. was negligent as it failed to check and verify the driving records of Defendant. Garrett Stanton prior to the September 3, 2010 accident. 37. Defendant, Papa. John's USA, Inc. was negligent as it failed to develop and institute safety training and/or procedures for the delivery of customer's orders by its employees. 38. Defendant. Papa John's USA, Inc. was negligent as it imposed a time restrictive delivery policy with it's delivery drivers of Franchisee, Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2 LLC which caused Defendant. Garrett Stanton to drive his vehicle in an unsafe manner on September 7, 2010. 39- Defendant, Papa John's USA, Inc. as Franchisor, has daily control or right of control over Franchisee, Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2 LLC's. daily operations and procedures as - 5 BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 Swede Road 8 ?7 i 5t Dm Norristown, PA 19401 1745 ¦ it relates to safety training and delivery procedures for the delivery of customers orders by their employees. 40. The negligence of Defendant, Papa John's USA, Inc. was the factual cause of the damages and injuries suffered by Plaintiffs, Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, which are more fully described below. COUNT V. NEGLIGENCE: PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. 41. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. is vicariously liable for the acts of Defendant, Garrett Stanton, who was working in the course and scope of his employment with the Defendant at the time of the accident. 42. Defendant, Papa John's Intemational, Inc. is vicariously liable for the acts of franchisee, Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2 LLC's employee, Garrett Stanton, who was working in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident in question. 43. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. was negligent as it failed to adequately train, supervise. or screen their employees and delivery drivers. 44. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. was negligent as it required pursuant to their policv, employee Garrett Stanton to work long and excessive hours. causing him to be driving in an unsafe physical condition at the time of the accident. 45. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc_ was negligent as pursuant to it's own policy, failed to check and verify or have franchisee. Pizza 4 All 2 LLC, check and verify the driving records of Defendant, Garrett Stanton prior to the September 5. 2010 ac:cidcnt 46. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. was negligent as it faile,i to develop and institute safety training arid/or procedures for the delivery of customer's orders by its employees/delivery drivers, which includes Defendant, Garrett Stanton. 47. Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. was negligent as it imposed policies and procedures with it's delivery drivers of franchisee, Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2. LLC., which caused Defendant, Garrett Stanton to drive his vehicle in an unsafe manner on September 5. 2010. 48. Defendant, Papa. John's International, Inc. had daily control or right of control over franchisee, Pizza 4 All 2 LLC's daily operations and procedures as it relates to safety training and delivery procedures for the delivery of customer orders by it's employees. Id 12 '51pry) - 6- BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 Swede Road Norristown, PA 19401 174c) 49. The negligence of Defendant, Papa John's International, Inc. was the factual cause of the damages and injuries suffered by Plaintiffs. Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, which are more fully described below. COUNT V1, DAMAGES. TODD ACRE 50. Plaintiff, Todd Acre, has suffered L1 and L2 fractures; 1-1 20% collapse. 1-2 10%n collapse, cervical sprain, concussion, torn chest muscles, urological injuries, stomach injuries, intestinal injuries, kidney injuries, all of which are pernanent,: shock and injuries to his muscles, tendons, ligaments, tissues, bones, discs, connecting tissues thereto, nerves and nervous system, some or all of which may be continuing and permanent. 51. Further damages include expenditure' by Plaintiff of various sums of money for medical treatment and care, drugs and medication, all in an effort to treat and cure himself of his injuries and ills, some or all of which may be continuing and permanent. 52. Further damages include anxiety, nervous tension, physical and mental pain and suffering, some or all of which may be continuing and permanent. 53. Further damages include a loss and diminution of earnings and earning potential, some or all of which may be continuing and permanent. 54. Further damages include property damage to the motorcycle that plaintiff was riding, accessories to the motorcycle, and plaintiff's helmet, boots, clothing, and other riding apparel. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Todd Acre claims compensatory damages from Defendants. Garrett Stanton, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Papa John's Pizza, Papa John's USA. Inc., and Papa John's International, Inc. in an amount in excess of the arbitration limit. 42 Pa.C.S.A. ss'7361(b)(2), plus interest, attorney fees and costs. COUNT VII, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM DAMAGES, SHERRY ACRE 55. As a result of the negligence, recklessness and/or carelessness of the Defendants, Garrett Stanton„ Pizza 4 All 2 LLC, Papa John's Pizza, Papa John's USA, Inc. and Papa John's International. Inc., and the injuries suffered by Plaintiff's spouse. Todd Acre, Plaintiff, Sher; y Acre seeks damages for loss of services. companionship and consortium suffered in the pass and which Plaintiff expects will be suffered in the future. ? 78 12, 1 m -7- BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 Swede Road Norristown, PA 19401 1749 56. The negligence of Garrett Stanton, Pizza 4 All LLC.. Papa John's Pizza, Papa John's USA, Inc., and Papa John's International, Inc. was the factual cause of the damages suffered by Plaintiff. Sherry Aare. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Sherry Acre, claims compensatory damages from Defendants, Garrett Stanton, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Papa John's Pizza, Papa John's USA, Inc., and Papa Johns International, Inc. in an amount in excess ofthe arbitration limit. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §7361(b)(2), plus interest, attorney fees and costs. DATED: July 18, 2012 d S ?ncer yd Spencer ?ttorney for Plaintiffs, Todd Acre Sherry Acre -8- BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE - 18 : 2 i 6 i pm 210', Swvede Road Norristown, PA 19401 1745 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Civil Complaint my knowledge, and belief. I understand that false statements made hereiare true n are subject toethe penalties of 18 PA_ C.S, Subsection 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: Sign ature (6/02) EXHIBIT B BOYD SPENCER & Associates Boyd Spencer Attorney ID PA 28400 NJ 02076-1983 Attorneys at Law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey Steven R. Kmett Attorney ID PA 84691 NJ 02930-2002 2100 Swede Road 610-277-4700 Boyd@ BoydSpencer. US Norristown, PA 19401-1745 Fax 1-480-393-5858 Kmett@Boyd Spencer. US October 15, 2012 Papa John's USA, Inc. 2002 Papa John's Blvd Louisville, KY 40299 RE: Acre v. Stanton, Papa John's USA, Inc. et al. Docket # 12-4579 VIA CERTIFIED AND FIRST CLASS REGULAR MAIL ARTICLE # 70051820000417135859 Dear Sir/Madam: Please find enclosed a civil complaint that has been filed in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas against your company by Plaintiff, Todd and Sherry Acre. Kindly forward this legal document to your legal counsel for an Answer to be filed within the time allowed by Court Rule in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If you desire an extension of time to file an answer to this civil complaint, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours Boyd Spencer a U) a a a a LU Cr U a U) co d Papa John's USA, Inc. Y 2012 Oct 15 am 11:37 COPY:::::::::::::::::::: 2012 Oct 15 am 11:37 BOYD SPENCER & Associates Boyd Spencer Attorney ID PA 28400 NJ 02076-1983 Attorneys at Law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey Steven R. Kmett Attorney ID PA 84691 NJ 02930-2002 2100 Swede Road 610-277-4700 Boyd 0BoydSpencer.US Norristown, PA 19401-1745 Fax 1-480-393-5858 Kmett@BoydSpencer.US October 15, 2012 Papa John's International, Inc. 2002 Papa John's Blvd Louisville, KY 40299 RE: Acre v. Stanton, Papa John's International, Inc. et al. Docket # 12-4579 VIA CERTIFIED AND FIRST CLASS REGULAR MAIL ARTICLE # 70051820000417135866 Dear Sir/Madam: Please find enclosed a civil complaint that has been filed in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas against your company by Flaintiff, Todd and Sherry Acre. Kindly forward this legal document to your legal counsel for an Answer to be filed within the time allowed by Court Rule in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If you desire an extension of time to file an answer to this civil complaint, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours Boyd Spencer z Q o_ Q a W o= U 5 (n co 0 Papa John's International, Inc. II 2012 Oct 15 pm 12:08 COPY::::: 2012 Oct 15 pm 12:08 EXHIBIT C ¦ Complete Items 1, atc'.....w?cor itern 41f Restrif,-t9;i [ el ?,, i ;,x;ired. ¦ Print your name a ,x I licclo rs r h E. reverse so that ¦ Attach this can n,tutr tt;3 ? u and tc trr tra:i, c f . f 'aaiiplece, or on the front if sl:rsa ?E it ti 100,4 eceived qy ):I/- Pat" Add?essei tc ! ! rre _r C. 1, Is delivery ad ms s c;iffr. If YES, enter 'E lip - r from item 1? et r r; h ess below; Vr 3. Service Type -?. - O"fi d ! 19 r e Mar! Cl f: Ca? 13 Registered C1 tress mail i FI O Insured Mai, CI c um R ecelpt for Men;handise r.D. _ 2 Artlaic Nu 4. Restricted Delit rj ry? (Ext,- Fee) ? vas (Transfer from sa?v/ce /abeq _.... - a a ,5 1820 -?0 4 _ PS Form 3811, Feb -"'-""- 171 5 Domesctic Retum Receipt 102595.02-M-1540: Ln • • ?? 0 * M a Postage $ M Certified Fee C3 ----- M Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) O Restricted Delivery Fee rU (Endorsement Required) ---- r Total Postage & Fees O SerY? o O t.No. - NE; ............. ..... °.... r? Ap or Son No. _ -•-_-..-.-._-..._,._........... .-------------------------- City, te, ZIP+4 ¦ Complete lterrls 1, 2, snc 'i A s( i) iple l e item 4 if Restricted Colivory is cl, le I. III Print your name and add ess n ;f a eve-se so that we can return the carrl 1( o, ¦ Attach this card to the b. ck o ^I d, 7 tilpi : r,4 or on the front if spat is p, trriit, : - - 1. Article Addi to: Tophrnfs ;-11 -? ?A 001 Po? a ,all w, lac. 2. Article Number (Transfer from serv ce labeq Ps Form 3811, February 2004 A. Siwatuie ' X M-Agent N _ Addressee B, Receive I h y 'F ,t c r! y t„ of Delivery N 61! 3. Is deliver y idi Ire: : r f' '.re rxr ,,E!{ 1' _' Yes If YES, a rn or iei e: , ..r1 ,:; _ No 1. Service lype certified Mail .7 Er; -sss Mail t'P Regis°ered 7 Re im Receipt for Merchandise f Insured Mail 7 C.", J. 4. Restricted Deliver,,,? (Extra r ee) ? Yes 71105 1820 0004 171-? 5866 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 MIME . • , I .? FIT CO .. II Ln • I: ,li M F??Z9I1*??, ra N _ Portage $ C3 Certified Fee O Return Receipt Fee Postmark (Endorsement Required) Here Restricted Delivery Fee rl_I (Endorsement Required) CO r-q Total Postage & Fees Ln ?i C3 Sent To, - - --- - -°-- O r1- t ..---- Sreet, ..._._.________________. _ or PO x No. City, te. ZlP+4 -- _ . .............. .. ............._.._...._._.....--°-...._._.. ? P Illll?l?p??p 213JU' —5 pi 11: 53 BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 1 Q, j'i6die Road Attorney for Plaintiff (610) 277-4700 FAX = :s �r'` � 1 'wln; PA 19401-1745 Id. No. 28400 Jai' . r III������ Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, et ux. Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY versus Civil Action - Law Defendant. Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Garrett Stanton, et al. No. 12-4579 PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER And now comes the Plaintiffs, Todd and Sherry Acre by their attorney Boyd Spencer, Esquire to answer the Defendant's New Matter as follows: 57. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 57 of Defendant's New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 58. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 58 of Defendant's New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 59. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 59 of Defendants' New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. Additionally, damages suffered by Plaintiffs were caused solely by Defendants and no third parties. 60. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 60 of Defendant's New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial 61 . Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 61 of Defendants' New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Ruies of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 62. Denied. The allegations of Paragraphs 62 of Defendants New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 63. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 63 of Defendants' New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 64. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 64 of Defendants' New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 65. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 65 of Defendants New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 66. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 66 of Defendants New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 67. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 67 of Defendants New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. Additionally, Plaintiffs were significantly injured as result of Defendants' negligence as described in their civil complaint. 68. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 68 of Defendants New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. Additionally, Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result of Defendants' negligence as alleged in their civil complaint. 69. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 69 of Defendants New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 70. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 70 of Defendants New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 71 . Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 71 of Defendants New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. Additionally, as Plaintiff, Todd Acre was operating a motorcycle at the time of the accident, Plaintiffs do not have to meet the "serious injury" threshold requirement pursuant to Pennsylvania law. 72. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 72 of Defendants New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Todd and Sherry Acre demand judgement be entered in his favor against the Defendants, Garrett Stanton, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC., Papa Johns Pizza, Papa John's USA, Inc., and Papa John's International, Inc. DATED: July 1 , 2013 /s/oo/o spencer Boy61 .- -r, Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION I , Todd Acre, Plaintiff, hereby state and verify and certify that the statements in the attached Answer to New Matter and the attachments thereto, are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C. S . § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities . I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment . DATED : 7 / .%'_ Todd Acre P_ Ffl E��-�1FF!, is 6 I'i E P f i 0 1 H U NI(1 B A R Y NOTICE TO PLEAD 2.31 a� ij a " 3 2 TO: PLAINTIFF 3 -�+- 1 lei s `l r You are hereby notified to file a reply to the enclosed Ansvu?rwi*N New Matter within (20) CUMBERLAND C O U N$Y days from s ice her o or a judgment may be P E N IN S Y L V A N I A entered agai st you. Attorney r Defe.ddants WILSON,ELSER,MOSKOWITZ,EDELMAN& DICKER LLP By: Jeffrey L. Oster, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D.No. 204892 The Curtis Center, Suite 1130 East Independence Square West Attorney for Defendants Philadelphia, PA 19106 Garrett Stanton and Tel: 215 627-6900 Pizza 4 All 2, LLC TODD ACRE and SHERRY ACRE, et. ux., : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, ,, - Case.No. 12-4579 V. CIVIL TERM =C-) PIZZA 4 ALL 2, LLC, et. al., r.s- Defendants. _ - N DEFENDANTS, PIZZA 4 ALL 2,LLC and GARRETT STANTON'S, ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT COME NOW, Defendants, Garrett Stanton and Pizza 4 All 2, LLC ("Answering Defendants"), though their undersigned counsel, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, and hereby answer the Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: I. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 806163.1 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, it is admitted only that Defendant, Garrett Stanton, is an individual, citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The remaining averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, it is admitted only that Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, is a limited liability company in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a place of business at 300 South Fayette Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257. The remaining averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 806163.1 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 9. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced employees, servants, workmen and/or agents. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 10. Admitted in part, denied in part. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, it is admitted only that Defendant, Garrett Stanton, was in an accident with Plaintiff, Todd Acre, on September 5, 2010. The remaining averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11. All of the above paragraphs are incorperated by reference into all of the below paragraphs of this Answer with New Matter as if they were set out in full at length. COUNT I-NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT, GARRETT STANTON 12. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or 806163.1 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. It is specifically denied that an automobile operated by Defendants, Garrett Stanton, struck Plaintiff, Todd Acre—an invididual. After a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Garrett Stanton, was negligent or careless at any time. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 16. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Garrett Stanton, was negligent at any time. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. COUNT II—NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT,PIZZA 4 ALL 2,LLC 17. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 18. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 806163.1 19. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, was negligent at any time. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 20. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, was negligent at any time. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 21. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, was negligent at any time. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 22. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, was negligent at any time. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 23. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, was negligent at any time. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 24. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Pizza 4 806163.1 All 2, LLC, was negligent at any time. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. COUNT III—NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT,PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA 25. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 26. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the" Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 27. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 28. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 806163.1 29. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 30. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to,which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 31. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. COUNT IV—NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT,PAPA JOHN'S USA,INC. 32. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 33. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or 806163.1 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 34. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 35. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 36. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 37. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 846163.1 38. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 39. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 40. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. COUNT V—NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT,PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL,INC. 41. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 42. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or 806163.1 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 43. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 44. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the'"Plaintiffs 'have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 45. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 46. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 806163.1 47. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law. to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 48. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 49. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as the Plaintiffs have failed to concisely identify the referenced location. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. COUNT VI—DAMAGES,TODD ACRE 50. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph. These allegations are therefore denied an d strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 51. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 806163.1 52. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 53. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 54. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC and Garrett Stanton, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with reasonable attorney fees, costs and any such further relief which the Court may deem appropriate. COUNT VII—LOSS OF CONSORTIUM DAMAGES, SHERRY ACRE 55. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendants were negligent, reckless and/or careless at any time. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 56. Denied. To the extent, if at all, the allegations contained in this paragraph are not conclusions of law to which no response is required, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendants were negligent at any time. These allegations are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 806163.1 WHEREFORE, Defendants, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC and Garrett Stanton, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with reasonable attorney fees, costs and any such further relief which the Court may deem appropriate. NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 57. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs 1 through 56 as if set forth at length herein. 58. If the Plaintiffs suffered the injuries and damages alleged herein, which is denied, those injuries or damages were caused in whole or in part by the negligence of Plaintiffs, and recovery herein is barred or diminished in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §7102. 59. If the Plaintiffs suffered the injuries and damages alleged herein, which is denied, those injuries or damages were caused in whole or in part by the actions or inactions of third parties over whom Answering Defendants had no control and for whose conduct they are not responsible. 60. Some or all of the claims for which relief is sought herein are barred by the.applicable statute or statutes of limitations. 61. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted against the Answering Defendants. 62. Answering Defendants are not guilty of any negligence, carelessness, recklessness or breach of any duty owed to the Plaintiffs. 63. Answering Defendants did not proximately or actually cause the Plaintiffs' injuries or damages. 64. Plaintiffs assumed the risk of their own conduct. 65. Plaintiffs' cause of action must fail due to the defense of unavoidable accident. 806163.1 66. Plaintiffs' cause of action must fail due to the sudden emergency doctrine. 67. Plaintiffs' cause of action must fail because they were not injured as a result of the accident. 68. Plaintiffs' cause of action must fail because they did not suffer any damages as a result of the accident. 69. Plaintiffs must be barred from recovery because they failed to mitigate their damages. 70. The provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §1701, et sec,., apply in this case to limit or bar the Plaintiffs'cause of action. 71. The Plaintiffs have not suffered a "serious injury" necessary to meet the threshold requirements of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §1705 to sustain a third-party tort action. 72. Answering Defendants reserve the right to supplement their New Matter against Plaintiffs up to and at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC and Garrett Stanton, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with reasonable attorney fees, costs and any such further relief which the Court may deem appropriate. WILSON,E SER OSKOWITZ, EDELMA & D KER LLP Date: June 2� 2013 Jeffrey L ster, Esquire Attorn or Defendants, Garre tanton and Pizza 4 All 2, LLC 806163.1 VERIFICATION Garrett Stanton states that he is an individual and a named party in the within action; that he is acquainted with the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter; that, while the language is that of counsel, the same are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: Garrett Stanton Dated: June ',2013 8 x,163.1 VERIFICATION Elizabeth Darus hereby states that she is a representative of a named party in the within action; that she is acquainted with the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter; that, while the language is that of counsel, the same are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: Elizabeth A. Darus Elizabeth Darus, as a Representative of PIZZA 4 ALL 2, LLC Dated: June 28, 2013 806163.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Jeffrey L. Oster, Esquire, attorney for Defendants, Garrett Stanton and Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, hereby certifies that on June ;"2013, a true and correct copy of instant Answer with New Matter was served upon the following counsel of record via U.S. First-Class mail: Boyd Spencer, Esquire Boyd Spencer& Associates 2100 Swede Road Norristown, PA 19401-1745 Counsel for Plaintiffs, Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, et ux. Barry A. Kronthal, Esquire Margolis Edelstein 3'51`0 Trindie Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Counsel for Defendants Papa John's, Papa John's USA, In ., a d Papa John's International, c. J fret' . Oster, Esquire 806163.1 ^ ^ BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 Swede Road Attorney for Plaintiff (610) 277-4700 FAX 277-4888 Norristown, PA 19401-1745 Id. No. 28400 ^ Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, et ux. Plaintiff s IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY MW C— Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Garrett Stanton, et al. co PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER And now comes the Plaintiffs, I odd and Sherry Acre by their a oMey;§oy0.*1 Spencer, Esquire to answer the Defendant's New Matter as follows: 57. Denied. The allegations ofParagraph 57Of Defendant's New Matter are conclusions of law tO which OO 8OSvV8r is required under 1{]29 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 58. Denied. The allegations ofParagraph 58ofDefendant's New Matter are CDnC|UsiOnS 0f law tO which no answer is required under 1{}29 of the Pennsylvania Rules Of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 59. Denied. The allegations OfParagraph 5[) OfDefendants' New Matter are C{}nC\uSionS Of \3vv to which AO anSvV8[ is required under 1(}29 Of the P8nnSy/V8Di8 Rules of Civil P[OC8dU[e. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. Additionally, damages suffered h» Plaintiffs were caused solely bv Defendants and nO third parties, 6(}. Denied. The allegations Of Paragraph 6[> Of Defendant's New Matter are conclusions of law tU which no answer iS required Under 1[)29 of the P8DOSy|v@Oi8 Rules ofCivil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support Ofthese � conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial / 61 . Denied. The allegations OfParagraph 61 of Defendants' New Matter are COOC{UsioDS of law to which OO 8OSvVer is required under 1(}29 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support Dfthese conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 67. Denied. The allegation's Of Paragraphs 62 of Defendants New Matter are conclusions nf law to which nO answer iSrequired under 1(]29Of the PennSy|aDio ' ^ Rules DfCivil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support ofthese conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 63. Denied. The allegations ofParagraph 63mfDefendants' New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support ofthese � conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 64. Denied. The allegations OfParagraph 64mf Defendants' New Matter are conclusions Of law to which no answer is required under 1{}29 Of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support c]fthese conclusions Of law are specifically denied and strict proof isdemanded at time oftrial. 65. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 65 of Defendants New Matter are COOC|u8ionS Of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support Ofthese conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof iS demanded @t time Oftrial. 66. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 66 of Defendants New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer ia required under 1[)29mfthe Pennsylvania Rules ofCivil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support Ofthese conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof i8 demanded at time oftrial. 67' Denied. The allegations ofParagraph 67of Defendants New Matter are conclusions of law tO which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. Additionally, Plaintiffs were significantly injured as result of Defendants' negligence as described in their civil complaint. 68. Denied. The allegations Of Paragraph 68Of Defendants New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the PeOO8y|*8nio Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these ` conclusions nf law are specifically denied and strict proof ia demanded ot time oftrial. Additionally, Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result of Defendants' negligence as alleged in their civil complaint. 89' [}gOi8d. The allegations OfParagraph 69OfDefendants New Matter are conclusions of law to which nO answer isrequired under 1O29Ofthe Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these \ conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 70' Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 7(} of Defendants New Matter are ` conclusions of law to which no @nsvvo, is required Under 1(]29 of the Pennsylvania N � Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 71 . Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 71 of Defendants New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. Additionally, as Plaintiff, Todd Acre was operating a motorcycle at the time of the accident, Plaintiffs do not have to meet the "serious injury" threshold requirement pursuant to Pennsylvania law. 72. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 72 of Defendants New Matter are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under 1029 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, any and all facts alleged in support of these conclusions of law are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Todd and Sherry Acre demand judgement be entered in his favor against the Defendants, Garrett Stanton, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC., Papa Johns Pizza, Papa John's USA, Inc., and Papa John's sZ 0 linte tional, Inc. V DATED: July 15, 2013 V� e ier Boyd nc&,Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION ladd t Pia-intif ' , -e,,-ehy state and verify and cer— fy he statements i ki e attached L ,' Lt_achrrients thereto, are t -ached Answer to New Mat-ter, arid the c;a t* i-(.-�11, k,r true and correct to the best of My ledg�--� and he_ lef I understand that the statements 11 to +-�ie p en a t i e s o-17 urlswcrr� 8 Pa. s L ra J.S,i If L 11 f C)I:r. - - - t I s 01] PS T am aware tlha.-t'by e -e w� I 71,i?F-ts m a rl� Y a i Todd Acre WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP By: Henry F. Canelo, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. No. 87993 Attorney for Defendants The Curtis Center, Suite 1130 East Garrett Stanton, Independence Square West Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Philadelphia, PA 19106 Papa John's, Papa John's USA, Inc. Tel: 215 627-6900 and Papa John's International, Inc. TODD ACRE AND SHERRY ACRE, et ux, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs V. No. 12-4579 GARRETT STANTON, ~ and CIVIL PIZZA 4 ALL 2, LLC, . ; and 2M rn c= PAPA JOHN'S, Gr) and PAPA JOHN'S USA, INC., F? and PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants ENTRYIWITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance as counsel on behalf of Defendants, Garrett Stanton, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Papa John's, Papa John's USA, Inc., and Papa John's International, Inc., in the above- referenced matter. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP ry F. Canelo -Esquire Attorney for Defendants Garrett Stanton, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Papa John's, Papa John's USA, Inc., and Papa John's International, Inc. Date: August 2, 2013 817212.1 1 TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw my appearance as counsel on behalf of Defendants, Garrett Stanton, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Papa John's, Papa John's USA, Inc., and Papa John's International, Inc., in the above- referenced matter. WILSON, ELSER, OSKOWITZ, EDELMAN DIC R LLP Jeffrey L. Wster Esquire Date: August 2, 2013 817212.1 S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Henry F. Canelo, Esquire, attorney for Defendants, Garrett Stanton, Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Papa John's, Papa John's USA, Inc., and Papa John's International, Inc., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry/Withdrawal of Appearance, was served via First-Class Mail to the following persons this 2"d day of August 2013: Steven R. Kmett, Esquire Boyd Spencer, Esquire 2100 Swede Road Norristown, PA 19401-1745 Attorney,for Plaintiffs, Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, et ux. Barry A. Kronthal, Esquire Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendants Papa John's, Papa John's USA, Inc., and Papa John's International, Inc. Henry F. Ca lo, Esquire 817212.1 WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP By: Jeffrey L. Oster, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. No. 204892 The Curtis Center, Suite 1130 East Independence Square West Attorney for Defendants Philadelphia, PA 19106 Papa John's, Papa John's USA, Inc. Tel: 215 627-6900 and Papa John's International, Inc. TODD ACRE AND SHERRY ACRE, et ux, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs V. No. 12-4579 GARRETT STANTON, and CIVIL PIZZA 4 ALL 2, LLC, and PAPA JOHN'S, and -,T,! PAPA JOHN'S USA, INC., rnco and PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., r- c-n Defendants 5� � : C:: mac.; _ ENTRY OF APPEARANCE - TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance as on behalf of defendants, Papa John's, Papa John's USA, Inc. and Papa John's International, Inc., in the above-referenced matter. WILSON, _LSER, M SKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICK R LLP Jeffrey L Oste , Esquire Attorne for efendants, Papa J ' , Papa John's USA, Inc., and Papa J s International, Inc. 816657.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Jeffrey L. Oster, Esquire, attorney for Defendants, Papa John's, Papa John's USA, Inc., and Papa John's International, Inc., hereby certify that on �� ° W was filed a true and correct copy of the Entry of Appearance to the following counsel of record via U.S. First-Class mail: Steven R. Kmett, Esquire Boyd Spencer, Esquire 2100 Swede Road Norristown, PA 19401-1745 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, et ux. Barry A. Kronthal, Esquire Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendants Papa John's, Papa John's USA, Inc., and Papa John's International, Inc. Jeffrey L. Este , Esquire 816657.1 BOYD SPENCER, ESQUIRE 2100 Swede Road Attorney for Plaintiff (610) 277-4700 FAX 277-4888 Norristown, PA 19401-1745 Id. No. 28400 •Todd Acre and Sherry Acre, et ux. Plaintiffs versus Defendant. Pizza 4 All 2, LLC, Garrett Stanton, et al. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Civil Action - Law No. 12-4579 ORDER TO MARK ACTION SETTLED, DISCONTINUED, AND ENDED TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Mark this action settled, discontinued, and ended upon payment of your costs only. I hereby certify there are no more outstanding petitions, liens, motions for new trial or appeals in the above entitled action DATED: November 5, 2014 B Spencer At ney for Plaintiff r "4