Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-6810~~ ~.e n, ~~~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ L ~,"a `~~'t`„ i ~ }t~rR+I:ri ANGiNO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz. Esquire Attorney iD# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Han~isbwg, Psi. 171 ]0-1708 (717)238-6791 f~AX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff 1-mail: dlutz(tiangino-rovner.com iv~IICHAEL KREIDER. Plaintiff ~. IN' THE COURT OF COMMON PLF_,AS CUMBERLAND COLTI~iTY, PA DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEPER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. CIVIL .ACTION -LAW D/Bi.A. SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 w7iting 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 na.ay praceed without you and judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief re~Jt~esred by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER. T'O YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, UO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE C~,N PROVIDE Y"OL1 WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING ALAWYER. /~1 ~-? 1 a ~l'.135 ~ ~ a ~~ 7$ IF Y(~U CAi ~ OT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER., THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE, YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES T'LLAT MAY OFFER LEGAL, SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE. PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA .Telephone number- 717- 249-3166 AVISO t'S TEL) HA SIDO DEMANDADO!A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se persentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accic~n dentro de los proximos veinte (20} dias despues do la notificacign de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a , las demandas presentadas aqui en contra soya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tumar accion Como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sire usted y un fallo por cualquier soma de direro reclamada en la demanda o cixalquier otra reclamacion a remedio solicitado por el demandante puede sex dictado en contra. soya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicionaL iJsed puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes Para used. LISTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INI~-'fEDIATAMENTE. SI USED NO TIENE Lei ABOG~IDO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SICL'IENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DF, (.'OMO CONSE(TL'IR UN ABOGADO. SI USED NO PUEDE FAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE L"N ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE E.STA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA .Telephone number- 717- 249-31.66 ~i.is ANGINO ~k FkOVNER, P.C. David L. Lut?. Esquire Attorney -D# : 35956 4503 North Front St. eet Harrisburg. p~ 17110-1708 1717) 7.38-6791 1'A7~ (?i7j 238-S6t0 Attorneys ter Plaintiffs E.-mail: dluta,cangino-rovner.com 1`:~rICHAr L 1tREIDF,R, Plaintiff v.. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE IeEEFE1Z, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. D/13/A SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, j~efendants IN T`HF, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. CIVIL ACTION -LAW JI;RY TRIAL DEMANrJED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Michael Kreider is an adult individual and resident of Mount Joy, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Deborah A. Lucy is an adult individual residing at 533 ~}ood Hope Roast, !t/Iech~anicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050.. 3. Defendant George Keefer is an adult individ~:al residing at 533 Good Llope Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 4. 120 East Allen, Inc. d/bia Snappers Bar & Grill (hereinafter referred to as Snappers), is a corporation with a principle place of business located at 120 East Allen Street, i~iechaT~icshi~rg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 170.55. S. Snappers is a bar and grill Located at 120 East. Allen Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 1705. 511135 Defendant Deborah Lucy 6. 'The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on August 24, 2012, at approximately 8:53 p.m. on East Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland Pennsylvania. '?. At that. time and place, Plaintiff Michael Kreider was operating a 1999 Harley Davidson Road King motorcycle, traveling west on East Trindle Road. 8. At the same time and place, Defendant Lucy was operating Defendant George reefer's 1994 Furd Mustang.. traveling east on East Trindle Road. 9. Defendant. Lucy was plazirzing to tizrzz left from Fast Trindle Road and proceed north on South Sportizzg Hill Road. 1 u. When i~efendant Lzzcy started to turd the Mustang left, attempting to proceed noz-th on Saurh Sporting Hill Road, she caused the left front of the Mustang to collide into the left side of the Harley-Davidson motorcycle ar~d Mr. Kreider. 11. Upon striking 1VIr. Kreider and his motorcycle, Defendant Lucy fled the collision scene. 12. Within minutes after the collision. the Hampton Township Police were summoned to the collision scezze. The investigating police officer then proceeded to Defendant Lucy's residence on Good Hope Road and found Defendant Lucy to be severely intoxicated. 13. Within minutes of the collision, Defendant Lucy was arrested by the Hampton "l•ou7iship Police. 14. Defendant Lucy's blood alcohol content was .21.9% while operating the Mustang at the time that she caused a serious motor vehicleimotorcycle collision and fled the collision scene. SOOi73 2 Defendant George Keefer 1 S. Before the aforesaid collision, Defendant George .Keefer was with Defendant Lucy at Snappers Bar ~ Grill. 1 h. During the hours before the aforesaid motor vehicle/motorcycle collision, Defendant George Keefer and Defendant Deborah Lucy consumed alcoholic beverages together at I~9oe's Bar & Grill located at 4i(?9 Gettysburg Road in Mechanicsburg and. then consumed alcoholic beverages at Snappers. l r, While at Snappers, Defendant Lucy consumed a cohol and he°came visibly intoxicated. 1. tt. During their time at Snappers, Defendant Keefer and Defendant Lucy argued and Defendant Keeler gave Defendant Lucy the keys to his Ford Mustang, even though Defendant Lucy was visibly intoxicated, and shortly after s'~e loll Snappers she caused the aforesaid motor vehicle/motorcycle col'ision. Defendant Sna ors Z 9. ,At all times material herein, Defendant Snappers was the holder of a Pennsylvania retail liquor license pursuant to the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, 47 I'a. Cons. Stat. Ann. fi4-401, entitling said corporation to sell and dispense intoxicating beverages for consumption by patrons on the premises known as Snappers. 20. During the hours before the aforesaid motor vehicle/motorcycle collision, Defendant Lucy errtered Snappers and remained on the premises until a short ti~~ne b~l-ore the su4~ject motor vehiclehnotorcvcle collision. SOC>>'%3 ~ l At all tines material herein, Defendant Lucy was a customer of Snappers when. agents, servants, and,ior employees of Defendant Snappers sold, furnished, gave or permitted to be sold, furnished, or given intoxicating beverages to Defendant Lucy. 22. Ser~.~ice of the aforesaid intoxicating beverages to Defendant Lucy by agents, servants. and/or employees. of Snappers took place while Defendant Lucy was visibly intoxicated, with a blood alcohol content at or near .219%. 23. Defendant Snappers' sale and service of the aforementioned alcol-iolic beverages to Defendant' Lucy, while she was visibly intoxicated, was negligent and constituted a violation of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, ~l i Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §`l-q9 s. 2<~. Plaintiff believes anal therefore aver that within urinates of leaving Snappers, Defendant. I:,~.xcy caused the Mi.istang to collide into the motorcycle operated by Plaintiff Michael Kreider. 2~. Within a short time after Defendant Lucy left Defendant Snappers and while Defendant Lucy was iri an extremely intoxicated state, She drove a tilustarg east on Last Trindie road and turned left directly into Plaintiff Michael Kreider and his motorcycle. C(~[.JNT I Michael. Kreider ~~. Deborah Luce 26. Paragrapl7_s 1 through 2~ of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 2;. The foregoing motor vehicle/motorcycle collision and alI of the damages su~iaineci b~~.tlhe Plaintiff are the direct and proximate r~s~.zlt of tlae negligent, car~,less, wanton, outrageous, and reckless manner in which Defendant Deborah Lucy operated the Mustang as follows: suu~ ~~ 4 a. failure to yield the right of way to a motorcycle traveling in the opposite direction; b. driving. a Mustang while extremely intoxicated and unfit to safely operate tlP -vehicle; c. failure to stop the Mustang at a collision scene when it was obvious that the operator of the motorcycle was seriously injured; 28. Defendant Deborah Lucy's conduct was outrageous, justifying punitive damages giver; her reckless indifference to the rights and safety of Plaintiff Michael Kreider and her deliberate disr;gard to the rights and safety of Mr. Kreider. 29. Defendant Deborah Lucy's conduct as set forth herein, exhibited a reckless disregard for the safety of Plaintiff Michael Kreider because she knew that her severe intoxication created a high degree of risk of physical harm to any operator of vehicles on Trindle fioa.d and vet she deliberately proceeded. to drive the Mustang while severely intoxicated. ;il. Defendant Deborah I_,ucy's intoxication and fleeing the collision scene in an attempt to evade detection. and/or arrest, together with all of the circumstances set forth herein, establishes reckless indifference tQ the rights and safety of Plaintiff Michael Kreider. COUNT II Michael Kreider v. George Keefer 3 i Paragraphs 1 through 25 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 3:.'. Defendant George Keefer knew or sl-iould have known that when he provided Defendant Deborah Lucy the keys to .his Mustang that she was visibly .intoxicated and therefore incompetent to safely operate his motor vehicle. S~i01?3 ti 3.~. By reason of Defendant Deborah Lucy's visible intoxication and failure to be competent. to safely operate his Mustang, Defendant George Keefer knew that she was unfit to safely operate his tvlustang and that it was foi°oseeable that she would. cause a rnotor vehicle collision giver. her severe intoxication. 3~1. Defendant Keefer negligently entrusted his Mustang to Defendant Lucy knowing or he should have knotivn that she would create an unreasonable risk of harm to other motor vehicle operators on Trindle Road given Defendant >Jucy's extreme intoxication and unfitness to safely operate )'iis motor vehicle.. 3 ~. ~s such, Defendant Keefer is liable to Plaintiff Michael Kreider. COUNT II% Michael Kreider v. i 20 East Allen, Inc. d/?o,/a Snappers Bar & Grill 36. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by rei'erence. i . Defendant Snappers, through its agents, servants, and/or employees, is liable to the Plaintiff Michael Kreider for damages as alleged herein, as follows: a. negligently selling and furnishing liquar and%or alcoholic beverages to Defendant Lucy-while she was visibly intoxicated; b. failure to properly train and supervise its employees so as to prevent them from selling and/car. furnishing liquor and/or alcoholic beverages to invitees who are visi~dl~,= intoxicated; c. negligently failing to warn Defendant i ucy that she should not drive due to her intoxicated state; 500173 (j d. failing to prevent Defendant Lucy front operating a motor vehicle after serving lzer alcoholic beverages while she was visibiy intoxicated, despite the obvious risk of harm to persons operating motor vehicles on "i'rindle Road; e. violatir•Yg the la~v of the Common«-ealth of Pennsylvania regarding the sensing of alcoholic beverages to visibly intoxicated persons; and 1~. selling or furnishing liquor and,~or other alcoholic beverages to Defendant Lucy in a reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others. 3$. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, gross negligence, ar~d/or reckless indifference of Snappers' employees and servants as alleged 1-ierein, Pla.irztif; Michael Kreider sustained serious and permanent damages. CL~~.IM I Michael Kreider v. Deborah J .uc~,~ Crearge Keefer and 120 Fast Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar. ~ Grll 39. Paragraphs 1 through ~5 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 40. Plaintiff Michael Kreider sustained p~inrul and severe injuries, which include but are not limited to: fracture of the left l 2`" rib. ti•acture of the left transverse processes of L-2 and L-3, pulmonary nodules, Ieft femur, tibia, fibula fractures with extensive soft tissue swelling, laceration to the anterior tibia, fractures of the first, second, and. third metatarsals on the left. ~1. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiff'~~~ichael Kre,'der, he was forced o incur liability for hospitalization, multiple surgeries, including skin grafting, medical care and treatment and claim i s made trierefore. soo~;3 ~ 42. Because of the nature of his injuries, Plaintiff Michael Kreider ha<.; been advised and therefore avers that he will be forced to incur similar expenses in the future particularly if he must undergo an amputation and claim is made therefore. 43. Plaintiff Michael Kreider has undergone and in the future will undergo physical and mental suffering, inconvenience in carrying out his daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefore. 44. Plaintiff Michael Kreider continues to be plagued by persistent pain and limitation and avers that his injuries are of a permanent nature, causing residual problems for the remainder of his lifetime, and claim is made therefore. 45. Plaintiff Michael Kreider has sustained permanent injuries that will impact his earning capacity in the future and claim is made therefore. 46. Plaintiff has sustained work loss and claim is made therefore. 47. As a result of trauma that necessitated multiple surgeries, Plaintiff Michael Kreider has sustained disfigurement and claim is made therefore. VVI-IEREFORE, Plaintiff Michael Kreider demands judgment against Defendants Deborah Lucy, George Keefer and 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. sooir g ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. v d .Lutz LD. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Date \~~~'~~~ Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 -phone (717) 238-5610 -fax dlutz@angino-rovner.com Attorney for Plaintiff 500173 9 VERIFICATION I, MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff, have read the foregoing COMPLAINT and do hereby swear or affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. WITNESS: ~. G..- ~- MICHAEL I IDER Dated: /O ~v % 511135 ANCINO & RCjdNEI~, t'.f:. David i_,- Luz. Esyuirc Attorney ID;* ::15956 4503 North Frort Street Harrisburg, PA 171 ]0-]708 (717} 238-6'91, FAX (717j X38-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiir E-mail: dlutz~r`augino-rovner.com I~~IICHAEI, KREIDER, Plaintiff `J. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PL1?A.S CUMBERLAND COL~i~fY, PA NTO. DF_,BORAII A. LUCY, GEORGE KEErER, and 1.20 EAST ALLEN, INC. CIVIL ACTION- -- LA~~ ~'B; A SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants ~ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SHERIFF'S DIRECTIONS Please serve Defendant Deborah A. L~~~cy at her place of ~•esidence at S33 Good Hcpe Road, 1`/I::charicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050, by leaving a. copy of the t`~omplaini with her, with an adult relative, or with an adult person in charge at that tine,. Please serve Defendant George Keefer a: his place of residence at 533 Good I-lope Road, ltiiechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050, by leaving a copy of the Complaint with l.er, with an adult relative, or with an adult person in charge at that time. Ple~j.se serve 120 East Allen, Inc. d/bia Snappers Bar ~. Grill ,. at their principle place of business located at 12U East Allen Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 1'; 05_ by leaving a copy of the Complaint with an adult person in charge at that time. AN`GINO & ROVNER, F.C. Date: Da L. Lutz ------------------- PA LD. No. 35956 4503 N. 1~ront Street Harrisburg, PA 171 IO (717) 238-6791, (717;) 238-5610 tax diutz(a angina-rovner.com Attorney for Plaintiff Si,«; Amy Coryer Miller, Esquire Atty I.D. 82718 Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Atty LD. 307656 Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) anliller(~i;laverylaw.com jhosei~pu(" ~G~ verylaw.com Attys for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill ~P '-~' J t 1i-. f~ _ r. f ^~ r~}t g (- r~ fSL/`li?L7 i.~Utr1.~14 ~I 1~ ' t a' :~ ~ ~ ~ }ref i ~Y l e~ MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff v. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEPER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. DB/A SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-6810 CIVIL ACTION LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Amy Coryer. Miller, Esquire, Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire and the firm of Lavery Faherty Patterson on behalf of Defendant. 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill only, in the above-caption matter. Respectfully submitted, Lavery Faherty Patterson DATE: ~l"~,~~~ DATE: ~~ ~ l ~ f ~ ~ '~ By: Amy Coryer ller, Esquire 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Atty No. PA82718 am iller(a:•~laverylaw.com Attys for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill B 22~~~f Street, Suite 4 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 1710 -1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Atty No. PA307656 ~hosenpud(~%laverylaw.com Attys for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joan L. Helmuth, an employee with the law firm of Lavery Faherty Patterson, do hereby certify that on this 21St day of November, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe via U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 t an L. Helmuth, Legal Secretary to Amy Coryer. Miller, Esquire and Jessica S. Hosenpud 3 ,, ~ ~ ~,.~_ ~ ~ E'l`i ~; ~-~ _~_; ~' < ; ~~~;~ ~D C~liil~l 'i; ~~~~~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIV{L DIVISION Plaintiff, NO. 12-6810 v. PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEPER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. D/B/A! (Jury Trial Demanded) SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants. Filed on Behalf of the Defendants Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 #19607 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v. NO. 12-6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEPER, (Jury Trial Demanded) and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. DIB/AI SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY Kindly enter the Appearance of the undersigned, Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, of the law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C., on behalf of the Defendants, George Keefer, in the above case. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE $c SKEEL'~ P.C. By: e~ih D. Rauch, Esquire ounsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 20th day of November, 2012. David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Attorney for Plaintiff) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE &,$K~EL, P.C. By: le'D1. Rauch, Esquire nsel for Defendants Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY y. ~~, '~ f', '. ~~ V ~\L ~ I i111 a .1 ~ f i~1 .~,,, qt ~amti . Sy~'4~~ ^ F~/i~~ v ~ Michael Kreider vs. Deborah A Lucy (et al.) ~~ PENNS ~~.4'~~ ~~~~3 Case Number 2012-6810 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 11/08/2012 07:59 PM -Deputy Jason Kinsler, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice by "personally" handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be the Defendant, to wit: Deborah A Lucy at 533 Good Hope Road, Hampden Twp, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. SON KINSLER, DEPUTY 11/08/2012 07:59 PM -Deputy Jason Kinsler, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice by "personally" handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be the Defendant, to wit: George S Keefer at 533 Good Hope Road, Hampden Twp, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. J SON KINSLER, DEPUTY 11/13/2012 04:33 PM -Deputy Ryan Burgett, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Athena Balafoutas, Owner, who accepted as "Adult Person in Charge" for 120 E. Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snapper's Bar & Grill at 120 East Allen Street, Mechanicsburg Borough, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. SHERIFF COST: $80.00 November 14, 2012 __--- RYAN BURGETT, DEP SO ANSWERS, ! ~ ~` RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF cou- s~~r,~r -i,i4 i i.. ~~ ~..i ; . .~`~..~' ~~ r.~~, . ,,, „ -,, ', ~ l r.. r: ~ _ '!,; ..; ,-~i ti IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, NO. 12-6810 v. PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEPER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. D/B/A/ (Jury Trial Demanded) SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants. Filed on Behalf of the Defendants Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717} 901-5916 #19607 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. N O. 12-6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEPER, (Jury Trial Demanded) and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. D/B!A/ SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY Kindly enter the Appearance of the undersigned, Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, of the law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C., on behalf of the Defendant, Deborah A. Lucy, in the above case. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE 8~ SKEEL, P.C. ~~ By: vi D. Ra h, Esquire Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 29th day of November, 2012. David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Attorney for Plaintiff) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. By: ~~ Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendants t ~ ~ ~•, "~~ ~~ r n ,~ ' ~; }~. ~'ra,r., „1 ~ ",3 n ,- ( ~~ CY ~i~~1~~~-~iJ L, IJ ~J'At'lr fLb'C. ~ w j ~~; . ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 1?110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-mail: dlutz@angino-rovner.com MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff v. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. D; B/A SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 12-6810 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT GEORGE KEEFER SET NO. 1 To: Defendant George Keefer, by and through counsel, Kevin Rauch, Esquire Please take notice that you are hereby required, pursuant to Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, to serve upon the undersigned within thirty (30) days from service, your response to the admissions requested herein: 1. Dc~ you admit that on August 24, 2012, at approximately 8:53 p.m., Deborah Lucy was operating your 1994 Ford Mustang? Admit Deny OR~G1NPl 513>91 2. Do you admit that Deborah Lucy was involved in a motor vehicle collision on August 24, 2012, while operating your 1994 Ford Mustang? Admit Deny 3. Do you admit that before the subject motor vehicle collision, you were at Snappers Bar & Grill? Admit Deny 4. Do you admit that during the hours before the motor vehicle collision, you and Deborah Lucy were at Snappers Bar & Grill? Admit Deny 5. Do you admit that while you and Deborah Lucy were at Snappers Bar & Grill, Deborah Lucy consumed alcoholic beverages? Admit Deny 6. Do you admit that while you were at Snappers Bar & Grill, you provided Deborah Lucy with the keys to your 1994 Ford Mustang, giving her permission to operate your motor vehicle? Admit Deny 513591 7. Do you admit that when you provided Deborah Lucy with the keys to your 1994 Ford Mustang, she was incapable of safely operating your motor vehicle? Admit Deny Date: ~ ~ ~ ~} ~ ~ ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. ~-, _ David L.Zutz PA I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 -- phone (717) 238-5610 -fax dlutz@angino-rovner.com Attorney for Plaintiff 5]3591 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT GEORGE KEEFER -SET NO. 1 upon counsel for the Defendants via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers McDonnell, et al. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Defendants George Keefer and Deborah Lucy Amy Coryer Miller, Esquire Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market St., Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attorney for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc., d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill ~-- `' ~~ N ar . G raets Dated:'` - ~ ~ -~ Y 513591 Amy Coryer Miller, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 82718 Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 307656 Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone} (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) anuller<~ulaverylaw.com ihosenpudla),laver ~la~om Attorneys for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff v. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. DB/A SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants CIVIL ACTION LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Michael Kreider c/o David L. Lutz, Esq. Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment maybe entered against you. Lavery Faherty Patterson Date: lt~2q-(z., By: Esq. .. .lip .r i i ~4!1 ~ ~.~, r-~ r ~ ~~ ~.9 ~ ~ ~ "i ~' i r - _r S- ~ .~L.~1.ja1 ~ -~e t ~ ,y, i } f '~ E,I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-6810 120 East Allen Inc. Amy Coryer Miller, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 82718 Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 307656 Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) anuller~~ulaverylaw.com ~iosenpudra~laverylaw.com Attorneys for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff v. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-6810 CIVIL ACTION LAW Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT 120 EAST ALLEN, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM AND NOW, comes Defendant, 120 East Allen, Inc., d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill [hereinafter "Answering Defendant"], by and through undersigned counsel, Lavery Faherty Patterson, and for its Answer to the Complaint of the Plaintiff, states as follows: 1. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information regarding the residency of the Plaintiff, and accordingly, same is denied. 2. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information as to Defendant Deborah A. Lucy's [hereinafter "Lucy"] current residence, and same is therefore denied. 3. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information as to Defendant George Keefer's [hereinafter "Keefer"] current residence, and same is therefore denied. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information as to the facts and occurrences occurring in August, 2012, on East Trindle Road, and same is therefore denied. 7. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information as to the vehicle or route travelled by the Plaintiff and same is therefore denied. 8. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information as to the vehicle or route travelled by Lucy and accordingly, same is denied. 9. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information as to what Lucy planned and accordingly, same is denied. 10. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information as to the collision between Plaintiff and Lucy, and accordingly, same is denied. 11. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. 12. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information as to the actions of the Hampton Township Police, and same is therefore denied. 13. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information as to the actions of the Hampton Township Police, and same is therefore denied. 14. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. Defendant George Keefer 15. Admitted. 16. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Keefer and Lucy consumed alcoholic beverages together at Moe's Bar & Grill. It is specifically denied that Keefer and Lucy consumed alcoholic beverages together at Snappers. Keefer consumed alcoholic beverages but Lucy did not. 17. Denied. Lucy was not served any alcoholic beverages at Snappers. By way of further response, Lucy did she appear to be visibly intoxicated while at Snappers. 18. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Keefer and Lucy had a disagreement while in Snappers, and further that Keefer gave Lucy the keys to his Ford Mustang. The remaining allegations are denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Lucy appeared visibly intoxicated at any time she was in Snappers. Defendant Snappers 19. Admitted. 20. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that Lucy entered Snappers, though she came in with Keefer only briefly. The remaining allegations are denied. 21. Denied. It is specifically denied that Lucy was a customer of Snappers, and further denied that any agent, servant, and/or employee of Snappers furnished, gave or permitted the sale, furnishing or gifting of intoxicating beverages to Lucy. By way of further answer, Lucy was not served any alcoholic beverages while at Snappers. 22. Denied. It is denied that Lucy was visibly intoxicated, and further denied that that any agent, servant, and/or employee of Snappers furnished, gave or permitted the sale, furnishing or gift of intoxicating beverages to Lucy. 23. Denied. The corresponding allegations are denied as improper conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. It is specifically denied that Snappers served alcoholic beverages to Lucy. 24. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. 25. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. COUNTI Michael Kreider v. Deborah Lucy 26. The foregoing responding answers to paragraphs one (1) to twenty-four (24) are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 27. No answer is required as this averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant. 28. No answer is required as this averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant. 29. No answer is required as this averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant. 30. No answer is required as this averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant. COUNT II Michael Kreider v. George Keefer 31. The foregoing responding answers to paragraphs one (1) to thirty (30) are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 32. No answer is required as this averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant. 33. No answer is required as this averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant. 34. No answer is required as this averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant. 35. No answer is required as this averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant. COUNT II Michael Kreider v. 120 East Allen, Inc., d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill 36. The foregoing responding answers to paragraphs one (1} to thirty-five (35) are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 37. Denied. These averments are denied as improper conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent this averment is deemed to include allegations of fact, such allegations are denied. By way of further response, Answering Defendant was at no time negligent, careless, reckless or wrongful and at all times acted completely in accordance with accepted standards of care consistent with standards of the community. a. Denied. This averment is denied as an improper conclusion of law. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant or did its agents, servants and/or employees, sold or furnished liquor and/or alcoholic beverages to Lucy. It is also denied that Defendant Lucy was visibly intoxicated. b. Denied. This averment is denied as an improper conclusion of law. Answering Defendant provides training and supervision to its employees so as to prevent them from furnishing alcoholic beverages to invitees who are visibly intoxicated. By way of further answer, all employees are RAMP certified. c. Denied. This averment is denied as an improper conclusion of law. d. Denied. This averment is denied as an improper conclusion of law. e. Denied. This averment is denied as an improper conclusion of law. f. Denied. This averment is denied as an improper conclusion of law. It is further specifically denied that Answering Defendant sold or furnished liquor and/or alcoholic beverages to Defendant Lucy. 38. Denied. This averment is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent this averment is deemed to include allegations of fact, such allegations are denied. Furthermore, all allegations of causation and consequential injury are specifically denied as improper legal conclusions and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. rr A TAd T Michael Kreider v. Deborah Lucy, George Keefer and 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill 39. The foregoing responding answers to paragraphs one (1) to thirty-eight (38) are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. 40. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied and strict proof demanded thereof. 41. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied and strict proof demanded thereof. Further, all allegations of causation and consequential injury are specifically denied as improper legal conclusions. 42. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied and strict proof demanded thereof. Further, all allegations of causation and consequential injury are specifically denied as improper legal conclusions. 43. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied and strict proof demanded thereof. 44. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied and strict proof demanded thereof. 45. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied and strict proof demanded thereof. 46. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied and strict proof demanded thereof. 47. Denied. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied and strict proof demanded thereof. Further, all allegations of causation and consequential injury are specifically denied as improper legal conclusions. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, 120 East Allen Inc., respectfully prays that judgment be entered in its favor and the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER The Answering Defendant hereby raises the following New Matter: 48. The foregoing answers in paragraphs one (1) through forty-seven (47) are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length. 49. Defendants Lucy and Keefer were patrons of Moe's Bar & Grill for the majority of the evening in question. 50. Defendant did not, nor did its agents, servants and/or employees, serve or furnish any alcoholic beverages to Lucy while she was inside Snappers. 51. Lucy did not consume any alcoholic beverages while inside Snappers. 52. Lucy was not visibly intoxicated while inside Snappers. 53. The Plaintiff may have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 54. Discovery may reveal that Plaintiff's claims may be barred in whole or in part by one or more affirmative defenses set forth in Pa. R.C.P. 1030, which are incorporated herein by reference including, but not limited to, assumption of the risk, collateral estoppel, res judicata, release, or immunity from suit. 55. Answering Defendant was not negligent, reckless or careless. 56. Answering Defendant's agents, servants and/or employees were not negligent, reckless or careless. 57. Any acts or omissions of the Answering Defendant and/or Answering Defendant's agents, servants and/or employees alleged to constitute negligence were not substantial causes or factors of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged by the Plaintiff. 58. The incidents and/or damages described in the Plaintiff's Complaint may have been caused or contributed to by the Plaintiff. 59. Plaintiff s negligence exceeds that of Defendants, if such is proven. 60. The negligent acts or omissions of other individuals and/or entities may have constituted intervening, superseding causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff. 61. Answering Defendant, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2252, will be joining George and Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill, as an Additional Defendant for purposes of contribution and indemnification on the claim of the Plaintiff and hereby avers that said Additional Defendant is alone liable on the Plaintiff s claim, is liable over to Answering Defendant, or is jointly and severally liable with Answering Defendant. 62. The Plaintiff may have assumed the risk. 63. The Plaintiff may have been contributorily negligent. 64. The incident, injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff were not proximately caused by Answering Defendant. 65. Plaintiff may not have properly mitigated his damages. 66. Answering Defendant desires, and is entitled to, a trial by jury. NEW MATTER CROSS-CLAIM PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1031.1 DIRECTED TO DEBORAH A. LUCY AND GEORGE KEEPER 67. Without admission or adoption, and for purposes of this New Matter Cross-Claim only, the averments of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 68. If the averments contained in the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are established, said averments being specifically denied as they may relate to the Answering Defendant, 120 East Allen Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill, then the injuries and damages complained of were caused solely by Defendants Deborah Lucy and George Keefer. 69. Answering Defendant, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1031.1, hereby joins as Additional Defendants George Keefer and Deborah Lucy for purposes of contribution and indemnification on the claim of the Plaintiff and hereby avers that said Additional Defendants are alone liable on the Plaintiff's claim, are liable over to Answering Defendant, or are jointly and severally liable with Answering Defendant. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, 120 East Allen Inc., respectfully prays that judgment be entered in its favor and against the Plaintiff, together with costs and expenses, and the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, LAVERY FAH~TY PATTERSON Date: lt-zq-l2, By: ~~ _ ~`' ryer filler, Es ire A me . No. 82718 essica S. Hosenpud, Esquir Attorney I.D. No. 307656 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P. O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Phone: (717) 233-6633 Facsimile: (717) 233-7003 Attorneys for Defendant, 120 East Allen, Inc. VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter and Cross-Claim are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Complaint and to the extent that the Complaint is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ! 6- a R- i Z By: Athan io J. Balafoutas Stockholder and Director, 120 East Allen, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joan L. Helmuth, and employee of Lavery Faherty Patterson, certify that on this 29tH day of November, 2012, I served a copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint, via regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to: David Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie and Skeel, P.C. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Deborah A. Lucy 533 Good Hope Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Joai L. Helmuth, Legal Assistant to Amy Coryer Miller, Esquire and Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Amy Coryer Miller, Esquire '~"' ..,.., Attorney LD. No. 82718 ~~ Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire '~ _ -- Attorney LD. No. 307656 - Lavery Faherty Patterson ~~'' ~ _ 225 Market Street, Suite 304 `- _ = P.O. Box 1245 ~ ~- ' ~' ' -1`.1'. Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 ° ` , ~~~ ~- (717) 233-6633 (telephone) ~~ -_ • • `~" ~ ~ (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) -~ ~ ~~~ anuller(ciilavervlativ.com ihosenpud(a;1ati°erylaw.coin Attorneys for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff . v. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEPER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants . v. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL, Additional Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-6810 CIVIL ACTION LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND To: George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service 34 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 AVISO LISTED HA SIDEO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mss adelante en las suguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de lose proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notification de esta Demands y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicondo en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a. las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falls de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier sums de dinero reclamada en la demands o el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mss aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes pars usted. LISTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI LISTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO O NO PUDE PAGARLE A LINO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA PARR AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service 34 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 LAVERY FAHERTY PATTERSON Date: ((-2q ~-(a BY~ J a S. Ho npu , squire ttorn o. 3076 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P. O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Phone: (717) 233-6633 Facsimile: (717) 233-7003 Attorney for Defendant 120 East Allen Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill Amy Coryer Miller, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 82718 Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 307656 Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) anuller(illaverylaw.con~ jhose~~ud~a!laverylaw.corn Attorneys for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 12-6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, : CIVIL ACTION LAW INC. DB/A SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL, Additional Defendants JOINDER COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: AND NOW COMES Defendant, 120 East Allen, Inc., d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill [hereinafter "Joining Defendant"], by and through undersigned counsel, Lavery Faherty Patterson, who files this Joinder Complaint pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2252(a) in the above- captioned matter and, in support thereof, represents the following: 1. Plaintiff, Michael Kreider [hereinafter "Kreider" or "Plaintiff '], according to his Complaint, is an adult individual and is currently a resident of Mount Joy, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Z. Defendant, George Keefer [hereinafter "Keefer"], is an adult individual residing at 533 Good Hope Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. 3. Defendant, Deborah Lucy [hereinafter "Lucy"], is an adult individual residing at 533 Good Hope Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. 4. Joining Defendant, 120 East Allen, Inc., d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill, is a corporation with a principal place of business located at 120 East Allen Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055. 5. Snappers is a bar and grill located at 120 East Allen Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055. 6. George and Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill [hereinafter "Moe's"], is a corporation with a principal place of business located at 4709 Old Gettysburg Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. Moe's is a bar and grill located at 4709 Old Gettysburg Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 8. The above captioned matter arises out of a motor vehicle accident occurring August 24, 2012, at approximately 8:53 p.m. on East Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 9. According to the Plaintiff s Complaint, the motorcycle driven by Kreider and the Ford Mustang driven by Lucy were involved in a collision when Lucy caused the left front of the Mustang to collide with the left side of the Harley Davidson motorcycle and Mr. Kreider. 10. According to Plaintiff s Complaint, upon striking Kreider, Lucy fled the scene, and was later apprehended by the Hampton Township Police, who found her in her home in a severely intoxicated state. 11. According to Plaintiff s Complaint, Lucy had a blood alcohol level of .219% at the time she caused the motor vehicle accident. 12. The Ford Mustang driven by Lucy is owned by Defendant George Keefer. According to Plaintiff s Complaint, Keefer gave Lucy the keys to the Mustang, knowing she was in a highly intoxicated state. 13. Prior to the collision, on August 24, 2012, Defendants Keefer and Lucy consumed alcoholic beverages together for several hours at Moe's Bar and Grill. 14. At all times material hereto, Lucy was a customer of Moe's Bar and Grill when agents, servants, and/or employees of Additional Defendant sold, furnished, gave or permitted to be sold, furnished or given, intoxicating beverages to Lucy. 15. Service of the aforesaid intoxicating beverages to Defendant Lucy by agents, servants, and/or employees of Moe's took place while Defendant Lucy was visibly intoxicated, resulting in a blood alcohol content at or near .219%. 16. Defendant Moe's sale and service of the aforementioned alcoholic beverages to Defendant Lucy, while she was visibly intoxicated, was negligent and constituted a violation of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, 47 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §4-493. 17. After leaving Moe's, Keefer and Lucy travelled to Snappers. 18. Although Keefer requested a beer at Snappers, Lucy did not request any alcoholic beverages, nor did she consume any alcoholic beverages, while inside Snappers. 19. According to the Plaintiff s Complaint, within a short time of leaving Moe's and while Lucy was in an extremely intoxicated state, she drove a Mustang east on East Trindle Road and turned directly into Plaintiff Michael Kreider and his motorcycle. 20. At all times material herein, Defendant George and Leila, Inc. was the holder of a Pennsylvania retail liquor license pursuant to the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, 47 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4-401, entitling said corporation to sell and dispense intoxicating beverages for consumption by patrons on the premises known as Moe's. 21. Defendant George and Leila, Inc.'s sale and service of the aforementioned alcoholic beverages to Defendant Lucy, while she was visibly intoxicated, was negligent and constituted a violation of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, 47 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §4-493. 22. The damages alleged by the Plaintiff, if proven, arise from the sale of intoxicating beverages by Moe's to Lucy, such that Moe's is liable therefore pursuant to 47 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4-497. COUNTI Michael Kreider v. Deborah A. Lucy George Keefer and120 East Allen, Inc. v. Geode and Leila, Inc. 23. Paragraphs one (1) to twenty-two (22) of the Joinder Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 24. Additional Defendant Moe's, through its agents, servants, and/or employees, is solely liable to the Plaintiff, Michael Kreider, or is liable over to or with Original Defendants to Plaintiff, Michel Kreider, as follows: (a) Negligently selling and furnishing liquor and/or alcoholic beverages to Defendant Lucy while she was visibly intoxicated; (b) Failing to properly train and supervise its employees so as to prevent them from selling and/or furnishing liquor and/or alcoholic beverages to invitees who are visibly intoxicated; (c) Negligently failing to warn Defendant Lucy that she should not drive due to her intoxicated state; (d} Failing to prevent Defendant Lucy from operating a motor vehicle after serving her alcoholic beverages while she was visibly intoxicated, despite the obvious risk of harm to persons operating motor vehicles on Trindle Road; (e) Violating the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the serving of alcoholic beverages to visibly intoxicated persons; and (f1 Selling or furnishing liquor and/or other alcoholic beverages to Defendant Lucy in reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others. 25. If the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint are proven, the alleged injuries as set forth in Plaintiff Michael Kreider's Complaint were a direct and proximate result of the negligence, gross negligence, and/or reckless indifference of Moe's employees and servants as alleged herein. 26. The averments of Plaintiff Michael Kreider's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference, without admission or adoption, and are addressed and directed to Additional Defendant, George and Leila, Inc. 27. If the averments contained in Plaintiff Michael Kreider's Complaint are established, said averments being specifically denied as they may relate to Joining Defendant, 120 East Allen, Inc., then the injuries and damages complained of were caused by Additional Defendant, George and Leila, Inc. 28. Additional Defendant, George and Leila, Inc., is alone liable on Plaintiff Michael Kreider's claim, is liable over to Original Defendants, or is jointly and severally liable with Original Defendants. WHEREFORE, Defendant, 120 East Allen Inc., pray that the claims against it be dismissed by reason of the fact that the damages of the Plaintiff, Michael Kreider, if any, were solely the responsibility of Additional Defendant, George and Leila, Inc., or, in the alternative, the Additional Defendant, George and Leila, Inc., is liable over to Original Defendants or is jointly and severally liable with Original Defendants, the existence of any liability on the part of Original Defendant, 120 East Allen, Inc., being expressly denied. Respectfully submitted, LAVERY FAI~T'Y PATTERSON Date: 61-29 ~(2. BY~ ~~,~,,,~ 1......,., ~, ,i....., ttorney LD. No. 8271 Jessica S. Hosenpud, Es ire Attorney I.D. No. 30765 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P. O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Phone: (717) 233-6633 Facsimile: (717) 233-7003 Attorneys for Defendant, 120 East Allen, Inc. VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Joinder Complaint are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Complaint and to the extent that the Complaint is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. !1-Z°t-lL ~"~ Date: By: Athana os Balafoutas Stockholder and Director, 120 East Allen, Inc. • MICHAEL KREIDER, PLAINTIFF V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, AND 120 EAST ALLEN, INC., D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, DEFENDANTS V. GEORGE AND LEILA INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA cc oz; NO. 12-6810 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2013, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Answers directed to Defendant George Keefer, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. A Rule is issued upon the Defendant Keefer to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted; 2. Defendant Keefer will file an answer on or before March 8, 2013; 3. The Prothonotary is directed to forward said Answer to this Court; 4. Discovery shall be completed on or before April 8, 2013; 5. A hearing/argument on the matter will be held on Friday, May 10, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 2 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court, 1*?? M. L. Ebert, Jr., V David L. Lutz, Esquire V Kevin Rauch, Esquire V Amy Coryer Miller, Esquire Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire / Thomas Lee, Esquire r, { = FRO ; 2013 FEB 21 PH i : C ,.G S=UM ERLAND COUNT PENNSYLVANIA ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney IN : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg. PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-mail: dlutzjangino-rovnerxom MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants V. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 12-6810 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS DEBORAH A. LUCY AND GEORGE KEEFER'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Michael Kreider, by and through counsel, Angino & Rovner, P.C., and files the Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Lucy and Keefer's Motion to Stay Proceedings. as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 518915 ORAGI-NW-ILL Admitted. 4. through 7. Denied. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant Lucy and Defendant Keefer's Motion Stay Proceedings. There is no issue that Defendant Lucy can continue to assert her right against self-incrimination and only after the criminal proceeding ends in a plea and/or verdict can Defendant Lucy be required to answer discovery in this civil case. However, the litigation against three other Defendants should not be stayed as discovery should continue and the case should move forward. 8. through 10. The discovery served upon Defendant Keefer raises a different issue. Defendant Keefer is not entitled to the privilege under the Fifth Amendment. Defendant Keefer has raised the "spousal privilege" and if the Court rules that Defendant Keefer must answer discovery, there is no reason to stay the proceedings. 11. Once Defendant Lucy's criminal case ends in a plea or verdict, her right against self-incrimination will cease and she will have to answer discovery; however, Defendant Keefer is not entitled to the same Constitutional privilege. 12. Defendant Lucy and Defendant Keefer have requested Your Court grant a stay of the civil case based on Defendant Lucy's rights under the Fifth Amendment. However, there is no reason for litigation against the two dram shop Defendants and Defendant Keeler to be stayed. Discovery should continue. 518915 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Your Honorable Court deny Defendant Lucy and Defendant Keefer's Motion to Stay Proceedings. ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. SDav A. Lutz PA I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 - phone (717) 238-5610 - fax dlutz( angino-rovner.com Attorney for Plaintiff Date: . ?? 518915 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS DEBORAH A. LUCY AND GEORGE KEEFER'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS upon counsel for the Defendants and Additional Defendant via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Kevin Rauch, Esc;uire Summers McDon 7etl, et al. 100 Sterling Park,vay, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Defc .idants George Keefer and Deborah Lucy Amy Coryer Miller, Esquire Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market St., Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attorney for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc., d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill Thomas Lee, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns 3631 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 Attorney for Additional Defendant George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill Marv T. 7eraets Dated: ? , \?' \,? 518915 Lavery Faherty Patterson a PROTHON TA R Amy Coryer Miller,Esquire ID#82718 2013 MA Y ..7 A 11: 4 3 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O.Box 1245 CUMBERLA140 COUNTY, Harrisburg,PA 17108-1245 PENNSYLVANIA (717)233-6633 Telephone (717)233-6633 Facsimile amiller(iDlavervlaw.com Attorney for Defendant 120 East Allen,Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar&Grill MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 12-6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN,, : CIVIL ACTION LAW INC. D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR& : GRILL, . Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. . GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. D/B/A MOE'S BAR& GRILL, Additional Defendants PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of Amy Coryer Miller, Esquire, on behalf of Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill, in the above matter. Respectfully submitted, LAVERY FAHERTY PATTERSON Date: S 1 I By: Amy Coryer Ndler, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar& Grill 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire, with the law firm of Lavery Faherty Patterson, do hereby certify that on the date listed below, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Withdraw Appearance, via U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David Lutz, Esquire Angino &Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie and Skeel, P.C. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Peter M. Good, Esquire Thomas S. Lee, Esquire Caldwell &Kearns 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date: arl R. Hildabrand, Esquire rrt 3y0:;>: "~ C!?'� _ Cif ANGINO&ROVNER,P.C. W David L.Lutz,Esquire 3 � Attorney ID# : 35956 .r 4.503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA '17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX(717)238=5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-mail:dlutz @angino-rovner.com MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. NO. 12-6810 Civil Term DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. CIVIL ACTION—LAW D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR& GRILL, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR& GRILL, Additional Defendant PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS DEBORAH A. LUCY AND GEORGE KEEFER'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Michael Kreider, by and through counsel, Angino & Rovner, P.C., and files the Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Defendants Lucy and Keefer's Motion to Stay Proceedings. Attached as Exhibit A is Defendant Deborah Lucy's Guilty Plea Colloquy entered on May 1, 2013. As such, the Defendants' privilege under the Fifth ORIGINAL 525024 Amendment has evaporated. Therefore, Defendant Keefer is not entitled to any Constitutional privilege with regard to discovery in this civil action. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Your Honorable Court now deny Defendant Lucy and Defendant Keefer's Motion to Stay Proceedings. ANG1NO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz PA I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 —phone (717) 238-5610—fax dlutz@angino-rovner.com Date: it Attorney for Plaintiff 525024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DEBORAH A. LUCY CP-21-CR-0003137-2012 CRIMINAL GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY MAXIMUM COUNT CHARGE(S) GRADE PUNISHMENT 1 AGG. ASSAULT BY VEH WHILE DUI F2 10 Years 2 ACC. INVOLV. DEATH OR PERS. INJ. F3 7 Years 3 DUI - GENERAL IMPAIRMENT (1ST) M 6 Months Probation -- 6 Mi 4 DUI - GEN. IMP. W/ACC (1ST) M $5,000 -- 48 Hours - 6 Mo 5 DUI - HIGHEST RATE (.16%)(1ST) M - $5,000.00 -- 72 Hours - 6 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS S N/A U C:) PLEA OF DEFENDANT The Defendant, being advised of the offense(s) charged in the information(s) and of Defendant's rights, hereby in open court enters a plea of esu to the charge(s) of: Section & Subsection C+ Defe da Afffvwe�br- A-dorney for the Defendant Date Restitution Amount $: Restitution Paid to: 14 GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY If you are pleading guilty, complete each question on this form. None of the lines should be left blank. If there is anything in this form you do not understand,discuss it with your attorney,and your attorney or the king judge will explain it to you completely, sure you understand your rights. After you t� 1= IM have finished reading this form and completing all the questions,sign the form on the last page,on the line M t� t, In indicating "Defendant." You should also initial each page At the bottom, indicating you read and understand the page. 1. Print your full name: c>r-vA�N A 2.Age: Date of Birth: 3/'-7165- 3. How far did you go in school? W1 N G el- b In 4. Can you read,write and understand the English Language? S. By pleading guilty you are giving up many important constitutional rights, (a)You have a right to a trial by.a jury of 12 people. This means you may participate in the selection of a jury with your attorney. This involves exercising both peremptory and cause challenges. The jury is randomly selected from a cross section of residents throughout Cumberland County. You are presumed innocent until the Commonwealth proves every h -to remain silent during element of each offense beyond a reasonable doubt,and you have a right en ri c' all proceedings. The jury will listen to the facts and based on the evidence,all 12 jurors must agree unammouslyas to your guilt beyond a,reasonable doubt of each and every element of the crimes charged before they can convict. (b)You have a right to a non-jury trial the Commonwealth agrees. This means a judge listens el — 2!) e2 to the facts and must be convinced of your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before you can be found guilty. Do you understand that by pleading guilty you are h 6 3 3 givinuup vour right to a trial (jury and non- jury)and all the included rights described above? 6. By pleading,guilty you give up your right t:1 t, t� to litigate and appeal you pre-trial and trial rights: (a)The right at trial to cross-examine all of the Commonwealth's witnesses. (b)The right of trial to testify and present evidence on your behalf and your lawyer can require t" witnesses to come to court to testify in your case. You cannot be forced to testify at trial. By pleading guilty to this crime,you are admitting to the Court that you committed the crime. el In That is why you do not have many rights after a guilty plea. Do you understand?- k/.<-I 7.Do you realize that by pleading guilty,you are giving up any possible defense that may apply in t� 1= your case such as: self-defense,alibi,insanity? 8. There is very little that you can appeal after a guilty plea. You cannot appeal the fact that you are guilty. You cannot appeal on the basis that your rights have been violated. You can only appeal the t� following things: (a) That you did not understand what you were doing when you pled guilty. Defendant's Initials. 2 (b) That the Cumberland County Court did not have jurisdiction over your case. (c)Whether your lawyer was effective. (d)Whether your sentence was lawful, Do you understand?, G- 9.You have been charged with the crimes outlined on page one(1) of this colloquy. (a)Do you understand the nature of the charges against you? (b)Do you understand the possible maximum penalties? 10. You have the right to be represented at a trial;or at this guilty plea by a lawyer. If you cannot afford a lawyer,one will be appointed for you free of charge.Do you understand? 11.Are you currently on probation or parole? 12.Do you understand.a guilty plea may mean a violation of the terms of your probation or parole and you may be separately sentenced in.a separate proceeding on that matter? " 13.Do you_understand that entering a plea may.have collateral consequences(such as immigration)? -` 14.Have any threats or promises been made to you to persuade you to enter a.plea of guilty(other than any plea agreement that has been negotiated for you by yourself or your lawyer)? IS) 15.The decision to plead guilty is your decision to make and not your lawyer's decisipa. It is your lawyer's job to advise you and help you make this decision. Do you understand? 16. Considering all the information on this form,do you want to plead guilty?_ I affirm that I have read the above document in its entirety and I understand it. I wish to enter a plea of guilty to the offense or offenses specified. I also affirm that my answers are true and correct. Defendant's Signature gate Esquire,Attorney for I, state that I have reviewed this document with my t client and I have advised my client of the contents and meaning of this document. Attorney for Defendant Attorney Identification Number: _. Defendant's Initials: 'L CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of An ino & g Rov-er, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct co SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS DEBORAH copy °f the PLAINTIFF'S A. LUCY AND GEORGE KEEFER'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS upon counsel f Additional Defendant via postage prepaid first class United r the Defendants and ted States mail addressed as follows: Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers McDonnell, et al. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Defendants George Keefer and Deborah Lucy Amy Coryer Miller, Esquire Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market St., Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attorney for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc., d/b/a Snappers Bar& Grill Thomas Lee, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns 3631 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 Attorney for Additional Defendant George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar& Grill M yTA eraets Dated: 525024 MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMOENNS A VOF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, V. : 4: DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, AND 120 EAST ALLEN, INC., ' SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, DEFENDANTS � 3 V. GEORGE AND LEILA INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS NO. 12-6810 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2013, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Defendant Debra A. Lucy and George Keefer's Motion to Stay Proceedings, and the Court noting that while Debra Lucy has entered a plea of guilty to the charge of Aggravated Assault by Motor Vehicle while Driving Under the Influence, she will not be sentenced until June 11, 2013; Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that this Court's previous Order of February 21, 2013, granting a stay of proceedings will remain in effect pending further Order of Court. The parties are directed to attend the status conference previously scheduled for Tuesday, May 28, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J "'"David L. Lutz, Esquire "Kevin Rauch, Esquire Seth Black, Esquire ,.4essica Hosenpud, Esquire C"-�Omas Lee, Esquire bas 14 1 ES � LL s.�Y/�a I E r?CT1 CSC ( � : 2013 MAY 1.7 AM 11 2 CUMBERLAND COB-f Y IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND CAWW614 YLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, NO. 12-6810 V. DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. D/B/A/ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS, SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, DEBORAH A. LUCY AND GEORGE Defendants, KEEFER'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS V. (Jury Trial Demanded) GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL, Additional Defendants. Filed on Behalf of the Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy & George Keefer Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 Seth T. Black, Esquire Pa. I.D. #203075 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 #19607 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, V. NO. 12=6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, (Jury Trial Demanded) and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. D/B/A/ SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants, V. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL, Additional Defendants. DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS, DEBORAH A. LUCY AND GEORGE KEEFER'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND NOW, come the Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer, by and through their counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C., and files the following Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer's Motion to Stay Proceedings and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. The Plaintiff has filed a Supplemental Response indicating that the Defendant entered into a guilty plea and alleging that the Defendant's Fifth Amendment's Rights have "evaporated." 2. While the Defendant has changed some of her pleas pursuant to the colloquy attached as Exhibit "A", the Defendant's Fifth Amendment rights continue through sentencing. Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999). WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny the Plaintiff's request to lift the Stay at this time. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. B Seth TBlack, Esq I ire Counsel for Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy & George Keefer CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS, DEBORAH A. LUCY AND GEORGE KEEFER'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 16th day of May, 2013. David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Amy Coryer Miller, Esquire Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (Attorneys for 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill) Thomas S. Lee, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns, P.C. 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 (Attorney for Defendant, George & Layla, Inc.) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. T. By. I I,5 Set1f T. Black, Esq 're Counsel for Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy & George Keefer HLED-oF-F71 C Karl R.Hildabrand,Esquire Lavery Faherty Patterson Z013MAY 225 Market Street, Suite 304 Q A11 4 P.O.Box 1245 PUMBERLAND Harrisburg,233-6633 1 P FS Y�V7 ) (tellepho e) A N IA (717)233-7003(facsimile) Attorney No.PA30102 khildabrand@laverylaw.com Attorney for Defendant 120 East Allen,Inc.d/b/a Snappers Bar&Grill MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 12-6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, : CIVIL ACTION LAW INC. D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR& GRILL, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. D/B/A MOE'S BAR& GRILL, Additional Defendants PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar& Grill, in the above matter. `+ A Respectfully submitted, LAVERY FAHERTY PATTERSON DATE: i7j/l—�'� Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Atty No. PA30102 khildabrand@laverylaw.com Atty for Defendant, 120 East Allen, Inc. . d/b/a Snappers Bar& Grill CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire, with the law firm of Lavery Faherty Patterson, do hereby certify that on this '17 day of May, 2013, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Enter Appearance, via U.S. First Class mail,postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David Lutz, Esquire Angino &Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie and Skeel, P.C. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Peter M. Good, Esquire Thomas S. Lee, Esquire Caldwell &Kearns 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 C Hildabrand, Esquire 4 V MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, AND c 120 EAST ALLEN, INC., D/B/A �Z _ g SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, rCi 2 3 DEFENDANTS ter--- rd „< :x GEORGE AND LEILA INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL :zj ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS NO. 12-6810 CIVIL IN RE: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 2013, it appearing that the parties have failed to reach agreement on the case management order proposed by the Court; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that a status conference on this matter will be held on Thursday, August 1, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.,in Courtroom No. 2 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Each party is directed to submit a proposed case management order which addresses all matters outlined in the Court's proposed order on or before Monday, July 29, 2013. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Ahom a5 Le c-,, C—s - /6avid L. Lutz, Esquire ,,/Kevin Rauch, Esquire eth BI ck squire c� aRl �Irav►d F_s 9 ' pv w Karl Hildebrand, Esquire Jessica Hosenpud, Esquire Thomas Lee, Esquire bas C .�I PRO I'HOPdJlM1�'�' 2013 JUL I I Pd; 12: 19 3 CUMBERLAND COUNTY ENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, NO. 12-6810 V. ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND NEW DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1. and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. D/B/A/ SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, (Jury Trial Demanded) Defendants, V. Filed on Behalf of the Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy & George Keefer GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. d/b/a MOE'S BAR & GRILL Counsel of Record for This Party: Additional Defendant. Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire TO: Plaintiff& Defendants Pa. I.D. #83058 You are hereby notified to file a written SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, Response to the enclosed Answer, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. New Matter, and New Matter Pursuant Firm #911 to Rule 1031.1 within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 - (717) 901-5916 Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. #19607 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, V. NO. 12-6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, (Jury Trial Demanded) and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. D/B/A/ SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants V. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. d/b/a MOE'S BAR & GRILL, Additional Defendant. ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 AND NOW, comes the Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer, by and through their counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and files the following Answer, New Matter, and New Matter Pursuant to Rule', 1031.1 and in support thereof avers as follows: ANSWER 1. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict;proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. i 4. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 5. Admitted. Defendant Deborah Lucy 6. Admitted. 7. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Defendant left the intersection of Sporting Hill and,Trindle Roads and traveled home. The remainder of the averments of paragraph 11 are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the police arrived at the Defendant's home. The remainder of the averments of paragraph 12 are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the police arrived at the Defendant's home. The remainder of the averments of paragraph 13 are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Paragraph 14 and all of its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Defendant George Keefer 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the Defendants consumed alcoholic beverages together at Moe's Bar & Grill. The remainder of the averments of paragraph 16 are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Paragraph 17 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Paragraph 18 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Defendant Snappers 19. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. Paragraph 21 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Paragraph 22 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Paragraph 23 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Paragraph 24 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 25. Paragraph 25 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT MICHAEL KREIDER v. DEBORAH LUCY 26. In response to paragraph 26, the Defendants reiterate and repeat all their responses in paragraphs 1 through 25 as if fully set forth at length herein. 27. Paragraph 27 and all of its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 28. Paragraph 28 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 29. Paragraph 29 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 30. Paragraph 30 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT II MICHAEL KREIDER y. GEORGE KEEFER 31. In response to paragraph 31, the Defendants reiterate and repeat_all their responses in paragraphs 1 through 30 as if fully set forth at length herein. 32. Paragraph 32 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 33. Paragraph 33 states a legal conclusion to.which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof rthereof is demanded at the time of trial. 34. Paragraph 34 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Keefer acted in a negligent and careless manner. To the contrary, Defendant, Keefer acted in a reasonable and prudent manner at all times. 35. Paragraph 35 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. i COUNT III MICHAEL KREIDER v. 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. D/B/A SNAPPERS 36 -38. Paragraphs 36 — 38 are directed towards another Defendant. CLAIM 39. In response to paragraph 39, the Defendants reiterate and repeat all their responses in paragraphs 1 through 38 as if fully set forth at length herein. 40. Paragraph 40 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 41. Paragraph 41 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 42. Paragraph 42 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 43. Paragraph 43 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 44. Paragraph 44 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 45. Paragraph 45 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 46. Paragraph 46 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 47. Paragraph 47 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. NEW MATTER 48. The motor vehicle accident in controversy is subject to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and this Defendant asserts, as affirmative defenses, all rights, privileges and/or immunities accruing pursuant to said statute. 49. Some and/or all of Plaintiffs claims for damages are items of economic detriment which are or could be compensable pursuant to either the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and/or other collateral sources and same may not be duplicated in the present lawsuit. 50. To the extent that the Plaintiff has selected the limited tort option or is deemed to have selected the limited tort option then this Defendant sets forth the relevant provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law as a bar to the Plaintiffs ability to recover non-economic damages. 51. This Defendant pleads any and all applicable statutes of limitation under Pennsylvania Law as a complete or partial bar to any recovery by Plaintiffs in this action. 52. The Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for punitive damages. 53. The Defendants are entitled to an offset for any restitution awarded to the Plaintiff from the Defendants. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 1. Answering Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer, incorporates by reference the entirety of Plaintiffs Complaint against answering Defendants without admission or adoption as though the same were set forth herein at length. 2. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of his Answer and New Matter as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 3. Solely for the purposes of the within cross-claim and without admitting the truth of the same, this Defendant adopts and incorporates those allegations of the Plaintiffs Complaint directed to the Co-Defendant, 120 East Allen Inc., d/b/a/ Snappers and the Additional Defendant, George and Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar& Grill. 4. In the event it is determined that the Plaintiff is entitled to a recovery, the same being denied, it is thereby averred that the Co-Defendant, 120 East Allen, Inc,. d/b/a Snappers, and the Additional Defendant, George and Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill. are solely and/or jointly liable to the Plaintiff. 5. In the event it is judicially determined that the Plaintiff is entitled to a recovery from this Defendant, which is denied, then it is averred that the Co-Defendant, 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers and Additional Defendant, George and Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill. are liable over to this Defendant for contribution and/or indemnification. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy & George Keefer, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. By: z Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy & George Keefer VERIFICATION Defendant verifies that she is the Defendant in the foregoing action; that the foregoing ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 is based upon information which she has furnished to her counsel and information which has been gathered by her counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 is that of counsel and not of the Defendant. Defendant has read the ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 and to the extent that the ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 is based upon information which she has given to her counsel, it is true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 is that of counsel, she has relied upon counsel in making this Affidavit. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: —&IIL4i A c:,-Lu-CA-A Deborah A. Lucy #19607 VERIFICATION Defendant verifies that he is the Defendant in the foregoing action; that the foregoing ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 is based upon information which he has furnished to his counsel and information which has been gathered by his counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 is that of counsel and not of the Defendant. Defendant has read the ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 and to the extent that the ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 is based upon information which he has given to his counsel, it is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 is that of counsel, he has relied upon counsel in making this Affidavit. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: l George Kee ref #19607 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this this 10th day of July, 2013. David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (Attorneys for 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill) Thomas S. Lee, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns, P.C. 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 (Attorney for Defendant, George & Layla, Inc.) SUMMERS, MCDO;NNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. By: ZZ Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendants, rr' } r'__ �L,�1j-�0lj(y'1' 2013 JUL 18 PM ' 11 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PEN NSYLVANIA ANGINO&ROVNER,P.C. David L.Lutz,Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 . 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,'PA 17116-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX(717)238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff ,E-mail:dlutz @angino-rovner.com MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. NO. 12-68.10 Civil Term DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. CIVIL ACTION—LAW D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR& GRILL, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR& GRILL, Additional Defendant PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS DEBORAH A. LUCY AND GEORGE KEEFER 48. through 53. All of the Defendants' New Matter set forth in paragraphs 48 through 53 are all conclusions of law to which no response is necessary. All of the allegations contained in the Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 530583 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the New Matter of Defendants Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer be dismissed. ANG1NO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz PA I.D. ,No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 -phone (717) 238-5610—.fax dlutz@angino-rovner.com Attorney for Plaintiff Date: 530583 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS DEBORAH A. LUCY AND GEORGE KEEFER upon counsel for the Defendants and Additional Defendant via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers McDonnell, et al. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Defendants George Keefer and Deborah Lucy Karl Hildabrand, Esquire Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market St., Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attorney for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc., d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill Thomas Lee, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns 3631 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 Attorney for Additional Defendant George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar& Grill Ma,y T. Geraets Dated: 1/0 530583 Jessica S.Hosenpud,EsquireNI+: T H ..i;O T f. TA FY Attorney I.D.No. 307656 Lavery Faherty Patterson 2013 JUL 2 x'11 2: 51 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O.Box 1245 (,'�.�kMBERLt',14D COUNTi Harrisburg,PA 17108-1245 P E N N C}'LVA NI j A (717)233-6633 (telephone) (717)233-7003 (facsimile) j h o s en p u d(&l ave ry l aw.c o m Attorneys for Defendant 120 East Allen,Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar&Grill MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 12-6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, : CIVIL ACTION LAW INC. D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR& GRILL, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. D/B/A MOE'S BAR& GRILL, Additional Defendants DEFENDANT 120 EAST ALLEN, INC.'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS DEBORAH A. LUCY AND GEORGE KEEFER'S NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 48. through 53. Denied. The averments in Paragraphs 48 through 53 are conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, 120 East Allen Inc., respectfully prays that judgment be entered in its favor and the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 1 The responsive averments in Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint with New Matter and Cross Claim are incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth. 2. The responsive averments in Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint with New Matter and Cross Claim, as well as those responsive averments set forth in its Reply to Additional Defendant George and Leila, Inc.'s New Matter and Cross Claim, are incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth. 3. The responsive averments in Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint with New Matter and Cross Claim, and set forth in its Reply to Additional Defendant George and Leila, Inc.'s New Matter and Cross Claim, are incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth. To the extent this averment is deemed to include allegations of fact, such allegations are denied. The averments are further denied as improper conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Denied. These averments are denied as improper conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent this averment is deemed to include allegations of fact, such allegations are denied. 5. Denied. These averments are denied as improper conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent this averment is deemed to include allegations of fact, such allegations are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, 120 East Allen Inc., pray that the claims against it be dismissed by reason of the fact that the damages of the Plaintiff, Michael Kreider, if any, were solely the responsibility of Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer, or of Additional Defendant George and Leila, Inc., or, in the alternative, Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer and the Additional Defendant, George and Leila, Inc., is liable over to Original Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc., or is jointly and severally liable with Original Defendant, the existence of any liability on the part of Original Defendant, 120 East Allen, Inc., being expressly denied. Respectfully submitted, LAVERY FAHE TY PATTERSON Date: -(a-(3 By: J si S. enpud, quire A ey I.D. o. 3076A\ ket S eet, Suite 30 P. O. Box 45 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Phone: (717) 233-6633 Facsimile: (717) 233-7003 Attorneys for Defendant, 120 East Allen, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Janice L. Holzer, and employee of Lavery Faherty Patterson, certify that on this 191' day of July, 2013, I served a copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter of Defendants Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer, via regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to: Peter M. Good, Esquire Thomas S. Lee, Esquire Caldwell &Kearns 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorneys for Additional Defendant George & Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar& Grill David Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kevin Rauch, Esquire Seth Black, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie and Skeel, P.C. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorneys for Defendants Deborah Lucy and George Keefer �"u X J ice L. Holzer, Legal Assi ant to Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire iii° Peter M. Good, Esquire rY Attorney I.D. #64316 l} Thomas S. Lee, Esquires Attorney I.D. #89440 �� OUNTY Caldwell &Kearns �UtIB 'AND t4� 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)232-7661 /(717) 232-2766 (fax) Attornevs for Additional Defendants George and Leila Inc d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE NO.: 12-6810 KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. d/b/a SNAPPERS BAR& GRILL, Defendants V. CIVIL ACTION—LAW GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. d/b/a MOE'S BAR& GRILL, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Additional Defendant ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS DEBORAH A. LUCY AND GEORGE KEEFER'S NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 48. through 53. Denied. The averments of Paragraphs 48 through 53 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar and Grill, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer who are solely liable to Plaintiff. NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1031.1 1. This is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. 2. This is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. 3. This is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained herein are deemed to be factual allegations, said allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 4 are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 5 are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar and Grill, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer who are solely liable to Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted, CALDWELL & KEARNS Dated: � o�J By: 16*hd Peter M. Good lEsquire I.D. #64316 Thomas S. Lee, Esquire I.D. 489440 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-7661 (717) 232-2766 (fax) Attorneys for Additional Defendants George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill V � CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of July, 2013, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the within document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the U.S. Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-17108 Counsel for Plaintiff Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers McDonnell Hudock Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg PA 17020 Counsel for Defendants Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Counsel for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill CALDWELL & KEARNS By: Peter M. Good Esquire I.D. #64316 Thomas S. Lee,Esquire I.D. 989440 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)232-7661 (717)232-2766 (fax) Attorneys for Additional Defendants George and Leila, Inc. d1b/a Moe's Bar & Grill t `s MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, AND 120 EAST ALLEN, INC., D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, �� '; r �w� DEFENDANTS -<> V. GEORGE AND LEILA INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS NO. 12-6810 CIVIL IN RE: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1St day of August,.2013, the Court issues the following Case Management Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. All fact discovery in this matter shall be completed on or before December 31, 2013. 2. Plaintiff's expert reports shall be filed on or before December 31, 2013. 3. Defendant's expert reports responding to the Plaintiff's expert reports shall be filed on or before January 31, 2014. 4. Any dispositive motions, if applicable, shall be filed on or before February 28, 2014. These motions will be set down for argument on or before March 14, 2014. Argument on the motions will be held during the April 4, 2014, Argument Court. 5. Plaintiff shall set down the cause for trial on or before March 31, 2014. 6. Any Motions in Limine shall be filed on or before April 1, 2014. F 7. The Plaintiff shall call this case for trial during the call of the civil trial list scheduled for April 22, 2014. 8. Pre-trial Conference for this case will be held on May 7, 2014. 9. Trial in the matter will be held beginning May 19, 2014. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. ✓David L. Lutz, Esquire .10 Kevin Rauch, Esquire Seth Black, Esquire ✓ Karl Hildebrand, Esquire Jessica Hosenpud, Esquire ,/<homas Lee, Esquire bas r t£S' 8��13 r f J r r �ii''1tiLri�l� til4 , ANGINO&ROVNER,P.C. David L.Lutz,Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX(717)238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-mail:dlutz @angino-rovner.com MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA v. NO. 12-6810 Civil Term DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. CIVIL ACTION—LAW D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR& GRILL, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR& GRILL, Additional Defendant PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Plaintiff intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon ORIGINAL 539260 the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made the subpoena may be served. ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. ter" David L. Lutz PA I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 —phone (717) 238-5610—fax dlutz@angino-rovner.com Date: \I `� Attorney for Plaintiff 539260 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Michael Kreider Plaintiff/s : versus : No. 12-6810 Civil Term Deborah A. Lucy, George Keefer, and 120 East Allen,Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill Defendant/s : versus George and Leila,Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar& Grill SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Hampden Township Police Department 230 South Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Please supply any and all records/documents, including but not limited to the blood alcohol test and the toxicology report, concerning the arrest of Deborah Lucy on August 24, 2012, at Angino & Rovner, P.C., 453 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance,to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty(20)days after service,the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Name: David L. Lutz, Esquire Address: 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-6791 Supreme Court ID #: 35956 Attorney for: Plaintiffs BY THE COURT: Date: Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division Seal of the Court Deputy 539259 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA upon counsel for the Defendants and Additional Defendant via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Seth Black, Esquire Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers McDonnell, et al. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Defendants George Keefer and Deborah Lucy Karl Hildabrand, Esquire Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market St., Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attorney for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc., d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill Thomas Lee, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns 3631 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 Attorney for Additional Defendant George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill A Mary T. $ -raetsII Dated: \\--.6('c 539260 THE PROTHONOTARY 2013 NOV - 8 AM 11: 52 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANGINO&ROVNER,P.C. David L.Lutz,Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA 1711071708 (717)238-6791 FAX(717)238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-mail:dlutz @angino-rovner.com MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA v. NO. 12-6810 Civil Term DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. CIVIL ACTION—LAW DIB/A SNAPPERS BAR& GRILL, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR& GRILL, Additional Defendant PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 To: Hampden Township Police Department 230 South Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents.and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Plaintiff certifies that: (1) a notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served; 539557 (2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate; (3) no objection to the subpoena has been received and verbal waiving of the 20 days was received from all counsel; and (4) the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. ANGINO &ROVNER, P.C. Ili Ilk dirk avi s : utz PA I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 —phone (717) 238-5610—fax dlutz @angino-rovner.com Attorney for Plaintiff 9 Date: VI/\ 539557 �- Ti 3r r-f�?C�tF�Ci�dG`IAt 2 13/0 -5 f'm 1, 4 CUMBERLAND CG?UhIT''r' As�1A ANGINO&ROVNER,P.C. David L.Lutz,Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 - 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX(717)238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-mail:dlutz @angino-rovner.com MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA v. NO. 12-6810 Civil Term DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. CIVIL ACTION—LAW D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR&GRILL, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. GEORGE AND LEILA,INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR& GRILL, Additional Defendant PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Plaintiff intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon 539260 the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made the subpoena may be served. ANGINO &ROVNER,P.C. David L. Lutz PA I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 —phone (717) 238-5610—fax dlutz@angino-rovner.com ` -\)-2 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: \.1 539260 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND • Michael Kreider Plaintiff/s : versus : No. 12-6810 Civil Term Deborah A. Lucy, George Keefer, and 120 East Allen,Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill Defendant/s : versus George and Leila,Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Hampden Township Police Department 230 South Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Please supply any and all records/documents, including but not limited to the blood alcohol test and the toxicology report, concerning the arrest of Deborah Lucy on August 24, 2012, at Angino & Rovner, P.C., 453 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance,to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty(20)days after service,the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Name: David L. Lutz,Esquire Address: 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717)238-6791 Supreme Court ID#: 35956 Attorney for: Plaintiffs BY THE COURT: Date: Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division Seal of the Court Deputy 539259 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA upon counsel for the Defendants and Additional Defendant via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Seth Black, Esquire Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers McDonnell, et al. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Defendants George Keefer and Deborah Lucy Karl Hildabrand, Esquire Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market St., Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attorney for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc., d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill Thomas Lee, Esquire Caldwell &Kearns 3631 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 Attorney for Additional Defendant George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar& Grill I Mary T. I -raets Dated: \1� 539260 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the. PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 upon counsel for the Defendants and Additional Defendant via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Seth Black, Esquire Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers McDonnell, et al. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Defendants George Keefer and Deborah Lucy Karl Hildabrand, Esquire Jessica S. Hosenpud,Esquire Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market St., Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attorney for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc., d/b/a Snappers Bar& Grill Thomas Lee, Esquire Caldwell &Kearns 3631 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 Attorney for Additional Defendant George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar& Grill M. y Geraet Dated: \\ t\/\\). 539557 MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: v. : NO. 12-6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, : CIVIL ACTION LAW INC. D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR& = r,, GRILL, . Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -- v. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. • D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL, . Additional Defendants STIPULATION FOR DISCONTINUANCE AND DISMISSAL OF ALL CLAIMS AND CROSS-CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. Each of the parties below, by and through their respective counsel, hereby consents and stipulates to the discontinuance and dismissal with prejudice of all claims and cross-claims against Defendant 120 East Allen Inc., d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill, who shall be dismissed from the action as a party with prejudice. The parties below are all of the parties in the above captioned civil action. This consent may be signed in counterparts. LAVERY FAHERTY PATTERSON Date: 12- 1 3 By: 4- a senpud, squire A . -.I. No. 307. '6 225 Market Street,1/4u - 304 P. O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Phone: (717) 233-6633 Facsimile: (717) 233-7003 Attorney for Defendant, 120 East Allen, Inc. ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Date: By: David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 —phone (717) 238-5610—fax Attorney for Plaintiff, Michael Kreider SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHERIE and SKEEL, P.C. Date: I-z i`b-13 By: A 1:�`!VIP's S T. :lack, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 203075 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 Attorney for Defendants Deborah A. Lucy and George W. Keefer CALDWELL & KERNS, P.C. Date: By: Peter M. Good, Esquire Attorney I.D.No. 64316 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 (717) 232-7661 Attorney for Additional Defendant George & Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar& Grill ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. z7- Date: J / By/ 41 David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 —phone (717) 238-5610—fax Attorney for Plaintiff, Michael Kreider SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHERIE and SKEEL, P.C. Date: By: Seth T. Black, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 203075 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 Attorney for Defendants Deborah A. Lucy and George W. Keefer CALDWELL &KERNS, P.C. Date: By: Peter M. Good, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 64316 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 (717) 232-7661 Attorney for Additional Defendant George & Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar& Grill • R ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Date: By: David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 —phone (717) 238-5610—fax Attorney for Plaintiff, Michael Kreider SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHERIE and SKEEL, P.C. Date: By: Seth T. Black, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 203075 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 Attorney for Defendants Deborah A. Lucy and George W. Keefer CALDWELL &KERNS, P.C. "/fA Date: /i/ By: Peter M. Good, Esq ire Attorney I.D. No. 64316 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 (717) 232-7661 Attorney for Additional Defendant George & Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar& Grill T i 02'.' MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 12-6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE : KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, : CIVIL ACTION LAW --!= -�- __ _ INC. D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR& : r_,r C--- GRILL, v.)r t Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED r-- co-, v. GEORGE AND LEILA,INC. D/B/A MOE'S BAR& GRILL, . Additional Defendants ORDER OF COURT th Timuk Y / 2414 AND NOW this day of Deeembet•, X94 upon consideration of the Stipulation of the all parties in the above captioned action for Dismissal and Discontinuance; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT all claims and cross-claims against Defendant 120 East Allen Inc., d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill, are discontinued and dismissed with prejudice, and Defendant 120 East Allen Inc., d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill shall be dismissed from the action as a party with prejudice. BY THE COURT: M. L. Eb , Jr., J. Distribut' . David L. Lutz, Esq. sica S. Hosenpud, Esq. /S th T. Black, Esq. Peter M. Good, Esq.. l_C3IJIES / rI4J-Lt L /11./lit 20,14 t�nJ''Uijj, 1" 14 4iti pE17NS)/a �� ;y ANGINO&ROVNER,P.C. David L.Lutz,Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX(717)238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-mail:dlutz @angino-rovner.com MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA v. NO. 12-6810 Civil Term DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, CIVIL ACTION—LAW Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR& GRILL, Additional Defendant AND MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA v. NO. 13-6912 Civil GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., d/b/a MOE'S BAR& GRILL, CIVIL ACTION—LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS 543851 1. Plaintiff Michael Kreider commenced the action against Defendants Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer on November 6, 2012. Service was perfected on November 8, 2012. 2. Plaintiff Michael Kreider commenced the action against Defendant George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill on November 21, 2013. Attorney Peter Good accepted service of the Complaint on behalf of the Defendant. 3. The two actions involve identical questions of fact and law. 4. Counsel for the Plaintiff and all defense counsel agree that the two actions should be consolidated. WHEREFORE, all parties seek an Order of Court consolidating the aforesaid two actions at docket no. 12-6810. AN. O & ROVNER, P.C. IPA David L. utz PA I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 —phone (717) 238-5610—fax dlutz@angino-rovner.com Attorney for Plaintiff Date: \-A1 -A4 543851 • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS upon counsel for the Defendants and Additional Defendant via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Seth Black, Esquire Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers McDonnell, et al. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Defendants George Keefer and Deborah Lucy Peter Good, Esquire Thomas Lee, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns 3631 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 Attorney for Defendant/Additional Defendant George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar& Grill and 1 l Mary T. G= aets Dated: .\)'`"\ 543851 r t- G . { ti PROT PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. NO. 12-6810 Civil Term DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, CIVIL ACTION—LAW Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR& GRILL, Additional Defendant AND MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. NO. 13-6912 Civil GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., d/b/a MOE'S BAR& GRILL, CIVIL ACTION—LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER � h AND NOW, this 0 day of �f% �o r y 2014, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs Motion to Consolidate Actions, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that the-above-captioned actions are consolidated under docket no. 12-6810 and that all further pleadings shall be filed under docket no. 12-6810. 543851 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that the new caption shall read: MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. NO. 12-6810 Civil Term DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, CIVIL ACTION—LAW Defendants V. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., DB/A MOE'S BAR& GRILL, Defendants/Additional Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BY THE COURT: J. Distribution: /15avid L. Lutz, Esquire, Angino & Rovner, P.C., 4503 N. Front St., Harrisburg, PA 17 0 -eth Black, Esquire and Kevin Rauch, Esquire, Summers McDonnell, et al., 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Peter Good, Esquire and Thomas Lee, Esquire, 'Caldwell & Kearns, 3631 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 543851 Peter M. Good, Esquire Attorney I.D. #64316 1i Thomas S. Lee, Esquire ' ¢ ' � ' ^:6 Attorney I.D. #89440 ',Y`-".7-7,--:-.)1.‘� . ., �..t, Caldwell&Kearns ;�}� Y 1 V A 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)232-7661 /(717)232-2766 (fax) Attorney for George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE NO.: 12-6810 KEEFER, Defendants v. •GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. d/b/a . CIVIL ACTION—LAW MOE'S BAR& GRILL, Defendants/Additional Defendant . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. D/B/A MOE'S BAR& GRILL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND NOW comes George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill (herein after Moe's Bar& Grill), through its counsel, Caldwell & Kearns, P.C., and moves this Court to grant summary judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff Michael Kreider pursuant to P.R.C.P. 1035.2, in support of which it avers as follows: 1. The present case resulted from a Consolidation Order issued and filed by the Court on January 15, 2014. 2. Plaintiff Michael Kreider ("Kreider") initiated the prior action against Defendants Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer("Lucy" and "Keefer") by filing a Complaint on November 6, 2012. 3. Kreider initiated the action against Defendant George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar& Grill ("Moe's Bar& Grill") by filing a complaint on November 21, 2013. 4. Moe's Bar & Grill filed an Answer with New Matter on or about December 11, 2013. 5. On or about December 18, 2013, Plaintiff Kreider filed a Reply to Defendant Moe's Bar & Grill New Matter. 6. On or about July 10, 2013, Defendants Lucy and Keefer filed an Answer, New Matter and New Matter pursuant to Rule 1031.1. 7. On or about July 17, 2013, Kreider filed a Reply to the New Matter of Defendants Lucy and Keefer. 8. On or about July 23, 2013, Moe's Bar & Grill filed a Reply to Defendants Lucy and Keefer's New Matter and New Matter pursuant to Rule 1031.1. 9. On August 2, 2013, the Court filed a Case Management Order dated August 1, 2013, setting forth, inter alia, that all fact discovery in this matter shall be completed on or before December 31, 2013, and that any dispositive motions shall be filed on or before February 28, 2014. 10. The relevant pleadings in this matter are closed and all relevant discovery is complete. 11. The case arises from Kreider's contention that employees of Moe's Bar & Grill sold, furnished or gave intoxicating beverages to Defendant Lucy on August 24, 2012, while Lucy was visibly intoxicated, after which Lucy operated a motor vehicle and collided with Kreider while he was operating a motorcycle, and thus caused personal injuries to the Plaintiff. 12. Pursuant to the Dram Shop Act of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, no licensee will be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damage was sold, furnished, or 2 given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the licensee when such customer was visibly intoxicated. 47 P.S. § 4-497 (emphasis added). 13. Moe's Bar& Grill is the holder of a Pennsylvania retail liquor license pursuant to the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, 47 P.S. § 4-401, et seq., as it was on the date of August 24, 2012. 14. During the hours before the alleged motor vehicle/motorcycle collision, Lucy was at Moe's Bar& Grill and consumed alcoholic beverages while on the premises. (Defendant Moe's Bar& Grill's Admissions Paragraphs 1 and 2). 15. In response to discovery requests in this matter, Kreider has not identified any eyewitnesses or otherwise produced any direct factual basis to support his contention that Moe's Bar& Grill sold, furnished or gave alcoholic beverages to Lucy when she was visibly intoxicated. 16. Plaintiff Kreider bears the burden of proof with respect to his contention that Lucy was visibly intoxicated at the time Moe's Bar& Grill sold, furnished or gave her alcoholic beverages. 17. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Superior Court's decision in Hiles v. Brandywine Club, 662 A.2d 16 (Pa. Super. 1995), tavern owners are governed under the Dram Shop Act by physical appearances rather than medical diagnoses. 18. To support his contention that Lucy was visibly intoxicated at the time she was sold, furnished or given alcoholic beverages by Moe's Bar& Grill, Kreider has produced the expert report of Lawrence J. Guzzardi, M.D., who applied the modified Widmark equation to estimate Lucy's blood alcohol concentration at various times during August 24, 2012. 19. The modified Widmark equation estimates only the level of blood alcohol concentration, but it does not determine any visible signs of intoxication. 3 20. Blood alcohol concentration is not relevant to this application of immunity under the Dram Shop Act. 21. The affidavit of Michele Bauer, an employee and bartender of Moe's Bar & Grill, was made on January 23, 2014, a copy of which has been filed concurrently herewith as Exhibit A. 22. The affidavit of Nicole Davis, an employee of Moe's Bar& Grill, was made on January 20, 2014, a copy of which has been filed concurrently herewith as Exhibit B. 23. The deposition testimony of Mary Conley, an employee and bartender at Snapper's Bar & Grill, was taken on September 10, 2013, and the relevant pages of the transcript of that testimony has been filed concurrently herewith as Exhibit C. 24. Michele Bauer and Nicole Davis are Responsible Alcohol Management Program ("RAMP") certified, as they were on August 24, 2012, and they have been trained to recognize all signs of visible intoxication. (Bauer Affidavit at 9-10; Davis Affidavit at 7-8). 25. During the time that Lucy and Keefer were at Moe's Bar & Grill on August 24, 2012, neither person exhibited any signs of visible intoxication. (Bauer Affidavit at 12-14; Davis Affidavit at 11-13). 26. After leaving Moe's Bar& Grill, Lucy and Keefer traveled to Snapper's Bar& Grill, where the bartender, Mary Conley, also clearly recalls that Lucy exhibited no signs of visible intoxication. (Conley Deposition, pp. 23, 32, 34-37, and 44). 27. The testimony of two eyewitnesses establishes that Lucy showed no signs of visible intoxication at the time she was served alcohol at Moe's Bar & Grill on August 24, 2012. 28. The testimony of a third eyewitness corroborates the fact that Lucy showed no signs of visible intoxication even after leaving Moe's Bar& Grill, but before the time of Lucy's alleged collision with Kreider. 4 29. Plaintiff Kreider has produced no evidence to contradict any eyewitness testimony referenced herein. 30. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Peluso v. Walter, 483 A.2d 905 (Pa. Super. 1984), circumstantial evidence that a patron was served alcohol by licensee while visibly intoxicated is insufficient to defeat a grant of summary judgment in favor of a defendant who presents an eyewitness testimonial affidavit stating that the patron was not visibly intoxicated at the time of service. 31. Thus, as a matter of law, Moe's Bar & Grill is entitled to immunity under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, 47 P.S. § 4-497, and therefore cannot be held liable for the damages claimed by Plaintiff Kreider in this action. 32. There are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute in this matter, and Moe's Bar& Grill is entitled to the entry of judgment as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2(2), Defendant Moe's Bar & Grill respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter summary judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff Michael Kreider. Respectfully submitted, CALDWELL & K ARNS Dated: February 21, 2014 By: e,4/. Peter M. Good Esqu e I.D. #64316 Thomas S. Lee, Esquire I.D. #89440 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-7661 Attorneys for Defendant George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill 5 1 r' 1� �. �' MICHAEL KREIDER, . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff . CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA v. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE . NO.: 12-6810 KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN,INC. d/b/a SNAPPERS BAR& GRILL, Defendants v. CIVIL ACTION—LAW GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. d/b/a MOE'S BAR& GRILL, . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Additional Defendant AFFIDAVIT OF MICHELLE BAUER 1. I am an employee of Moe's Bar&Grill. I have been employed by Moe's for approximately 14 years. 2. I work full time as the day time bartender at Moe's. On the day in question, August 24, 2012, I was working the 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..shift. 3. When I work the 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. shift,I generally leave the bar promptly at 5:00 p.m. and at that time all open checks are transferred to one of the servers. 4. In the case of the check of George Keefer and Deborah Lucy,I transferred that check to Nicole Davis. 5. On the day in question, I believe that Mr. Keefer and Ms. Lucy came into the bar between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. 6. I am certain that they came in before 5:00 p.m. because I would not have opened any tabs or checks after 5:00 p.m. 7. I do recall Deborah Lucy and George Keefer sitting at a table on the deck. 8. They were somewhat regular customers of Moe's and they always sat on the deck and would always order 2 pitchers of Miller Lite beer. They would never order anything other than Miller Lite beer and they would sit there and scratch off lottery tickets and Mr. Keefer would smoke cigarettes. 9. I am Responsible Alcohol Management Program ("RAMP") certified and have been from the beginning of my time working for Moe's. 10. I, as a RAMP certified bartender, have been trained to recognize all signs of visible intoxication. 11. As a RAMP certified bartender, I would never serve a patron who appeared to be visibly intoxicated. 12. I never recall seeing Deborah Lucy or George Keefer ever being visibly intoxicated and I certainly remember that they were not visibly intoxicated at any time on the day of August 24, 2012 up until the time I left the premises at 5:00 p.m. 13. While I was working as a bartender on the day in question, no other patrons or co- workers complained to me about Mr. Keefer or Ms. Lucy being visibly intoxicated nor did I witness them showing any signs of visible intoxication. 14. I left the premises that day at 5:00 p.m. and at that time having served Mr. Keefer and Ms. Lucy, I did not notice that they had any signs of visible intoxication nor did anyone else present complain to me that they were visibly intoxicated. 15. As a RAMP.certified bartender I am very concerned with never serving any patron when there is even a question as to whether they are showing signs of visible intoxication. 2 I verify that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. •... .+ �C 'lv � /6/(&"---Date: )/92—yri � NfidhielI/e Bauer 3 MICHAEL KREIDER, . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff . CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA v. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE • NO.: 12-6810 KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN,INC. d/b/a SNAPPERS BAR& GRILL, Defendants v. . CIVIL ACTION—LAW GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. d/b/a MOE'S BAR& GRILL, • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Additional Defendant . AFFIDAVIT OF NICOLE DAVIS 1. I am an employee of Moe's Bar & Grill in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 2. While I work full time as a teacher, I work part time for Moe's,mostly on Friday nights and/or on Saturdays. 3. I was working on August 24, 2012.. 4. I do remember George Keefer and Deborah Lucy being present at a table on the deck of Moe's on the day in question. 5. I believe that they came in between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. but definitely before 5:00 p.m. because I did not generate the original sales ticket and I would have done so if they came in closer to 5:00 p.m. 6. The sales check was generated at 7:25 p.m. by myself. 7. At all times that I have worked at Moe's, I have been RAMP certified. 8. As a Responsible Alcohol Management Program ("RAMP") certified employee, I am very much aware of the signs of visible intoxication. 9. I would never and have never served any person who is visibly intoxicated. 10. Over the approximately 3 hours that Mr. Keefer and Ms. Lucy were present, they were served a total of 2 pitchers of beer. 11. At no time when I served them either of the pitchers of beer did I notice Mr. Keefer or Ms. Lucy to show any signs of visible intoxication. 12. In fact, at no time during the entire time that Mr. Keefer and Ms. Lucy were present at Moe's did I see any signs from either of them of visible intoxication. 13. While I was there on duty and serving Mr. Keefer and Ms. Lucy, no other patrons or co-workers at any time complained to me that Mr. Keefer or Ms. Lucy were showing any signs of visible intoxication. 14. Being RAMP certified, I have been trained to notice whether a patron is visibly intoxicated and I will not serve them if they show any signs of visible intoxication. I verify that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: InA�x 'Lauu) Nicole Davis 2 flcc ! Y MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V : NO. 12-6810 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION — LAW DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE • KEEFER, AND 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. D/B/A • SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, • DEFENDANTS • • V GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. , • D/B/A MOE' s BAR & GRILL, • ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ■ DEPOSITION OF: MARY CONLEY TAKEN BY: PLAINTIFF BEFORE: DIANE F. FOLTZ, RMR NOTARY PUBLIC DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2013, 9: 30 A.M. PLACE: SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. 100 STERLING PARKWAY MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA • Hughes, Albright, Foltz & Natale Reporting Service, Inc. 35 40 N. Progress Avenue • Suite 207-A • Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-540-0220 • Fax 717-510-0221 MARY CONLEY Multi-Page TM SEPTEMBER 10,2013 Page 22 Page 24 1 A They were in his pocket. 1 George was sitting. She went back to where Michelle was 2 Q And you saw him give her the keys? 2 sitting. 3 A Yes. 3 Q Oh,'I see. Okay. And where was Michelle 4 Q Did he say anything like-- 4 sitting? 5 A When I went up he said--after she left,he got 5 A Michelle--the bar,if I'm facing where George 6 another beer,and he gave me his credit card to start a 6 and Lucy were sitting,she was to the right side 7 tab,and he said she's going shopping. She'll be right 7 (indicating). 8 back. She'll be back in a little bit to pick me up,and I 8 Q Was she at the bar also? 9 said okay. 9 A Yes. 10 Q Okay. So as I understand your testimony,he paid 10 Q Okay. So she didn't go back to her husband; she 11 for two Coors Light with cash,and then when he got to the 11 went back to Michelle? 12 third Coors Light is when he paid with a credit card? 12 A Correct. 13 A Correct. 13 Q And how long did she sit with Michelle--did she 14 Q Was it Visa? 14 sit with Michelle? 15 A I'm not-- I'm not sure. 15 A No. She just said a couple not so nice words to 16 Q Okay. Do you know about what time he gave the 16 Michelle and left. 17 keys to her? • 17 Q Okay. So you thought there was a little 18 A I don't off the top of my head. 18 animosity between her and Michelle? 19 Q Okay. Well,you indicated earlier they arrived 19 A Yes. I actually went over and was like is 20 between 8:00 and 8:15? 20 everything okay,and Michelle said yeah,and Lucy left. 21 A Correct, 21 Q Do you know what they were discussing? 22 Q Do you have an impression that she was only there 22 A I think Lucy had said something about Michelle 23 less than ten minutes,more than ten minutes? 23 wanting to sleep with her husband. I only know that 24 A More than ten minutes. 24 afterwards. I didn't hear it. I asked Michelle. I was 25 Q More than an hour,less than an hour? 25 like what was that all about,and that's what she said. Page 23 Page 25 1 A No,not more than an hour. 1 Q Okay. So this discussion with Michelle was just 2 Q So she was there more than ten minutes but less 2 five,ten seconds? 3 than an hour? 3 A Yes. 4 A Correct. 4 Q And then at that point did Ms. Lucy turn around 5 Q Okay. While she was there,how did she appear? 5 and leave? 6 A She just appeared like she was angry. 6 A Yes. 7 Q Okay. Did she appear intoxicated? 7 Q Okay. And have you ever seen her since? 8 ANo. 8 ANo. 9 Q When you gave--excuse me. Strike that. When 9 Q Okay. While Deborah Lucy was at Snappers, did 10 George Keefer gave the keys to his car to his wife,did you 10 she have anything non-alcoholic to drink? 11 have any concerns in your mind that she was unsafe to 11 A No. 12 drive? 12 Q Did she have anything to eat? 13 A No. 13 A No. 14 Q Okay. I think you testified that when he gave 14 Q Did she have any alcohol while she was there? 15 her the keys to the car,then she left,but then she came 15 A No. 16 right back? 16 Q Did George Keefer have anything to eat while he 17 A She literally walked out the door and then 17 was at Snappers? 18 turned around and came right back before the door was even 18 A No. 19 closed. 19 Q Now,so when Deborah Lucy left and she went out 20 Q Okay. And when she--I take it they're on a bar 20 the door,I take it that George Keefer continued to stay at 21 stool? 21 Snappers? 22 A Yes. 22 A Correct. 23 Q Okay. When she carne back to where George was 23 Q And did he pretty much stay at the same seat, 24 sitting-- 24 although he went to the bathroom on occasion? 25 A No,she went--she never went back to where 25 A Yes. Page 22 -Page 25 HUGHES,ALBRIGHT,FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 MARY CONLEY Multi-Pager"` SEPTEMBER 10,2013 Page 30 Page 32 I the incident? 1 A No. 2 A Correct, 2 Q Okay. When Deb Lucy walked from George to the 3 Q All right, Why did you prepare this statement? 3 door and back,did you notice.anything funny or different 4 A 'Cause I was asked to because I was the bartender 4 about her gait? 5 on duty. 5 A No. 6 Q Who asked you to prepare it? 6 Q She seemed fine? 7 A I believe Toni. Toni asked me to. 7 A Yes. 8 Q Okay. And where did you sit down and prepare 8 Q Were you somewhat surprised to hear that she was 9 this statement,if you remember? 9 involved in an accident within minutes leaving Snappers? 10 A Actually I don't remember. 10 A Very actually,very surprised. 11 Q Okay. What did you do with the original 11 Q Did you go to any of the criminal proceedings? 12 statement? 12 A I did not. 13 A I think I gave it to Torn. 13 Q Do you hear from any source what her blood 14 Q Okay. Do you know what he did with it? 14 alcohol content was? 15 A I do not. 15 A I believe once I found out about the report I 16 Q Did you keep a copy? 16 asked. 17 A I did not. 17 Q And what did you hear? 18 Q Okay. I'm going to take a minute to look at the '18 A I think it was.2. 19 statement,and I might ask just some questions,and I might 19 Q And who did you ask? 20 not. 20 A I believe I asked Tom when he sat me down and 21 A Okay. 21 asked me to write this. 22 Q You can look at it,too--that's fine--just to 22 Q Were you surprised to hear what Tom had to say 23 refresh your recollection. I'm going to--I'm looking at 23 about her blood alcohol content? 24 page 1,and it says I then filled his glass,and George and 24 A Very surprised. 25 his wife started to argue. Again do you know what they 25 Q Why were you very surprised? Page 31 Page 33 I were arguing about? 1 A Because she showed no signs. 2 A I don't. 2 MR.LUTZ: Those are the questions I have. 3 Q Okay. 3 Perhaps the other lawyers have questions. Thank you. 4 A You could just definitely tell by the body 4 THE WITNESS: You're welcome. 5 language. 5 BY MR.RAUCH: 6 Q And it's your recollection that Deborah Lucy said 6 Q Just a couple follow-ups. My name's Kevin Rauch, 7 she was going shopping? 7 and I represent Mr.Keefer and Ms. Lucy. Am I to 8 A No. That's-- George.told me that-- 8 understand that since the date of that accident you've 9 Q George,okay. 9 neither seen Mr. Keefer nor Ms. Lucy ever? 10 A --after she had already left,when he gave me 10 A Correct. 11 his credit card, 11 Q Okay. Not on the street,not around,not 12 Q And so you assumed that she would come back and 12 anywhere? 13 pick him up? 13 A Not anywhere. 14 A Right,that's what he told me. He said she'll be 14 Q And prior to that date Mr,Keefer was a regular 15 back in a little bit. She's going shopping and will pick 15 on Saturdays? 16 me up. 16 A When I used to work Saturdays day shift,it was 17 Q When it got close to 11:00,did you start 17 probably about a year,year and a half,because then I went 18 wondering where she was? 18 to--I got promoted to head bartender,so I only worked 19 A Kind of,yes. 19 nights. 20 Q Did he have a cellphone with him? 20 Q I see. 21 A I don't believe so,but I'm not positive. 21 A So I'm not sure if he still continued to be a 22 Q Okay. And during the evening before the police 22 regular. 23 and ambulance came,did he say anything about I just 23 Q So you can verify that he was part of your 24 learned my wife was involved in an accident or anything 24 Saturday regular crowd prior to your promotion-- 25 like that? 25 A Correct. Page 30 - Page 33 HUGBES,ALBRIGHT,FOLTZ &NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi-Pager`' MARY CONLEY SEPTEMBER 10,2013 ' Page 34 . Page 36 1 Q --which would have been a year--how many years 1 flag in terms of the argumentative? 2 have you been with the bar? 2 A No. 3 A About five and a half. 3 Q So although you saw her interact with her 4 Q So how long would that have spanned before the 4 husband,that was more of a cold couple's type thing as 5 actual date of the accident? 5 opposed to yelling and shouting or anything like that? 6 A I think last April is when I moved to all nights, 6 A Correct. 7 so maybe about a year,year and a couple months. 7 Q Now,when she came back in and spoke to Michelle, 8 Q Okay. So you don't have any knowledge as to what 8 no last name,patron --at least you don't know it. You 9 his habits were that year and a couple months prior to 9 don't know-- 10 August-- 10 A Correct. 11 A Correct. 11 Q --her last name,right? 12 Q --24th? Okay. Now,I assume that in part of 12 A I do not. 13 the RAMP training they give you a lot of different tells or 13 Q Michelle. 14 signs that you're supposed to look for to determine whether 14 MR.LUTZ: Michelle Peck,P-e-c-k? 15 someone is intoxicated; is that right? 15 MS.HOSENPUD: I think that we provided that in 16 A Yes. 16 discovery. 17 Q Could you please list them for me? 17 MR.RAUCH: Okay. 18 A Blurry eyes,can't hold things,slurred speech, 18 MR.LUTZ: I'm just throwing it out to see if 19 argumentative,just starting fights with everyone,not able 19 it rings a bell. 20 to walk correctly,swaying. 20 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure off the top of my 21 Q Now,of those things that you've mentioned for 21 head,no. 22 me--we'll get to the argumentative in a second--but did 22 BY MR.RAUCH: 23 Ms.Lucy exhibit any of those traits? 23 Q I was going to say does that ring a bell? 24 A No. 24 A No. 25 Q Did Mr.Keefer exhibit any of those traits? 25 Q That's fine. Page 35 Page 37, 1 A Not when he came in. Obviously later on. 1 A Yeah. 2 Q Okay. Now,when they teach you about 2 Q You just know her as Michelle. You could . 3 argumentative,I assume that you're told about,you know, 3 probably--if you knew her to see her,you'd know that was 4 what signs to look for during arguments to make it seem 4 Michelle,right? 5 like it's alcohol fueled? 5 A Yes,yes. 6 A Correct. 6 Q So in the exchange that you saw Ms.Lucy have 7 Q What would those things be? 7 with Michelle,did she exhibit any of those traits that 8 A Just out of the blue someone yells,you know, 8 would lead you to believe that it was an alcohol-fueled 9 shut up or just starts fights for no reason or just,you 9 argument? 10 know,gets loud with someone. 10 A No,it just--she wasn't yelling. You could 11 Q Is there a language restriction at your bar? 11 just tell that it wasn't a good conversation. 12 A Yes,more so at this hour when people are eating 12 Q Okay. What do you remember hearing? 13 dinner. 13 A I actually didn't hear anything. Like I said, 14 Q Okay. So is there a sign that says no swearing 14 they weren't screaming at each other. She just--you 15 or anything like that? 15 could tell that she was kind of yelling at Michelle. 16 A No. 16 Q So you didn't hear any swear words or anything 17 Q But it's just generally considered people will 17 like that as far as you know? 18 act with certain decorum during the-- 18 A Correct. 19 A Correct. 19 Q And the reason I'm asking is because you said a 20 Q --dinner hour? 20 couple choice words. I'm assuming that you gathered that 21 A And in a bar everyone--but if they're yelling 21 by just the body language? 22 the F bomb we go over and ask them to please tone it down, 22 A Yes,yes. 23 or,you know,they're going to have to leave. 23 Q Okay. Back to the receipt which is Exhibit 2,I 24 Q Understood. So with all that as background,did 24 want to just ask just for clarification, on the first page 25 Ms. Lucy do any of those things that would have thrown up a 25 in the bottom left there appears to be 23:06 which to me Page 34 -Page 37 1 TTTTaPIPC AT 1112TfTTT PA!T7 Rr NA TAT P PPPCIRTTNCI 717-can-min Multi-Page' MARY CONLEY SEPTEMBER 10,2013 Page 42 Page 44 I bartender for a long time. Are -- is Coors Light--it's a I A Because I treat them all the same,because even 2 very popular beer obviously? 2 walking,you can walk into the middle of the street and get 3 A Yes. 3 hit,so I treat--whether they're driving or not,it's all 4 Q Do light beers have the same amount of alcohol as 4 the same to me. 5 regular beers; do you know? 5 Q And you never saw any signs with George of 6 A The alcohol content in them? 6 intoxication? 7 Q Yeah. 7 A No. 8 A Not always,no. 8 Q And I know it's been covered. I just don't want 9 Q And Coors Light is a standard alcohol content 9 to beat this too much. But Deborah did not drink at all in 10 beer as far as you know? 10 your presence? 11 A Yes. 11 A No. 12 Q Now,you said that on this Friday night in 12 Q And you saw no signs of intoxication with her? 13 particular he paid for his first two with cash? 13 A Correct. 14 A Correct. 14 Q There was no slurred speech of any kind? 15 Q And then changed his mind and went to a tab? 15 A No. 16 A Yes. 16 Q And other than Kevin asked you about the 17 Q And it looks as though he had--we've added-- 17 argument,that was not in your opinion a drunk argument? 18 we've figured out he's had seven beers on that night? 18 A Right. They kind of came in angry—well, she 19 A Correct. 19 came in angry at each other. 20 Q And all in about three hours or so? 20 Q Was it standard for George when he was there on 21 A Correct. 21 Saturdays previously to pay with cash or credit card? 22 Q Now, was that a normal amount? 22 A I can't remember that off the top of my head. 23 A Yes. 23 Q But he always drank Coors Light;that you're sure 24 Q Is it your experience that someone who--let's 24 of? 25 back up a second. Is George a normal size individual? 25 A Yes. It's on special on Saturdays so..: Page 43 Page 45 1 A He's a little bigger than normal. 1 Q It's less expensive than it would be-- 2 Q And that would--that would be relative to how 2 A Yes. 3 quickly you might become intoxicated? 3 Q --on Friday night? 4 A It can be,yes. 4 A Yes. 5 Q So seven beers in three hours is a normal amount, 5 Q Did George ever drink anything else besides the 6 and at no time during that course of the evening did you 6 Coors Light in your presence? 7 believe that George was intoxicated? 7 A On that night? 8 A Until the last when he went to stand up. 8 Q Yeah,that night,yes. 9 Q Right. 9 A No: 10 A Then I knew something was. 10 Q How about any other time before? 11 Q As you were serving him those beers between-- 11 A No,he's always had-- 12 after his wife left,you were assuming that his wife was 12 Q Never had mixed drinks? 13 going to come back to pick him up,correct? 13 A No. 14 A Correct. 14 Q I know that Mr. Lutz had asked you about your 15 Q I know it's hypothetical,but if you knew that 15 surprise regarding the level of intoxication of Deborah at 16 his wife was not coming back,would you have served him the 16 the time of the accident. In your experience how much 17 number of beers that you did? 17 would you have to drink to get to that level? Do you have 18 A Probably. 18 any idea? Do you have any sense of that? 19 Q Okay. So he was never--from your perspective 19 A I don't. 20 as an experienced bartender,there was never a concern that 20 MR.RAUCH: Object to the form. 21 he was drinking to the level of intoxication? 21 BY MR.GOOD: 22 A Well,even if--whether they're driving or not, 22 Q So as part of the RAMP training do you know how 23 if they reach that level of intoxication I would have cut 23 long it takes to become legally intoxicated,how much 24 him off,whether I know they're driving or not. 24 drinking-- 25 Q Understood. 25 A One beer. Page 42 - Page 45 TITTGTTPC AT T RTMIT par T7. Rr NAT AT P 12 PPCRTING 717-6411-(177n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2014, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the within document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the U.S. Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-17108 Counsel for Plaintiff Kevin Rauch, Esquire Seth Black, Esquire Summers McDonnell Hudock Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg PA 17020 Counsel for Defendants Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer CALDWELL &KEARNS By: , Peter M. ood Esqui e I.D. #64316 Thomas S. Lee, Esquire I.D. #89440 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)232-7661 (717)232-2766 (fax) Attorneys for Additional Defendants George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill 6 -OFFICE OF THE P t THON 0 TAR Y "1t •? -7 PM 2: ,3" 2 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney 1D# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-mail: dlutz@angino-rovner.com MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff V. DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, Defendants V. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL, Defendants/Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 12-6810 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE, TO ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT GEORGE. AND LEILAt INC. D/B/A/ MOE'S BAR AND GRILL'S. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff Michael Kreider, by and through his counsel, Angino & Rovner, P.C. and hereby responds to the aforesaid Motion for Summary Judgment as follows: It is admitted that in an Order dated January 15, 2014, Your Court consolidated two actions. 2. It is admitted that Plaintiff Michael Kreider (Kreider) filed a Complaint on November 12, 2012 against Deborah A. Lucy (Lucy), George Keefer (Keefer), and 120 East Allen, Inc. t/d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill (Snappers). The Count against Snappers was based on a dram shop claim as Lucy had a blood alcohol content of .219% at the time of the subject collision. Specifically, the Plaintiffs Complaint alleged the following: 6. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on August 24, 2012, at approximately 8:53 p.m. on East. Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland Pennsylvania. 7. At that time and place, Plaintiff Michael Kreider was operating a 1999 Harley Davidson Road King motorcycle, traveling west on East Trindle Road. 8. At the same time and place, Defendant Lucy was operating Defendant George Keefer's 1994 Ford Mustang, traveling east on East Trindle Road. 9. Defendant Lucy was planning to turn left from East Trindle Road and proceed north on South Sporting Hill Road. 10. When Defendant Lucy started to turn the Mustang left, attempting to proceed north on South Sporting Hill Road, she caused the left front of the Mustang to collide into the left side of the Harley-Davidson motorcycle and Mr. Kreider. 11. Upon striking Mr. Kreider and his motorcycle, Defendant Lucy fled the collision scene. 12. Within minutes after the collision, the Hampton Township Police were summoned to the collision scene. The investigating police officer then proceeded to Defendant Lucy's residence on Good Hope Road and found. Defendant Lucy to be severely intoxicated. 13. Within minutes of the collision, Defendant Lucy was arrested by the Hampton Township Police. 548540 14. Defendant Lucy's blood alcohol content was .219% o while operating the Mustang at the time that she caused a serious motor vehicle /motorcycle collision and fled the collision scene. However, discovery revealed that while Lucy was at Snappers before the subject collision, she did not consume alcohol at Snappers. All the alcohol consumed after Lucy left her home was at Moe's. See, Lucy's October 16, 2013 deposition testimony attached as Exhibit A at p. 21, line 3 =8. 3. It is admitted that Kreider initiated an action against Moe's by filing a Complaint on November 21, 2013, docketed at 13 -6912 Civil. 4. Admitted that Moe's filed an Answer with New Matter on December 13, 2013 docketed at 13 -6912- Civil. 5. Admitted that Kreider filed a Reply to Defendant Moe's New Matter docketed at 13- 6912 - Civil. 6. Admitted that on July 10, 2013, both Lucy and Keefer filed an Answer, New Matter and New Matter Pursuant to Rule 1031.1 docketed at 12 -6810 - Civil. 7. Admitted that on July 17, 2013, Kreider filed a Reply to Lucy and Keefer's New Matter docketed at 12 -6810 - Civil. 8. Admitted that on July 23, 2013, Moe's filed a Reply to Defendant Lucy and Keefer's New Matter and New Matter Pursuant to Rule 1031.1 docketed at 12 -6810 - Civil. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 548540 11. It is admitted that Kreider's Complaint alleges that employees of Moe's furnished alcohol to Lucy on August 24, 2012 to the point where she became visibly intoxicated. Shortly thereafter, Lucy operated a Ford Mustang and collided with Kreider while he was operating a motorcycle. Kreider sustained serious injuries. Lucy fled the scene and within minutes the Hampden Township Police proceeded to her residence. It was very obvious to several police officers that Lucy was severely intoxicated. The Hampden Township Police Department responded to a Subpoena for records, and said responses are attached as Exhibit B. The detailed police report provides that Patrolman Joshua Pressel noted that Lucy exhibited slurred speech, strong odor of alcohol, wobbling, red and bloodshot eyes, repeatedly slurring words, hard time answering questions and memory loss. Lucy did not remember striking a motorcyclist. Not surprisingly, Lucy did not pass the standard field sobriety exercise. Likewise, Hampden Township Corporal Shaughnessy noted that when he met Lucy in her driveway, he observed her damaged Mustang. He also observed that Lucy exhibited red, glassy eyes, an odor of alcohol on her breath and slurred speech. She also stated that she did not hit another vehicle but could not explain the fresh damage to her Mustang or why the airbags deployed. It should be noted that Moe's has admitted that Lucy was consuming alcohol at Moe's on August 24, 2012 for approximately two hours. Attached as Exhibit C is Moe's Response to the Plaintiffs Request for Admissions, Set I. Given Lucy's high BAC and the independent observations of the arresting police officers, Dr. Lawrence Guzzardi prepared an expert report dated December 5, 2013 attached hereto as Exhibit D. Upon .reviewing the relevant records, Dr. Guzzardi concluded that Lucy was served 548540 beer at Moe's when her blood alcohol was in the range Of .20 percent to .24 percent and as such, she would- have. demonstrated visible signs of alcohol- intoxication when she was served beer at Moe's from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Dr. Guzzardi wrote, "These visible signs of intoxication would have been similar to those observed by Officer Pressel and {Corporal] Shaughnessy." 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. 14. It i's admitte-d that a jury. could conclude that Lucy was at Moe's for two hours before the subjectinotor vehicle collision when she became visibly intoxicated. 15. It i's admitted that Moe's has produced the Affidavits of two of Moe's employees. Presumably they will testify that Lucy was not visibly intoxicated. As such, the jury will need-to weigh the testimony of the police officers, Dr. Guzzardi, Deborah Lucy, and the two Moes employees. 16. At trial, Kreider bears the burden of proving to a jury that Lucy was visibly intoxicated while being served beer at Moe's for the two hours before the subject motor vehicle collision and that such conduct was the proximate cause of Kreider's harm 17. In support of its position, Moe's cites Hiles v. Brandywine Club, 662 A.2d 16 (Pa, Super. 1995). However, Hiles actually supports the Plaintiff's position. In Hiles, the Trial Court permitted the jury to determine whether the defendant driver and/or defendant dram shop was negligent. The jury determined that the dram shop was not liable. 18. It is admitted that Dr. Guzzardi's expert report provides, "Using the modified Widmark equation, each twelve ounces of Coors light beer when fully absorbed will raise the blood alcohol concentration in an individual of Ms. Lucy's height and weight by about .031 percent w/v of alcohol in whole blood ".031%." 548540 19 -20. It is admitted that Dr. Guzzardi not only reviewed Ms. Lucy's blood alcohol content and analyzed the metabolizing alcohol rate from the time period she initiated drinking beer at Moe's until she left, but also relied on the eyewitness statements of the police officer to conclude that Lucy would have demonstrated visible signs of alcohol intoxication when served beer at Moe's for the two hours between 5:30 and 7 :30. 21. -22. Moe's reliance on the Affidavits of Michele Bauer and Nicole Davis violates the "Nanty -Glo" Rule, Nantny -Glo v. American Surety Co.,.163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932), approved by our courts for more than 80 years. The Rule provides: Testimonial affidavits of the moving party or his witnesses, not documentary, even if uncontradicted, will not afford sufficient basis for the entry of summary judgment since the credibility of the testimony is still a matter for the jury. Goodrich -AmRam 2d §1035(b) Curran v.. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 439 A.2d 652,662 (Pa. 1981). 23. Admitted that Mary Conley testified that Lucy did not consume alcohol at Snappers. 24 -25. Moe's reliance on the Affidavits of Michele Bauer and Nicole Davis violates the "Nanty -Glo" Rule, Nanty -Glo v.. American. Surety Co., 163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932), approved by our courts for.more than 80 years. The Rule provides: Testimonial affidavits of the moving party or his witnesses, not documentary, even if uncontradicted, will not afford sufficient basis for the entry of summary judgment since the credibility of the testimony is still a matter for the jury. Goodrich- AmRam 2d §1035(b) Curran v. Philadelphia. Newspapers, Inc., 439 A.2d 652,662 (Pa. 1981). 26.-28. It is admitted that Conley testified that she did not believe Lucy was visibly intoxicated at Snappers. Of course, Conley's testimony is for a jury to weigh. At the time that Conley testified, Snappers was a Defendant and minutes after leaving Snappers Lucy caused the 548540 subject collision and fled the scene. Minutes later, Lucy was arrested by two experienced police officers that documented that she was severely intoxicated. 29. It is admitted that Kreider's Complaint alleges that employees of Moe's furnished alcohol to Lucy on August 24, 2012 to the point where she became visibly intoxicated. Shortly thereafter; Lucy operated a Ford Mustang and collided with Kreider while he was operating a motorcycle. Kreider sustained serious injuries. Lucy fled the scene and within minutes the Hampden Township Police proceeded to her residence. It was very obvious to several police officers that Lucy was severely intoxicated. The Hampden Township Police Department responded to a Subpoena for records, and said responses are attached as Exhibit B. The detailed police report provides that Patrolman Joshua Pressel noted that Lucy exhibited slurred speech, strong odor of alcohol, wobbling, red and bloodshot eyes, repeatedly slurring words, hard time answering questions and memory loss. Lucy did not remember striking a motorcyclist. Not surprisingly, Lucy did not pass the standard field sobriety exercise. Likewise, Hampden Township Corporal Shaughnessy noted that when he met Lucy, in her driveway, he observed her damaged Mustang. He also observed that Lucy exhibited red, glassy eyes, an odor of alcohol on her breath and slurred speech. She also stated that she did not hit another vehicle but could not explain the fresh damage to her Mustang or why the airbags deployed. It should be noted that Moe's has admitted that Lucy was consuming alcohol at Moe's on August 24, 2012 for approximately two hours. Attached as Exhibit C is Moe's Response to,the Plaintiff's Request for Admissions, Set I. 548540 Given Lucy's high BAC and the independent observations of the arresting police officers, Dr. Lawrence Guzzardi prepared an expert report dated December 5, 2013 attached hereto as Exhibit D. Upon reviewing the relevant records, Dr. Guzzardi concluded that Lucy was served beer at Moe's when her blood alcohol was in the range of :20 percent to :24 percent and as such, she would have demonstrated visible signs of alcohol intoxication when she was served beer at Moe's from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Dr. Guzzardi wrote, "These visible signs of intoxication would have been similar to those observed by Officer Pressel and [Corporal] Shaughnessy." 30. In support of its position, Moe's cites Peluso v. Walter, 483 A.2d 905 (Pa. Super. 1984). However Peluso supports the Plaintiff's position. In Peluso, the Trial Court granted the dram shop's Motion for Summary Judgment based on the deposition testimony of an individual that testified that the tortfeasor was not visibly intoxicated when served alcoholic beverages. The Superior Court reversed. The Superior Court held that such testimony is incompetent to support a Motion for Summary Judgment, citing the Nanty -Glo rule. Nanty -Glo v. American Surety Co., 163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932) 31. -32. Denied. There are numerous questions of material fact for the jury to determine: WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Your Court enter an Order denying Defendant Moe's Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant Moe's has the burden as the moving party to prove there are no material questions of fact. The foundation of Moe's argument is that based on the Affidavits of two employees that Lucy was not visibly intoxicated, 548540 Plaintiff's dram shop claim must be dismissed. Fortunately, this is not the law. DATE: 548540 't AN:GINO /ROVNER, P.C. 410,:411‘ David L. Lu PA I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238 -6791 — phone (717) 238 - 5610= fax dlutz@angino-rovner.com Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michelle M. Milojevich, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. D /B /A/ MOE'S BAR AND GRILL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT upon counsel for the Defendants and Additional Defendant via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Kevin Rauch, Esquire Seth Black, Esquire Summers McDonnell, et al. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Defendants George Keefer and Deborah Lucy Peter Good, Esquire Thomas Lee,, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns 3631 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 -1533 Attorney for Defendants /Additional Defendant George and Leila, Inc. d /b /a Moe's Bar & Grill Michelle M. Milojevich Dated: 3,6-% 548540 EXHIBIT A Multi -Page DEBORAH A. LUCY Page 2 - Page 5 HUGHES. ALBRIGHT. FOLTZ & NATALE REPORTING 74 7 -540 -0220 APPEARANCES (CONT'D.) Page 2 Page 4 1 STIPULATION 2 It is hereby stipulated by and between SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, PC BY: SETH T. BLACK, ESQUIRE 3 .counsel'forthe'respective parties that reading, 4 signing, sealing, certification and filing are hereby 5 -.waived; and that all objections, except as to the form FOR - DEFENDANTS LUCY AND KEEFER 6 of the question, are reserved to the time of trial. 7 LAVERY, FAHERTY & PATTERSON 8 DEBORAH A. LUCY, called as a witness, being BY: JESSICA S. HOSENPUD, ESQUIRE 9 duly sworn, testified as follows: 10 EXAMINATION FOR - DEFENDANT SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL 11 BY MR. LUTZ: 12 Q. Please state your name. CALDWELL & KEARNS, PC 13 A. Deborah Anna Lucy. BY: PETER M. GOOD, ESQUIRE 14 Q.Is it Miss Lucy? 15 A. Mrs. FOR - ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT 16 Q. Mrs. Lucy. Mrs. Lucy, my naive is David Lutz and 17 I'ln an attorney and I represent Michael Kreider. He is 18 the gentleman that was on the motorcycle the night of 19 the collision that we're going to be discussing in a few 20 minutes. 21 Pin here at the Muncy State Correctional 22 Institute to take your deposition which means I will be 23 asking you a set of questions and then when I'm done "the 24 other lawyers may ask you questions, too. 25 You are sitting beside your lawyer and if at any Page 3 Page 5 1 WITNESS 1 time you want to ask your lawyer questions privately, 2 NAME EXAMINATION 2 let us know and we'll make that arrangement. If at any 3 DEBORAH A. LUCY 3 time you want to take a break, let us know and we'll try 4 BY: MR. LUTZ 4,58 4 to make that arrangement. I guess we can talk to the 5 BY: MR. GOOD 37,60 5 guards out in the other room. 6 BY: MS. HOSENPUD 51 6 I don't believe this will take too long, but 7 BY: MR. BLACK -- 7 there are a couple rules. One of the rules is no one 8 8 here wants you to guess, so if you don't know an answer 9 9 to a question, please just let us know that. 10 10 Additionally, if you do not understand one of my 11 EXHIBITS 11 questions, let me know that and I'll try to make it 12 LUCY EXHIBIT NO. PRODUCED AND MARKED 12 clearer. Having said that, I'm going to assume two 13 1. GUILTY PLEA 33 13 things then. If I ask you a question and you answer, 14 2. SENTENCING ORDER 34 14 I'm going to assume No. 1 that you understood my 15 3. CREDIT CARD RECEIPT 35 15 question and No. 2, that you're giving me the best 16 16 answer that you can. Do you understand those rules? 17 17 A. Yes. 18 • 18 .Q. Good. And you're doing very, very well by the 19 . 19 way by answering verbally. Try to stay away from 20 . 20 uh- huh, - huh -uh because that's really hard for the court 21 21 -reporter to-take. 22 .22 All right,'Mrs. Lucy, I want to ask you a few 23 23 background- questions first before we get to the events 24 24 idf, August .24th, 2012. Presently you're incarcerated in 25 25 'Muncy:StateCorrectional Institute? Page 2 - Page 5 HUGHES. ALBRIGHT. FOLTZ & NATALE REPORTING 74 7 -540 -0220 , DEBORAH A. LUCY OCTOBER 16, 2013 Multi -Page Tm Page 6 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Do you know how long you'll be here? 3 A. My minimum date is March 1 lth, 2014. 4 Q. Do you live in the Harrisburg area? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q.And what's your address? 7 A.533 Good Hope Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 8 17050. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. How long had you lived at that address? A. Three years. Q. And I understand you're roamed? A. Yes. Q. Your husband's name? A. George W. Keefer, Junior. Q. How long have you and Mr. Keefer been married? A. September 8th, 2010. Q. Do you have any children to George Keefer? A. No. Q. Do you have any children? A. Yes. Q. How many children do you have? A. One. Q.And your child's .name? A. Johnny Anthony Lucy. Q. Where does John Anthony Lucy live? Page 8 1 Q.I had mentioned a date, August 24th, 2012. Does 2 that ring a bell as the date of the collision that 3 brings us here today? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. At that time could you give me your height and 6 weight? 7 A. Five four, 120 pounds. 8 Q.I do want to focus on that particular day, August 9 24, 2012. Do you recall what you did during the morning 10 of that day? 11 A.•I was doing gardening. 12 Q.At your house? 13 A. At my house. 14 Q. Was your husband George working? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Okay. Was he also home? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Do you remember what day of the week it was? 19 A. Friday. 20 Q. Was it any special occasion that Friday? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Was your husband George employed at the tune? 23 .A. No. 24 Q. What is his background in terns of the types of 25 jobs that he's held in the past? Page 7 1 A. 533 Good Hope Road, Mechanicsburg, PA, 17050. 2 Q. How old is your son? 3 A.42. 4 Q. Before the accident that brings us here, were you 5 employed? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Have you worked in the past at a certain type of 8 profession or type of vocation? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And what type of work? 11 A. Hostess, server. 12 Q. Where had you last worked? 13 A. Denny's. 14 Q. Which one? 15 A, 5505 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA, 17050. 16 Q. Mrs. Lucy, where were you raised? 17 A. Mechanicsburg. 18 Q. Where did you go to school? 19 A. Cumberland Valley. 20 Q. How far did you get in school? 21 A.10th grade. 22 Q. What year was that, do you recall? 23 A. I would have graduated in ' 73. 1974. - 24 Q. What's your date of .birth? 25 A. March 7th, 1955. 1 A. He was a truck driver for 20 years and retired. 2 Q. When did he retire? 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. Did he retire before you were married? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Did he work for separate companies or was he an 7 independent trucker or... 8 A. Separate companies. 9 Q. Okay. So was he helping you garden that day? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Do you remember wha 12 A. I worked all day. 13 Q. Okay. Do you remember what to 14 what time you stopped? 15 A. Around 10 and stopped, 4 p.m. 16 Q.10 a.m. to 4 p.m.? 17 A. (Nods Affirmatively.) 18 Q. Say yes. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q: Okay. How .was -the weather that day? 21 A. Hot. 22 Q. But no rain? 23 A. No. 24 Q. All right. During the day at home when you were 25 working on the.gardening from 10 to 4, did you have any Page 9 time you got done gardening? e you started, Page 6 - Page 9 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ & NATALE REPORTING 717 -540 -0220 Multi -Page TT''` Page 10 1 alcoholic beverages? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Do you remember what type of beverages you. had? 4 A. Beer. 5 Q. Okay. Do you remember what type of beer? 6 A. Coors Light. 7 Q. Cans? 8 A. Cans. 9 Q.12 ounce cans? 10 A. I'm not sure. 11 Q. Okay. Could it have been something larger than 12 12 ounce cans? 13 A. It might have been. 14 Q. This is Coors Light that you had purchased before 15 that day? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. So you had it in the refrigerator? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you have an idea of how many Coors Lights you 20 had between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Was it more than one? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Was it less than five? 25 A. I don't know. 1 A. I don't know. 2 Q. Did George drive to Moe's? " 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. What type of vehicle did George drive? 5 A. Mustang. 6 Q.Do you know the year of the Mustang? 7 A.'94. 8 Q. Okay. Had George owned the Mustang when you two 9 were married? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. How long have you known George Keefer? 12 A.25 years. 13 Q. Had you dated before you got married? 14 A. We lived together for 25 years. 15 Q. So you've known him? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Now, do you know the registered owner of the 18 Mustang? 19 A. George. 20 Q. I guess my question is were you co -owner of the 21 Mustang? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Okay. In your house was it known as George's 24 vehicle? 25 A. Yes. DEBORAH A. LUCY OCTOBER 16, 2013 Page 12 Page 11 1 Q. Okay. So moving forward, it becomes 4:00 in the 2 afternoon, you have been I assume gardening most of the 3 day, correct? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. What happened next? 6 A. I came in to shower and my husband asked if I 7 wanted to go to get something to eat, so we left. 8 Q. And your husband's naive is George? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. So what -- where did you and George go after your 11 shower was done? 12 A. We went to Moe's. 13 Q. Can you give me a ballpark idea what time you 14 left your house, you and your husband, and what time you 15 arrived at Moe's? 16 A. I'd say -- a ballpark, around 5:30. 17 Q.Is the time you left? 18 A. No, the tune we got there. 19 Q. What time,did you leave your house? 20 A.I'd,say 5:20. 21 Q. So normally it's a ten - minute drive to Moe's? 22 A. About that. 23 Q. And you have been to Moe's before? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. How many miles is it from your house to Moe's? Page 13 1 Q. Did you drive the vehicle on a regular basis? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Did you have another vehicle besides the Mustang? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. What other vehicle did you have? 6 A.'97 SUV. 7 Q. Okay. What type of SUV? Ford? Chevy? 8 Whatever? 9 A. Offhand I don't know but -- it's a Blazer. 10 Q. Chevy Blazer SUV? 11 A. (Nods Affirmatively.) 12 Q. Say yes. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did your son own a motor vehicle? 15 A. No. 16 Q. So sometimes George would use the Blazer, 17 sometimes you would use the Mustang, is that fair? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Did :you:have to ask each other permission? 20 /A. No. 21 Q. So George and you left your house around 5:20 22'p m. toigo:to'Moe's? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Before you left your house to go to Moe's, did 25 you know if George had any alcoholic beverages? HUGHES_ ALBRIGHT. FOLTZ & NATALE REPORTING 717 -540 -0220 Page 10 - Page 13 . DEBORAH A. LUCY Multi-Page OCTOBER 16, 2013 Page 14 1 A.No. 2 Q.No, you don't know or no, he didn't? 3 A. No, he didn't. 4 Q. What had he done all morning and afternoon, if 5 you recall? 6 A. Watched CNN. 7 Q. Okay. So you folks go to Moe's, was it just the 8 two of you? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. I think you said that you arrived at Moe's 11 around 5:30? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Was Moe's a place that you would go on a regular 14 basis? 15 A.No. 16 Q. Okay. How many times had you been to Moe's 17 before this, if you know? 18 A. I don't know. 19 Q. Okay. But this was not the first time you were 20 at Moe's? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Okay. And I take it you got there around 5:30, 23 tell ine what happened as you and George arrived at 24 Moe's. 25 A. We set out on the deck, we looked over the menu Page 16 1 Q. What did George order? 2 A. A pitcher of Coors Light. 3 Q.. Do you remember the name of the person.that 4 obtained the Coors Light for you? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Was it a waiter or waitress or did you go to the 7 bar.or -did George go to the bar? 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. Okay. But either way you were sitting out on the 10 deck? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. I assume the deck is outside? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Is it at the back of the bar? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And could you describe for me the size of the 17 pitcher? 18 A. It's a regular sized pitcher. 19 Q. About six to eight inches high? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. Did you and George consume that pitcher? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Can you tell me whether it was a split in terms 24 of 50. percent, 50 percent or do you know who drank more 25 or who drank less, if you know? Page 15. 1 and we ordered beer. 2 Q. Did you also order food? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Did you order chips or pretzels or anything like 5 that? 6 A.No. 7 Q. I thought earlier you said you were going to 8 Moe's to eat? 9 A. We were. There wasn't anything on the menu I 10 wanted. 11 Q. Okay. Were you going to eat at all that day or 12 night? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. What was the plan, if you didn't like Moe's menu 15 in terms of eating? 16 A.If I didn't get anything there, I was going to 17 eat when I got home. 18 Q. Okay. So there was nothing on the menu at Moe's 19 that you wanted, how about George, did he order anything 20 to eat? 21 A.No. 22 Q. And I think you said you ordered beer? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did you order it or did George order it? 25 A. George did. Page 17 1 A. No. 2 Q. But both of you were drinking Coors Light? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. If you arrived there at 5:30, I assume you got 5 the Coors Light pitcher shortly after that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Within a few minutes? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you know what time the Coors Light pitcher was 10 finished between you and George? 11 A.No. 12 Q. Did -- was there another Coors Light pitcher 13 ordered? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. Do you know -- same thing, did both you 16 and George drink out of the pitcher? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q.1 don't mean drink out of the pitcher. You would 19 pour each other glasses, right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So did you and George finish the second pitcher? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Did you order -a third pitcher? 24 A. Not that I remember. 25 Q. Okay. Can you give me a ballpark time that you Page 14 - Page 17 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ & NATALE REPORTING 717 -540 -0220 Multi -Page im DEBORAH A. LUCY OCTOBER 16, 2013 Page 18 1 left Moe's? 2 A. A ballpark? I don't know. 7:45, 8:00. 3 Q. So based on your testimony' I would assume you 4 were at Moe's for maybe two hours plus, is that fair? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Now, the second pitcher, did George obtain the 7 pitcher or did a waitress or waiter come to your table 8 or how was that obtained, if you know? 9 A. I don't remember. 10 Q. Okay. After -- I think you said you left around 11 7:30, 7:45? 12 MR. BLACK: She said 7:45 to 8:00. 13 MR. LUTZ: Thank you. 14 BY MR. LUTZ: 15 Q. Is that about right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What was the plan at that point in tune? 18 A. We were going to stop at Snappers to see what 19 they had to eat. 20 Q. And so after leaving Moe's you go to Snappers? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Who drove from Moe's to Snappers? 23 A. George did. 24 Q. Any reason you didn't drive? 25 A.I didn't want to drive. Page 20 1 A. Oh, no. At Moe's, nobody. 2 Q. We didn't get to Snappers yet. 3 A. Okay. Nobody then. 4 Q. So we are clear, at Moe's you didn't know anybody 5 by naive that worked there? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Did George? 8 A. No. 9 Q. So you and George, with George driving the 10 Mustang, go from Moe's to Snappers, which is a fairly. 11 quick drive in terms of five minutes or more? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Tell me what happened when you get to Snappers? 14 A. We went in, it was packed. There was one seat 15 available, he set down. I said there's no where to sit, 16 I want to go home. He ordered a draft, she asked me if 17 I wanted anything and I said no. 18 I said after you finish that I wanted to go home. 19 And he said okay. I thought I went to the ladies room. 20 I don't know if he did or I did, but I believe I did and 21 when I got back there's still no seats, the place is 22 crowded and I said I want to leave. 23 And we sort of got into a disagreement because 24 there was another beer and he said he didn't order it, 25 she just filled it. I said -- well I said I want to go Page 19 1 Q. Okay. How long of a drive was it from Moe's to 2 Snappers? 3 A. Oh, not very far. 4 Q. Can you give me miles or minutes? 5 A. Three miles. 6 Q. In terms of time, very short, five minutes, 7 maybe? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. All right. And I take it from what you've said 10 so far is the plan was to go to Snappers to eat? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Were you getting hungry by then? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. If George said to you at Moe's I want you to 15 drive over, do you feel you could have driven over given 16 the amount of beer you had? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. Did you know any of the waiters and 19 waitresses or anybody at Moe's by name? 20 A. I knew a girl I worked with, Michelle. 21 Q. Was Michelle there at the time? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Did she serve you at all? 24 A. No, she didn't work there. She was a customer. 25 Q. Michelle was a customer at Moe's? Page 21 1 home and he said here's the keys, you can go home. 2 Q. Okay. Pm going to ask you a few follow -up 3 questions, okay. Did you consume any alcohol at 4 Snappers? 5 A. No. 6 Q. So all of the alcohol that you consumed before 7 the collision was either at home or at Moe's? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. I think when you first walked into Snappers you 10 said that there was one seat, is that right? 11 A. Yes. 12 MR. BLACK: At the bar. 13 BY MR. LUTZ: 14 Q. That's what I was just going to ask you, was it 15 at the bar? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And George sat down at that seat? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And he ordered a beer? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do you know what he ordered? 22 A. Coors Light. 23 Q. Do you know who he ordered it from? 24 A. NO. 25 Q. Was it a person behind the bar? Page 18 - Page 21 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ & NATALE REPORTING 717 - 540 -0220 DEBORAH A. LUCY OCTOBER 16, 2013 Multi -Page Page 22 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Was it a female person behind the bar? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did you know her name? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Okay. Did you or George know anybody at 7 Snappers? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And who did you know? 10 A. Michelle, a girl I worked with. 11 Q. Okay. Did George also know Michelle? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you know Michelle's last name? 14 A. N0. 15 Q. And it just happened that Michelle was at the 16 bar? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did you and her have a conversation that evening? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What was that about? 21 A.I don't remember exactly. I didn't -- I 22 recognized her, but I said -- I just said I know you and 23 she said yeah, we worked at Denny's together and we 24 started tallcing just a little bit, I don't remember what 25 we were saying, but she -- she -- she was smiling and -- Page 24 1 interrupt you. Do you know about what time you finally 2 left Snappers? 3 A.20 of nine. 4 Q.20 of nine? 5 A. (Nods Affirmatively.) 6 Q. So 8:40 p.m., give or take? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q.I take it your plan was to go home and eat? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. When you said to George words to the effect of I 11 want to go home, I assume you meant you also wanted him 12 to take you home? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. At that point in time did you feel that George 15 had too many beers? 16 A. No. 17 Q. When you left Snappers did you feel you had too 18 many beers? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Did you feel that you were capable of safely 21 operating the motor vehicle? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. The Mustang,.is it a standard transmission or an 24 automatic transmission? 25 A. Automatic. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 23 Q. She was what? A. Siniling. Q. Oh, smiling, okay. A. And I said a few words to her. I don't remember what I said. And then I left. Q. Were things heated between you and Michelle? A.No, not really. I was mad at my husband and she looked over at him and I said well I'm leaving, you can have him or something like that. Q. Okay. Pm going to go back to where George gave you the keys to the Mustang. Did he say anything to you? MR. BLACK: When he gave her the keys? MR. LUTZ: Yes. THE WITNESS: I don't remember. BY ``MR. LUTZ: Q. Was it your intent at that point to go from Snappers to home? A. Yes. Q. How far in terms of time and distance would it take you to go from Snappers to home? A. Ten minutes. Q. Do you know how many miles? A.No. Q. Do you know -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 25 Q. How long had George owned the Mustang? A.I don't know. Q. From the time you left Snappers until the accident, did you have any mechanical problems with the Mustang? A. No. Q. It worked fine? A. Yes. Q. And I assume by then it was dark out? A. Yes. Q. If you were leaving Snappers to go home, what was the plan in terms of how George would get home? A.I don't know. Q. Well I mean was there any discussion of you coming back to pick him up or him taking a taxi or getting a friend? A. No. Q. So you don't know how George was going to get home? A.No. Q. Okay. Did George have a medical problem later on that evening, do you know? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what you understand happened. A. I don't really know what happened. Page 22 - Page 25 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ & NATALE REPORTING 717 -540 -0220 Multi -Page DEBORAH A. LUCY OCTOBER 16, 2013 Page 26 1 Q. Well you have an understanding of something 2 happening, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. What is your understanding of what happened? 5 A. I thought he had a breathing -- one of his 6 breathing attacks. 7 Q. Okay. It sounds like he had some problems in the 8 past? 9 A. He has COPD. 10 Q. So you thought maybe he had a COPD problem that Page 28 1 happening next in terms of any collision? 2 A. You want ine to explain the accident? 3 Q. Sure. 4 A. I drove down the road, there's a green light 5 where I have to make a left. I made the left. There's 6 where I had the collision. And I didn't know I hit 7 anyone. I went home and then that's when the officers 8 arrested me. 9 Q. Okay. When -- what road were you on before you 10 attempted to make the left? 11 evening? 11 A. Trindle. 12 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. Do you know what direction you were 13 Q. How did you learn about that? 13 traveling on Trindle? 14 . A. He called me in the morning. 14 A. No. 15 Q. Where were you in the morning? 15 Q. Are you traveling towards Harrisburg? 16 A. In bed. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. Where was he? 17 Q. Okay. So you are on Trindle traveling in the 18 A. At the hospital. 18 direction towards Harrisburg and in order to go home you 19 Q. Okay. Which hospital, if you know? 19 make a left? 20 A. Holy Spirit. 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. What did he say? 21 Q. What road do you make the left on? 22 A. He said come get me. 22 A. Sporting Hill. 23 Q. And what did you say? 23 Q. Okay. And would that be *turning left to go . 24 A.I said I can't. 24 north? 25 Q. Why not? 25 A.I don't know. Page 27 Page 29 1 A. I said I was in an accident and they took your 1 Q. Okay. Would it be turning left to go towards 2 car. 2 Interstate 81? 3 Q. Okay. What about the Blazer, could you have used 3 A. It' s left towards the mountains. 4 that to go get George at the hospital? 4 Q. All right. I follow you. So as you're 5 A. I could have. 5 approaching the intersection to turn left, do you see 6 Q. How did he get home from the hospital? 6 any vehicles coming toward you? 7 A. Somebody there brought him home. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Somebody at the hospital? 8 Q. So you believe it's safe to make your left? 9 A. (Nods Affirmatively.) 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. Say yes. 10 Q. And then you go to make your left and what 11 A. Yes. 11 happens next? 12 Q. That morning when he called, do you know about 12 A. I made my left and there was like a sound and as 13 what tune it was? 13 I'm driving the airbags went off. I'm still driving and 14 A. No. 14 I'in -- I thought I hit a pothole or something in the 15 Q. Had he -- when he called, had he awakened you? 15 road, because they were working on Trindle, it was all 16 A. No. 16 torn up. I'm a mile a way from home, so I'm going. I 17 Q. Had the police been to your house by then? 17 went home. 18 A. Yes. 18 Q. So at the time you -- I think you said you heard 19 Q. What -tune did the police come. to your house? 19 something,.is.that correct? 20 A. Shortly after -- like right after the accident. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. All right. So let's go to the point where 21 Q. And then at that point did the airbags deploy? 22 you left Snappers and you have the Ford Mustang keys and 22 A. Yes. 23 I assume you get in the car and start to drive home? 23 Q. Is that when you thought you hit a pothole or 24 A. Yes. 24 something? 25 Q. Tell us in your own words what you recall 25 A. Yes. HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ & NATALE REPORTING 717 -540 -0220 Page 26 - Page 29 • DEBORAH A. LUCY OCTOBER 16, 2013 Multi-Page TM Page 30 1 Q. Did you think you were involved in a collision 2 with a motorcycle operator? 3 A. No, no. 4 Q. Okay. And I take it that you did not pull over 5 at the point your airbags deployed? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Could you see properly to drive? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Did the airbags for lack of better words deflate? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. Was there damage to the Mustang? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What damage was there? 14 A. The right bumper and something -- something under 15 the hood was -- it was making this loud sound. 16 Q. Were any of the tires flat? 17 A. No. 18 Q. By the way, was the Mustang eventually repaired? 19 A.No. 20 Q. Do you know if anyone took photographs of the 21 Mustang, the damage to the Mustang? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Who took photographs? 24 A. Hampden Township Police. 25 Q. You indicated earlier that you lived about a mile Page 32 1 Q. Okay. But that officer then arrested you? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q.Did he handcuff you? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did he put you into his police car? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Where did they take you? 8 A. To the booking center in Carlisle. 9 Q. Okay. What happened then? 10 A. I don't exactly remember. I was sitting in the 11 holding cell and they -- I don't remember. 12 Q. Okay. Do you know if they measured your blood or 13 your breath in terms of the alcohol content? 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. Do you know what your blood-alcohol content was? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Did anyone ever tell you that? 18 A. They told me -- they might have told me, but I 19 don 't remember. 20 Q. Okay. If I said .219, does that ring a bell to 21 you at all? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Okay. The gentleman operating the motorcycle was 24 Michael Kreider, my client. Did you ever speak with him 25 at all? Page 31 1 from the intersection? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. So when you got home, did you inspect your 4 vehicle for any damage? 5 A. As soon as I got home the police were behind me. 6 I was getting out of the vehicle and they were there. 7 Q. Do you know the name of the officer? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Was it more than one officer? 10 A. There was one officer that was there. There were 11 more, but only one that I remember speaking with. 12 Q. Was it a male officer? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. What did he do? 15 A. He -- he asked me to walk and then he arrested 16 me. 17 Q. Okay. Was it a sobriety test, do you know? 18 A. Walking? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did he ask you to walk a line, touch your nose, 22 do things like that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Do you know how you did? 25 A. No. Page 33 1 A. No. 2 Q. Ever? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Okay. I have some documents in front of me and 5 I'm going to show them to you. We'll mark this as Lucy 6 Exhibit 1. 7 (Guilty Plea produced and marked Lucy 8 Exhibit No. 1.) 9 BY MR. LUTZ: 10 Q. Have you seen this document before? 11 A. I signed it so apparently I did, but I don't 12 remember it. 13 Q. Okay. Is that your signature? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Is it dated May 1st, 2013? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you remember pleading guilty to a charge of 18 aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Why did you plead guilty? 21 A. Because I was -- I consumed alcohol. 22 Q. Okay. And do you recall the name of the judge 23 which accepted the guilty plea? 24 A. Judge Placey. 25 s Q:Okay. .Did you,also go back to Judge Placey for a Page 30 - Page 33 HUGH PS, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ Sz NATALE REPORTING 717-540-0220 Multi -Page DEBORAH A. LUCY OCTOBER 16, 2013 Page 34 1 sentencing hearing? 2 A. Yes. 3 (Sentencing Order produced and marked Lucy 4 Exhibit No. 2.) 5 BY MR. LUTZ: 6 Q. Mrs. Lucy, Pin interrupting you .because frankly 7 I'in not going to ask you about the details of the 8 sentencing except I wanted to give you a background. So 9 was the sentencing hearing on June 1 lth, 2013? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Did anyone testify at that hearing? 12 A. Mr. Kreider did. 13 Q. What did he say? 14 A. I don't remember. 15 Q. Besides Mr. Kreider, did anyone else testify? 16 A.Not that I remember, no. 17 Q. Did anyone testify in your behalf -- I'm not 18 talking about your lawyer, but did anyone like a person 19 testify? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Did your husband testify? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Was your husband present? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. At the sentencing hearing did you say Page 36 1 Q. Okay. Do you know how much the pitchers were? 2 A.No. 3 Q. Okay. Did George or you purchase any beer at 4 Moe's that was not purchased on the Visa credit card? 5 A.Not that I know of. Not that I remember. 6 Q..In other words, in simple English, did you or 7 George buy any Coors Light using cash at Moe's? 8 A. It's possible. 9 Q. All right. Besides the Coors Light that you 10 identified drinking at home and then drinking at Moe's, 11 did you have any other alcoholic beverages? 12 A.No. 13 Q. Did you have any prescription medication during 14 the day? 15 A.No. 16 Q. Did you have any other drugs during the day that 17 -- street drugs? 18 A.No. 19 Q. When George handed you the keys to the Mustang at 20 Snappers, did you feel you were capable of safely 21 driving home? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q.-Had you ever been arrested for DUI before this 24 incident? 25 A. Once. Page 35 1 anything to Mr. Kreider? 2 A.No. 3 Q. Did he say anything directly to you that wasn't 4 testimony? 5 A.No. 6 Q. And I take it based on what you've said you never 7 spoke with him on the phone or anything like that? 8 A.No. 9 (Credit Card Receipt produced and marked 10 Lucy Exhibit No. 3.) 11 BY MR. LUTZ: 12 Q. I'm going to go now, Mrs. Lucy, to deposition 13 Exhibit No. 3. Just to be clear, Exhibit 3 is two pages 14 and I'm going to paraphrase a little bit, but Page 1 15 appears to be kind of like a credit card type thing that 16 says Visa and Page 2 sort of matches that, but it's a 17 little bit different. Are you with me, Mrs. Lucy? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. Notice that Page 1 of Exhibit 3 references 20 George Keefer and a Visa card transaction? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Looking at this, does this refresh your 23 recollection at all in terms of whether there was more 24 than two pitchers purchased? 25 A.No. Page 37 1 Q. And how long ago was that? 2 A.1996. 3 Q. In Cumberland County? 4 A. Yes. 5 MR. LUTZ: Mrs. Lucy those are the questions 6 I have. I'm sure the other lawyers have questions. 7 BY MR. GOOD: 8 Q. Thank you. Good morning, Miss Lucy, my naive is 9 Peter Good, I represent Moe's Bar and Grill, actually 10 the owners of Moe's, George and Leila Cassell and I'in 11 going to ask you a couple follow -up questions. The same 12 ground rules that Mr. Lutz provided to you apply as far 13 as answering and that type of thing. Do you understand 14 that? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Mr. Lutz had walked you through your day of 17 August 24th of last year, I just had a couple questions 18 regarding that. You said when you got to Moe's you sat 19 on the deck, correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And that you had ordered a pitcher of Coors 22 Light, correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And then when you finished that pitcher, you 25 ordered a second pitcher? Page 34 - Page 37 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ & NATALE REPORTING 717 -540 -0220 DEBORAH A. LUCY OCTOBER 16, 2013 Multi -Page Page 38 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. I think you said George actually ordered them? 3 A. Yes. . 4 Q. And just a minute ago Mr. Lutz asked you if you 5 might have had anything else. Do you remember having 6 anything else to drink besides those two pitchers of 7 Coors Light? 8 A.No. 9 Q.I think you said that as far as you recall you 10 and your`husband more or less shared the quantity of the 11 pitdher? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Now, was your husband -- was he a regular at 14 Moe's? 15 A. No. 16 Q. But he had been there before? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And you had been there before, too? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. But you would also say that you were not a 21 regular either? 22 A. N0. 23 Q. :Before °that :day of August 24th, -do you recall the 24 last time you went to Moe's? 25 A. About a month before. Page 40 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And you were familiar with the deck? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Weather permitting is that where you would prefer 5 to sit? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q.Now generally at the deck is there waitress 8 service, do you recall, or a server comes to your table 9 or you have to go to the bar, if you know? 10 A.I don't know. 11 Q. And this day in question you don't remember how 12 you got your pitchers? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. It could have been George went to the bar or not? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. You wouldn't have gone to the bar, would you? 17 A. No. 18 Q. So do you believe -- tell me, who ordered both 19 pitchers of beer? 20 A. George did. 21 Q. You just don't recall if he was sitting down when 22 he ordered them or if he went to the bar? 23 :A. Cou1d-you repeat that? 24 Q. You don't recall if he was sitting at the table 25 when he ordered them or if he actually got up, went to Page 39 1 Q. Okay. Did you always -- strike that. Did you 2 know if George had been there without you in that month 3 that had gone by since you had last been there? 4 A. No. 5 Q. You don't know or he wasn't? 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. Do generally you and George go out to restaurants 8 and bars together? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Did George, if you recall, did he know anybody at 11 Moe's? 12 A. Not that I remember. 13 Q. Do you recall if he knew anyone at all, like the 14 bartender's name or the waitress's name? 15 A. No. 16 Q:You said you got there approximately 5:30? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did you -- when -- did you head to the deck 19 immediately? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Were you seated at the deck or did you just seat 22 yourselves? 23 A. We set ourselves. 24 Q. And I assume you knew the routine as to how to 25 get into Moe's and where to go? Page 41 1 the bar and carried back the pitcher? 2 A.I don't remember. 3 Q. Does Moe's serve their beer with glasses or 4 paper? 5 A. Glasses. 6 Q. Would you have to get the glasses as well as the 7 pitcher? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. So you don't recall if you helped George 10 carry the glasses and pitcher at all? 11 A. I don't recall that. 12 Q. And I think you said -- I want to back up a 13 minute -- prior to going to Moe's you had been gardening 14 at your house during the day, correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And you consumed more than one Coors Light at 17 home? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. But you don't remember how many? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Had you eaten that day? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Are you generally the kind of person who can skip 24 breakfast? 25 A. Yes. Page 38 - Page 41 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ & NATALE REPORTING 717 -540 -0220 Multi- Page 'M DEBORAH A. LUCY OCTOBER 16, 2013 Page 42 1 Q. And skip lunch? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Do you generally eat one meal a day? 4 A. Not always. 5 Q. But you can do that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Other than Coors Light at home, did you drink 8 anything else that day? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Any water? 11 A. I had coffee in the morning. I don't remember if 12 I drank any water or not. 13 Q. By the way, when you left to go to Moe's, you had 14 stopped drinking and taken a shower? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Do you know approximately what time you consumed 17 your last beer at home? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Was it before you showered? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And I think you said to Mr. Lutz you were going 22 to Moe's you thought to eat dinner? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Had you eaten dinner -- strike that. Had you 25 eaten before at Moe's at any time in your life? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 44 Q. Do you know if you spoke to any of the employees at Moe's? A. I don't remember. Q. When you were at Moe's, did you use the restrooin, if you remember? A. Not that I remember. I don't remember. Q. So other than walking on to the deck and sitting down at your table and leaving, did you do any walking at Moe's? A. I don't remember. Q. How far is it from the entrance of Moe's to the deck if you can recall? A. Very short distance. Q. You have to walk through the restaurant? A. The deck's in the back; so when you're on the deck you just open the door and right there's the bar. Q. There's a separate bar for the deck? A.No. Q.It's one bar? A. Correct. Q. And the bar is inside the building? A. Correct. Q. Mr. Lutz showed you Exhibit 3 which is the receipt. Do you recognize that to be your husband's signature? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 43 A. Yes. Q. So you were somewhat familiar with the menu at Moe's? A. Yes. Q. How would you describe the menu generally, what type of food do they serve? A. Like finger food. Q. Chicken wings, that type of thing? A. Yes. Q. And do you recall previously what you had eaten at Moe's when you had been there before? A.No. Q. And on this night when you got to Moe's although you were hungry, nothing struck your fancy? A. No. Q. Had George eaten at home before he left, do you know, that day? A.I don't know. Q. When you were at Moe's, did you speak to anyone other than George? A. Yes. Q. Who did you speak to in Moe's? A.I don't know. Q. Would it have been other patrons? A. Yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 45 A. Yes. Q. I notice on Page 2 -- this is the first time I noticed this, it says Miller Lite. You said you drank Coors Light. A. Yes. Q. You don't know if the bartender got it wrong or if they mislabeled the receipt? You don't know how it carne to say Miller Lite, do you? A.No. Q. And it appears if you go back to Page 1 of the document on the second line it says server, Nicole D. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. You don't know who that is, do you? A.No. Q. And then on the next line it says the date of August 24th, 2012, 1925 which I think is 7:25 p.m. Do you know if that is about right when you would have produced your credit card or your husband would have produced his credit card to pay? A. Yes. Q. So that rings true, that you left -- that you signed your check at approximately 7:30 that night? A. Yes. Q.I say. you, _I mean your husband. Page 42 - Page 45 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOUL & NATALE REPORTING 717- 540 -0220 DEBORAH A. LUCY OCTOBER 16, 2013 Multi-Page TM Page 46 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. I think you told Mr. Lutz that you believed that 3 you left Moe's at approximately 7:45, does that make 4 sense based on this credit card receipt? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. When you and your husband would go out to eat or 7 drink, do you ever drink anything besides light beer? 8 A. No. 9 Q. You don't ever do shots of whiskey or anything Page 48 1 Q. Do you know if anyone said anything to you on 2 that night, any Moe's employees? 3 A.I don't remember if they did or not.. 4 Q. All right. Did you have any trouble finding your 5 car in the parking lot at Moe's? 6 A. No. 7 Q. You remembered where you parked it? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. You said that you and your husband went to 10 -like that? 10 Snappers. Was your intention to eat at Snappers? 11 A.No. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. In this case you are fairly certain that at Moe's 12 Q. At this point were you hungry? 13 all you consumed was those two pitchers of beer? 13 A. Yes. 14 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you inform George that you were hungry? 15 Q. I noticed on the first page of the receipt the 15 A. No. 16 check was $12. Does that ring true, that that would be 16 Q. But when you got to Snappers you felt it was too 17 accurate? 17 crowded? 18 A. Yes. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Did your husband provide a tip, do you know? I 19 Q. But George wanted to stay? 20 know he didn't tip on this receipt, but did he provide a 20 A. Yes. 21 tip in cash, do you know? 21 Q. And at that point you had a disagreement? 22 A.Nonnally he would have. I don't remember that 22 A. Disagreement, yes. 23 day. .23 Q. Would you say that it was a heated disagreement? 24 Q. But normally he would provide -a ,cash -- a tip 24 A.No. 25 with cash? 25 -Q. So you were both relatively calm? Page 47 Page 49 1 A. Yes. 1 A. He was. I don't remember if I was. 2 Q. Did you have anything to drink while you were in 2 Q. Fair to say that you were upset that he wasn't 3 your Ford Mustang on the way to Moe's? 3 leaving? 4 A. No. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did you have anything to drink in your car while 5 Q. Because you were hungry and you wanted to go 6 you were on the way from Moe's to Snappers? 6 home? 7 A.No. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you recall when you left Moe's did you feel 8 Q. Was it unusual for you to leave a restaurant or 9 that you were intoxicated? 9 bar without your husband? 10 A. No. 10 A. No. 11 Q. Do you remember having trouble walking to the 11 Q. Explain what you mean by that. That was a common 12 car? 12 thing or not unusual, I guess? Let me try again, that's 13 A. No. 13 a tough question. 14 Q. Do you recall if George was, as you would call 14 Would there be other times that you would go home 15 it, intoxicated? 15 from a restaurant or bar before your husband would go 16 A. No. 16 home? Would you do that? 17 Q. Did he have any trouble walking to the car? 17 A. Once in a great while. 18 A.No. 18 Q. And in this case your husband wanted to stay and 19 Q. When you left Moe's, do you recall if you said 19 you wanted to go, correct? 20 goodbye to anybody? 20 A. Yes. 21 A. I don't recall. 21 Q. As Mr. Lutz asked you, there was no plan for you 22 Q. You know how sometimes when you leave a 22 to come back and pick him up? 23 restaurant they'll say have a nice evening, that type of 23 A. No. 24 thing? 24 Q. Now, so you testified, Miss Lucy, that you did 25 A. Yes. 25 not consume any beer at Snappers, correct? Page 46 - Page 49 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ .& NATALE REPORTING 717 -540 -0220 Multi -Page rm DEBORAH A. LUCY OCTOBER 16, 2013 Page 50 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. When you got back in the car -- did you have any 3 trouble finding the car? 4 A.No. 5 Q. Were you walking out of the restaurant steadily 6 as far as you knew? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. When you got to your car, did you have to 9 readjust the seat for you to drive it versus your 10 husband, do you recall that? 11 don't recall. 12 Q. Did you have anything to drink in the car? 13 A.No. 14 Q. And did you stop anywhere between Snappers and 15 the accident? 16 A.No. 17 Q. And did you stop anywhere between the accident 18 and home? 19 A.No. 20 Q. You said when you had the accident the air bags 21 deployed, two bags deployed, do you know, or just one 22 bag? 23 A.I know .the driver's side did. 24 Q. Okay. But you were able to continue driving? 25 A. Yes. Page 52 1 Q. And you said that you -- your last employment was 2 at Denny's? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. When were you last employed at Denny's? 5 A.2007. 6 Q. Why did you leave Denny's? 7 A. My parents became ill. 8 Q. And since you left Denny's you've not had any 9 employment? 10 A.No. 11 Q. Has George then been responsible for your 12 household bills and your needs? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And when you worked at Denny's, you worked with 15 Michelle? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Did you maintain any relationship with Michelle 18 after you stopped working at Denny's? 19 A.No. 20 Q. How often would you see Michelle after you 21 stopped working at Denny's? 22 A. After she quit I hadn't seen her for years until 23 I ran into her. 24 Q. What was the substance of your conversation with 25 Michelle, did you speak with her just one time or did 1 2 you. 3 BY MS. HOSENPUD: 4 Q. My name is Jessica Hosenpud and I represent 5 Snappers. Excuse me, I'm ill. I just have a couple of 6 questions for you. 7 First, just to reconfirm, you did not have 8 anything alcoholic to drink at Snappers? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. And you didn't buy any alcoholic beverages at 11 Snappers? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. No one bought any alcoholic beverages for you? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q.And you didn't drink any of anyone else's 16 alcoholic beverage? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. Okay. You said that you've been at the 533 Good 19 Hope Road address for three years? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Where did you live before that? 22 A.124 Woods Drive, Lot 9 -A, Mechanicsburg, 17050. 23 Q. Have you ever lived anywhere other than 24 Mechanicsburg? 25 A.No. Page 51 MR. GOOD: 1 think that's all I have. Thank Page 53 1 you speak with her on a couple of occasions when you 2 were at Snappers? 3 A. Just the one tune. 4 Q. Okay. What did you say to her? 5 A. I said I recognized her and she said we worked 6 together at Denny's. And I don't remember what else was 7 said, but I remember saying to her that I'm leaving -- I 8 said something like you can -- you keep looking over at 9 George -- and he also worked at Denny's, he knew her. 10 She smiled -- she looked over and smiled at him 11 and then I walked out saying something like well you can 12 have him, I'm leaving. 13 Q. Did you feel like she was maybe flirting with 14 George in some way? 15 A. At the time I might have. 16 Q. So -- and just to clarify, when you went into 17 Snappers, you went there to eat, with the hope that you 18 would be able to eat there? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. And then there was no where to sit you had said? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. And you told -- what did you say to George then? 23 A.I said there's no where to sit, I'm tired, I want 24 to go home. 25 Q. And what did he say? Page 50 - Page 53 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ & NATALE REPORTING 717 -540 -0220 . DEBORAH A. LUCY OCTOBER 16, 2013 Multi -Page Page 54 1 A. He said yeah, okay. I believe I went to the 2 bathroom and when I came out I seen that there was 3 another beer in front of him and that's when I said I 4 told you I wanted to leave and he said well they poured 5 it and then he said if you want to go, here's the keys. 6 Q. Were you frustrated with George because he had 7 gotten another drink and he knew that you wanted to 8 leave? Page 56 1 A. No. 2 Q. You don't recall telling him anything about 3 whether you had been drinking or if you had been 4 drinking? 5 A. I told him I was drinking. 6 Q. Did you tell him where you had been drinking or 7 what you had been drinking? 8 A. Yes. 9 A. I was upset with him. 9 Q. What exactly did you tell him? 10 Q. You were upset. When you were leaving -- what 10 A. I told him I was drinking at home, I drank at 11 were you'feeling-when you left Snappers? Were you still 11 Moe's and I didn't have anything to drink at Snappers. . 12 frustrated? Were you upset? 12 Q. Can you just tell me what your definition of 13 A. I felt tired, hungry and I wanted to go home. 13 intoxicated would be? 14 Q. And he hadn't left with you? 14 A. My definition would be staggering, eyes like 15 A. Correct. 15 shut, people get nauseous. 16 Q. So you were aggravated with your husband because 16 Q. Do you think that you were intoxicated at the 17 he wouldn't leave with you? 17 time of the accident? 18 A. I was upset. 18 A. No. 19 Q. Do you think that -- were you thinking about that 19 Q. Did you feel that you were intoxicated when you 20 while you were driving, about George not leaving with 20 were at home? 21 you? 21 A.No. 22 A.I don't recall what I was thinking -- yes. 22 Q. Did you feel like you were intoxicated at Moe's? 23 Q. Just clarify that for the record. Do you think 23 A.No. 24 that you were, while you were-driving, upset with`George -24 'Q.A.nd did you: feel like you were intoxicated at 25 and kind of thinking about the fact that he hadn't left 25 Snappers? Page 55 Page 57 1 with you when you wanted to leave? 1 A. No. 2 A. Yes. 2 Q. Can you just give us an idea about how often you 3 Q. Have you had any traffic violations prior to this 3 normally would have a drink in terms of a week? 4 whole incident? 4 A. Maybe once a week. 5 A. No. 5 Q. And when you would drink once a week, how many 6 Q. But you had said that you did have a prior DUI? 6 drinks would you consume? 7 A. Yes. 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. Is that the only criminal charge that you've ever 8 Q. More than one? 9 had? 9 A. Yes. 10 A. Yes. 10 Q. More than two? 11 Q. And what was the result of that charge? 11 A. Yes. 12 A. I lost my license and I had to go to A.R.D. 12 Q. More than three? 13 Q. Do you recall what your B.A.C. was in that 13 A. Yes. 14 instance or what charge you had? Was it the highest 14 Q. More than four? 15 rate? General impairment? Do you recall that at all? 15 A. Sometimes. 16 A. I believe it was general impairment. It wasn't 16 Q. Ever more than five? 17 high. I don't -- I don't remember. 17 A. Possible. 18 Q. Okay. Did you speak -- when you spoke with the 18 Q. But you would do this maybe on a weekly basis, 19 police officer after the accident, did you -- did he ask 19 once a week you think? 20 you where you had been? 20 A. Yes. 21 A. Yes. 21 Q. What's the most that you think you would drink on 22 Q. And what did you tell him? 22 an occasion when you would be drinking? 23 A.I told him I was at Moe's and Snappers. 23 A.I don't know. 24 Q. Did you indicate to him anything about how much 24 Q. But occasionally you could have more than five -- 25 you had been drinking? 25 A. Yeah. Page 54 - Page 57 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ .& NATALE REPORTING 717- 540 -0220 Multi - Pager"` DEBORAH A. LUCY OCTOBER 16, 2013 Page 58 1 Q. -- drinks in a sitting? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And if you did have more than five drinks in a 4 sitting, would you feel that you were intoxicated? 5 A. No. 6 MS. HOSENPUD: I think that's all I have. 7 MR. LUTZ: I just have a few follow -up 8 questions. 9 BY MR. LUTZ: 10 Q. The incident with the motorcycle occurred the 11 evening of August 24th, 2012, correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. When was the last time you ate before that? 14 A. The day before. 15 Q. When, what time? 16 A. I don't recall. 17 Q. So would it have been August 23? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you think you ate something after 5 p.m. that 20 day before the accident? 21 A. Probably around supper time. 22 Q. What's supper time for you? 23 A.6:00. 24 Q. Did you think you ate at `home then? 25 A. Yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 60 A. An hour. MR. 'LUTZ: All right. Thank you. 13Y MR. GOOD: Q. Miss Lucy, do you believe currently that you have an alcohol problem? A. Yes. Q. And what is the basis of your belief? A. You're asking ine why I believe I have an alcohol problem? Q. Yes. A. Because if I didn't have a problem I would have never gotten into the car. Q. Understood. Had you ever been treated previously for alcoholism? A. No. Q. Any kind of other mental health treatment you may have had? A. No. MR. GOOD: That's all I have. Thank you. MS. HOSENPUD: I don't think I have anything else. Thank you. (Whereupon, the deposition was concluded at 11:10 a.m.) 1 Q. And that's the last tone you ate until the 2 collision? 3 A. That I -- yes. 4 Q. So is it your testimony you didn't eat for more 5 than 24 hours? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Is that unusual? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Based on your testimony it sounds like the last 10 beer you had was at Moe's and it was a Coors Light? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Can you tell us how much time transpired between 13 you finishing that last beer at Moe's until the 14 collision with the motorcycle? 15 A. Could you repeat the question? 16 Q. Sure. I'll try. I think we established based on 17 your testimony that the last beer you had was at Moe's? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. It was a Coors Light and then later on that 20 evening you were involved in a motor vehicle /motorcycle 21 collision? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. I'm trying to establish how-much time 24 transpired between the tune you had your last beer at 25 Moe's and the collision with the motorcycle. 1 Page 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COUNTY OF YORK : SS COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : I, Tammy J. Baker, a Notary Public, authorized to administer oaths within and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the testimony of DEBORAH A. LUCY. I further certify that before the taking of said deposition, the witness was duly sworn; that the questions and answers were taken down stenographically by the said Reporter -Notary Public, and afterwards reduced to typewriting under the direction of the said Reporter. I further certify that the said deposition was taken at the time and place specified in the caption hereof. I further certify that I am not a relative or employee or attorney or counsel to any of the parties, or a relative or employee of such attorney or counsel, or financially interested directly or indirectly in this action. 3 further certify the said deposition constitutes a true record of the testimony given by the said witness. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 21st day of OCTOBER 2013. Page 61 Tammy J. Baker, Reporter HUGHES, ALBRIGHl, FOL'l"Z & NATALE REPOR 1G 717 -540 -0220 Page 58 - Page 61 EXHIBIT B ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-mail: dlutz@angino-rovner.com MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff v. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants v. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 12-6810 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE To: Hampden Township Police Department 230 South Sporting Hill Rd., Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 You are required to complete the following Certificate of Compliance when producing documents or things pursuant to the Subpoena. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OF THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23 I, jt. G -k-5 0 , (person served with subpoena) certify to the best of my knowledge, information and belief that all documents or things required to be produced pursuant to the subpoena issued on 11- 1 3 have been produced. Date: 539556 - 4 3 Records Custodian/Provider Michael Kreider COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND versus Deborah A. Lucy, George Keefer, and 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b/a Snappers Bar & Grill Plaintiff/s : Defendant/s versus George and Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill : No. 12-6810 Civil Term SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Hampden. Township Police Department 230 South Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Please supply any and all records/documents, including but not limited to the blood alcohol test and the toxicology report, concerning the arrest of Deborah Lucy on August 24, 2012, at Angino & Rovner, P.C., 453 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Name: Address: Telephone: Supreme Court ID #: Attorney for: Date: Seal of the Court g 539259 David L. Lutz, Esquire 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 35956 Plaintiffs BY THE COURT: Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division Hampden Twp. feptrom-,;m5KLarlizom41,, =lent Report Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Incident Number: HAM20120801242 Date Printed: 11/13/2013 2:55:12 PM Hampden Twp. 230 South Sporting Hill RD Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Work: (717) 761-2609 Fax: (717) 761-0753 Harry K. Clay, Jr., Chief -ifc'' 74- - A p., -rf- ' , 441 ' "V ,Sd,f Vr-'T-AVNI,VW-MeittrlAWAV74-1104* ' -.';.•,o, ' ' . , tIr.eig IP:Rh-TX inciaentvinTormation 4: ',''''' , ' ' 9."4410 Incident Number HAM20120801242 Locked Report No Status Closed Reporting Officer Pressel ,Joshua - 8 - Hampden Twp. Date/Time Reported 08/24/2012 20:53:00 DatefTime Started 08/24/2012 20:53:00 DatefTime Ended Incident Location East TRINDLE Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Synopsis DUI Hit and Run at $ Sporting Hill & E Trindle Rd by Deborah Lucy DatefTime Cleared Cleared By Weather Family Violence Gang Indicator 11/13/2013 2:55:35 PM Page 1 of 20 " toYYi 3x7 •. Ip't fik''lM-.}fi +i Vi? H}'!i9'?a'iT- d 1&'�.2N'?1�. .. +W'i i.'. • iOffe nse��rformm att on .k €A;'i',x:!•f=Y�'r∎Q,, W','_ e' .3afk7.•?3.T) • Statute Title 75 - Vehicles • Statute Section 3802 - Driving under.influence of alcohol or controlled substance Statute Subsection 3802 al - An individual may not drive, operate or be in... Nature Of Offense Driving under the influence. Attempted / Completed Completed Bias / Motivation None (No Bias) Aggravated Assault No Drugs / Narcotics Used No Alcohol Used Yes Related Suspects Lucy, Deborah ANNA Related Victims Statute Title 75 - Vehicles Statute Section 3802 = Driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance Statute Subsection 3802 c - Highest rate of alcohol. - -An individual may not.. Nature Of Offense Driving under the influence. Attempted / Completed Completed Bias / Motivation None (No Bias) Aggravated Assault No Drugs / Narcotics Used No • Alcohol Used Yes Related Suspects • Lucv, Deborah ANNA Related Victims Statute Title 75 - Vehicles Statute section 3735.1 - Aggravated assault by vehicle while driving under the influence Statute Subsectim 3735.1 a - Offense defined. - -Any person who negligently... Nature Oi Offense Aggravated assault by vehicle while driving under the influence. Attempted / Completed Completed Bias / Motivation None (No Bias) Aggravated Assault No Drugs /Narcotics Used No Alcohol Used Yes Related Suspects Lucv, Deborah ANNA Related Victims Kreider, Michael Statute Title 75 - Vehicles Statute Section 3742 - Accidents involving death or personal injury Statute Subsection 3742 a - GENERAL RULE. - -THE DRIVER OF ANY VEHICLE... Nature Of Offense Accidents involving personal injury. Attempted / Completed Completed Bias / Motivation None (No Bias) Aggravated Assault No Drugs / Narcotics Used No Alcohol Used Yes Related Suspects Lucv. Deborah ANNA Related Victims Kreider, Michael 11/13/2013 2:55:35 PM Page 3 of 20 .411" ' A- 4' 7" 3 l',01 .4 , '1' '''■ t ' v • ' *- : /far '' - & gRei .4 2t,PikAjidsiL19,tteAS4-1, Vehicle Make: FORD Vehicle Model: FORD-MUS Vehicle Year 1994 Vehicle Color. Red VIN: 1FALP4046RF217426 Title: 47419.573 Type: Registration Number: ,, GZY7634 State: PA Owner. Keefer, George Wayne JR Address: 533 Good Hope RD Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Vehicle Make: HD Vehicle Model: Vehicle Year. 1999 Vehicle Cdor Black VIN: Title: Type: Registration Number. B2754 * State: PA Owner Kreider, Michael Address: 207 Grandview CR Mount Joy, PA 17552 11/13/2013 2:55:35 PM Page 5 of 20 Original report completed by Officer Pressel. On 08/24/12, @ 2053 hours, 1 (Pt1m. Joshua Pressel) was working in my capacity as a Hampden Township police officer, and driving marked,cruiser #2. At:this date and time l was on. patrol :and heard a radio dispatch from Cumberland County Communications (CCC) for a motorcycle struck by a motor vehicle identified as a Ford Mustang. It was reported that the vehicle was continuing on Good Hope Rd. 1 heard CpI Shaughnessy, of Hampden Twp. Police, state that he was en route after the fleeing vehicle, which was reported by the caller to have pulled into the driveway of 533 Good Hope Rd. I notified CCC that 1 was en route to that location for assistance. Shortly after, I arrived at 533 Good Hope Rd and as I pulled into the driveway I observed CpI Shaughnessy standing with the female operator of the red Ford Mustang. I notified CCC of my location and exited my patrol car. I approached the female as Cpl Shaughnessy walked to his vehicle. I asked the female for her name and she slurred her speech, stating Deborah Lucy. I asked her for her personal information and she provided it to me with DOB of 03/07/55. Lucy smelled strongly of an alcoholic beverage and was wobbling on her feet. Her eyes were red and bloodshot and she slurred her words repeatedly. asked Lucy if she had any drinks and she stated she did not. I exclaimed that she smelled strongly of an alcoholic beverage and that I know ln,hen someone has been drinking alcohol and asked her again what she had to drink. Lucy had a hard time answering my questions, and finally after several minutes of her stating she couldn't remember, she stated that she had shared two pitchers of beer with her husband at Moe's and then went to Snapper's bar. 1 asked Lucy if she had anything to drink at Snapper's and she stated, "no." I asked Lucy where she was coming from and she said she left Snapper's to go home. She stated that she was there with her husband and they got into an argument and he gave her the keys and told her to go home. I asked her if she remembered driving home and striking a motorcycle operator and she stated that she did not remember hitting anything. I advised her that a passerby observed her strike the motorcycle and keep driving swerving down the road until she pulled into her driveway. She asked if the operator was ok, and I stated that I did not know. I explained to Lucy that as she was driving under the influence that I would like to perform some standard field exercises and asked her if she had any medical conditions that would prevent her from being able to complete them and she stated, "no." I asked Lucy if she was wearing contact lenses and she again stated, "no." I advised Lucy that I first wanted to check her eyes and instructed her to stand with both feet together, and her hands at her sides. I asked Lucy if she could see the tip of my pen and she stated that she could. 1 instructed her to keep her head still and follow the tip of my pen with her eyes only as she swayed, unsteadily on her feet. I performed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test (HGN). I observed Lucy's pupils were hazel in color, and of equal size. Lucy's eyes tracked equally, and had no resting nystagmus. I observed a lack of smooth pursuit in both of her eyes, and observed a distinct and sustained nystagmus at maximum deviation in both eyes. I observed nystagmus in both eyes prior to 45 degrees. Lucy had an extremely delayed response to tracking the tip of my pen. As I moved the pen from side to side, she was delayed in following the stimulus. Following the HGN test, I advised Lucy that 1 was going to test her for vertical Nystagmus, which I did, and the test did not produce any vertical results. 1 instructed Lucy to stand at the end of her blacktop driveway and imagine a straight line. I advised her that the next test would be the walk and turn. I noticed that Lucy was wearing sneakers. I asked Lucy several times to place her left foot in front of her on the imaginary line, and place her right foot directly in front of her left, touching heel -to -toe, and remain in that position until otherwise instructed as I demonstrated the test, but she could not do so. Lucy staggered and lost her balance a few times. I again advised her to get back on the line as instructed, and she kept stating that she was nervous and complained that her driveway was a bit unlevel. 1 asked Lucy if she would be more comfortable in the flat grassy area immediately in front of her driveway and she stated, "yes." We walked to the yard and I explained the instructions again and proceeded to demonstrate the test. I repeatedly asked her to place her left foot on the imaginary line and place her right foot heel to toe directly in front of her left, and she just stood there looking at me, and wobbled. After several minutes she made a few attempts to place her feet in that position and staggered off balance, lifted her arms above her waist. I asked her to try again and she began walking rapidly heel to toe, and counted to 11 very quickly as she repeatedly raised her arms for balance before stepping off line after her eleventh step. 1 reminded Lucy that I did not tell her to start the test yet and pointed out that she counted an extra step and she stated that she gave me an extra one. asked her one more time to try the test, and again instructed her how to stand properly, and she could not keep her balance so I ended the test. I advised Lucy that the next test would be the one leg stand. 1 informed her to stand with both feet together, her arms at her sides, and to not to start the test until I instructed her to do so. I asked Lucy if she understood my 11/13/2013 2:55:35 PM Page 7 of 20 Created By: McClain, Trisha Lynn Created Date: 08/2712012 10:07:37 11/13/2013 2:55:36 PM Page 9 of 20 1 also contacted Dawn Kreiger. Kreiger explained that Kreider is doing well. 1 explained to Kreiger that the other driver, Lucy, was caught. 1 explained that was to have been intoxicated as well. 1 informed Kreiger that Kreider's motorcycle was currently impounded due to the crash investigation. I explained to her that once we were done re-creating the crash, 1 wouid be in contact with her about retrieving the vehicle. I also spoke with Kreider briefly. Kreider was obviously taking some pain medications. Kreider again explained to me what had happened the previous night. 1 told Kreider that 1 would be in contact with Kreiger if 1 would need any further information. On August 26, 2012, Kreiger met me on station. I provided Kreiger with a copy of the Notification of Accident Investigation. I informed Kreiger that I would contact her when the motorcycle could be picked up. Created By: Felty, Shaun Supplemental comment added by Sgt Fe Created Date: 08/29/2012 11:47:24 On August 28, 2012, at 1515 hours I entered temporary evidence storage area 4 (garage) and collected DNA samples from the red Ford Mustang, bearing PA registration GZY7634. The first sample was collected from the driver's side front quarter panel. The second sample was collected from the hood of the car on the driver's side. Both samples were logged into evidence and placed into evidence room 2. The vehicle was subsequently photographed, inventoried, and removed to the police impound bv Ofc Funk. Created By: Speck, Thomas A Created Date: 08/31/2012 00:31:23 Supplemental comment by Cpl. Speck, On Aug. 24 2012/was scheduled to work as a uniformed police officer in Hampden Township utilizing marked police unit #5. While enroute to work I heard communications between Hampden police units ref. a vehicle crash at Trindle Rd. & Sporting Hill Rd. Hearing that the units were seeking assistanec with manpower and vehicles, I advised Cpl' Shaughnessy that 1 was arriving at approx. 2145 hrs. On station 1 found a Shipley fuel tanker truck stuck on the rocks in front of the Township Building. Fire Police had directed him into the lot to turn around due to closing Sporting Hill Rd. 1 grabbed the keys for police unit #5 and left the station. 1 directed Off. Reed to assist Off. Grunden who was at the crash scene in his capacity as an accident reconstructionist { spoke broifly with Off. Grunden to determin his needs. 1 then responded to the location of Cpl. Shaughnessy who was with the striking vehicle in the 500 block of Good Hope Rd. There 1 directed alternating traffic so that Roadside Auto Rescue could Ioad the damaged striking vehicle onto a roll back. 1 then followed tho rollback to the police station and opened the garage to secure the vehicle inside. Mike, from Roadside Auto Rescue, backed the damaged car into garage bay #2. 1 closed the door locking it with the pad locks. 1 theri placed the warning card over the door control buttons. I took several photos of the vehicle for reference. I did observe blood on the left front fender of the car where it had impacted with a motorcyle and rider. 1 then left the garage contacting Off. Grunden and inquiring if other vehicles or debris from the scene would need to be secured in the garage. 1 advised him that he would be the one to take the final stepps to secure the garage area. I began my normal corporal duties until approx. 0130 hrs. when 1 responded to the impound yard to secure the motorcyle which had been transported from the scene by Roadside Auto Rescue 1 had to contact Sgt. Felty to obtain the current access code for the entry key. The key was then given to Off. Grunden to be secured with his other evidence. Created By: McClain, Trisha Lynn Created Date: 09/04/2012 09:53:36 11/13/2013 2:55:36 PM Page 11 of 20 Arrest Report Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Hampden Twp. if Arrest Detail Information' . I Arrest Number HAM20120801242 Arrest Type On -View Arrest Arrestee Lucy, Deborah ANNA Classification Adult Arrest Date and Time 08/24/2012 21:26:00 Day of Arrest Friday Type of Force Used Handcuffs Condition of Arrestee Intoxicated Resident Resident SID Number 40086544 Interpreter Needed No Language ENGLISH Informed Of Charge Yes NCICChedt Yes Arrestee Injured No Officer Injured No cNETAnest# 126879 IV 4:r'rest92.1. Oil - I Social Security# 174466684 Race White Sex Female DOB 03/07/1955 Ethnic Origin Non - Hispanic Resident Primary Height Weight Build Complexion Arr'estrLocatiori `:: I Street Number Street Block Predirection East Street Name TRINDLE Street Type RD Postdirection PO Box Cross - Predirection South Cross - Street Name SPORTING HILL Cross-Street Type RD Highway Name Highway Number Highway Mlepost Rural Route County Cumberland Jurisdiction Number 21 -103 Location Township Hampden Township Magisterial District 09 -3 -04 City/Town Mechanicsburg Political Subdvision State PA Zone Number 672 Zip Code 17050 Area Grid 293 Residence Type Unit Type Unit Number Latitude 40.225931 Longitude - 76.969922 Location Type Highwav /Road /Alley County United States of America (USA) Location Description txt Offense,tnformattonkl ' Statute Title 75, Vehicles Statute Section 3802, Driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance Statute Subsection 3802 al, An individual may not drive, operate or be in... Statute Title 75, Vehicles Statute Section 3802, Driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance Statute Subsection 3802 c, Highest rate of alcohol. - -An individual may not..: Statute Title 75, Vehicles Statute Section 3735.1, Aggravated assault by vehicle while driving under the influence Statute Subsection 3735.1 a, Offense defined. - -Any person who negligently... Statute Title 75, Vehicles Statute Section 3742, Accidents involving death or personal injury Statute Subsection 3742 a, GENERAL RULE. - -THE DRIVER OF ANY VEHICLE... 11/13/2013 2:55:36 PM Page 15 of 20 '*1,04V,:Wit-1,r:seila tit U'44,-,,4, (39.12ROJIRYDRYIn;ti ii Booking Station Cumberland County Prison Records ;Department Station ID 2137 DatetTime Booked 08/24/2012 22:43:00 Photo ID 930290318 Fingerprints Taken Yes Palm Prints Taken Yes OTN L728917-0 Docket Number ' DPA Number Bond Type Bond Amount($) Arrest Disposition Date/rune of Disposition Juvenile Referral Date/Time of Arrest Report .41.1 ,rAgIA/ M Cfq.Es 114 4.'f31.13 RelatectIncidentSuspectsv 15,4 TV.% )4 ,rr A 5 rek-s5.1,/,1, Ion Date/Time Of Incident 08/24/2012 20:53:00 Incident Number HAM20120801242 Related Suspect Lucy, Deborah ANNA ,otticersinvoiyea ' Officer Name Pressel. Joshua -8 - Hampden Twp. ' Role Reporting Officer Date And Time Started Date And Time Finished Officer Name Shaughnessy. Kevin - 16 - Hampden Twp. Role Assisting Officer Date And Time Started 08/24/2012 20:58:00 Date And Time Finished 08/24/2012 23:03:18 Officer Name Reed, Jason - Hampden Two. Role Assisting Officer Date And Time Started 08/24/2012 22:46:30 . Date And Time Finished 08125/2012 01:09:59 Officer Name Grunden. Matthew - 24 - Hampden Two. Role Assistina Officer Date And Time Started 08/24/2012 20:55:37 Date-And Time Finished 08/25/2012 01:11:54 11/13/2013 2:55:36 PM Page 17 of 20 omments 6 t. Comment ON 08/24/12, OFFICER PRESSELOF TH EIHAMPDEN " TOWNSHIP POL`(C;EItEPi4RTMENT BROUGHT DEBORAH LUCY INTO THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PRISON BOOKING CENTER TO BE PROCESSED ON A DUI CHARGE. I, OFFICER AYYSOLA, WAS IN CHARGE OF THE DUI PROCESSING. AFTER LUCY WAS PATTED DOWN FOR WEAPONS.ANDCONTRABAND:AND;BASIC BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED, I LED LUCY INTO THE DUI PROCESSING ROOM WHERE HER DUI PROCESSING WAS TO BEGIN ON CAMERA. I READ TO LUCY THE AUDIO - VISUAL WARNINGS, TO WHICH SHE STATED SHE UNDERSTOOD THAT SHE BEING RECORDED. OFFICER PRESSEL READ TO LUCY THE DL -26 IMPLIED CONSENT FORM AT APPROX. 2202, TO WHICH SHE STATED SHE WOULD CONSENT TO A LEGAL BLOOD DRAW BY OUR PHLEBOTOMIST. AFTER THE BLOOD DRAW, I READ TO LUCY HER MIRANDA WARNINGS, TO WHICH SHE STATED SHE UNDERSTOOD HER RIGHT AND CHOOSE TO WAIVE THEM IN FAVOR OF ANSWERING MY STANDARD QUESTIONS. AFTER QUESTIONING, 1 LED LUCY OUT TO THE BOOKING CENTER WHERE SHE WAS FINGERPRINTED, PHOTOGRAPHED, AND HER BACKGROUND CHECKS CAME BACK NEGATIVE. SHE WAS RELEASED TO KAREN SHUGHART AT APPROX. 2307. WHILE IN THE BOOKING CENTER, I NOTICED SHE HAD AN ODOR OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE EMANATING FROM HER PERSON, AND HER EYES WERE BLOODSHOT AND GLASSY. SHE SEEMED TO BE HAVING TROUBLE ARTICULATING HER THOUGHTS, AND SHE DIDN'T SEEM TO KNOW WHERE SHE WAS DRINKING. SHE STATED TWO DIFFERENT ESTABLISHMENTS WHERE SHE WAS DRINKING, SNAPPER'S AND MOE'S. THIS REPORT WAS WRITTEN BY OFFICER C. AYYSOLA. 11/13/2013'2:55:36 PM Page 19 of 20 )41?14., b 2-1 NOTIFICATION OF ACCIDENT MVESTEAT HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT 230 SOUTH SPORTING HILL. ROAD, MECHANICSBURG, PA 1.7055 -3097 a (717) 761 -2609 RE OR7ABLE! Notice Es hereby given that the accident indicated below Is being investigated by Hampden Township Police Department and that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Police Accident Report will be submitted as prescribed by Section 3746(c) of the Vehicle Code. NON-REPORTABLE: This is a NON•REPORTABLE accident as prescribed by the Vehtcte Code. The information submitted below is obtained by the Officer for your convenience In having'the proper Information for your insurance company. THIS IS THE ONLY INFORMATION THE POLICE WILL HAVE, NO REPORT WILL BE MADE. P0 IOW NUMBER r +try ►rt►� .oi 2.0 TO i 2.(4 2_ LOCATION OF ACCIDENT 'cPdal N 79"1Lt, TIME AND DATE QF ACCIDENT 6212 -4,11 i OFRCER'S NAME GPS z!c t..33 N • Il W NUMBER OF UNITS NUMBER OF UNITS TOWED NUMBER OF FATALITIES NUMBER OF INJURIES .UNIT #1 LEGALLY Y N PARKED? 0 REG. PLATE 74 OUiOFSTAT Vitt' F4 L, i'jji. 3Lj �R i_F 217 Lt2.6 OWNER Cef.6,6" P`% . 1-4-r. C eZ_ J t ADDRESS 33 � 'l`-'' 5 H- T" tj kb. LEGALLY Y. N PARKED? 0 PA TITLE OR OUT•OF•STAT- IN UNIT #2 &VPCOE Milo evicsijot Ai j'2 60 YEAR MAK OWNER Gd4.4 L- I&ETh A DO RESs 26^7 )%Z AibWi6G3 OR. CITY, CODE '/]0�;/ ZIP CODE i/ ( r :To . 'A- )7551 YEAR MAKE ) f I' MODEL INQT BODY TYPE) !` , } i, CJrj I ��� INS. Y R N [7 UNK 0 I MODEL (HOT Lt EiODY TYPE) �Z� �'T 0. l j• INS., Y a� N O UM( O UNIT TDWED? Y O N COMPA COMPANY 1 OWED? Y' N i COMA NY �II* )S f c ?3 GRADIENT y 7 , } L-�����i 5-�� POINT PACT g 6 -� SEED •, 1GRADIENT �� INITIAL IMPACT ` SPEED CSC) DRIVER NUMBEA 1 16 9 •J a j' ..� STA . 1 $" i HUHBFR 2 i 21 q 5 cI y ST j NAMER be-130 t-m (7' Lo 'AWL 533 U i-1—c-P 6 5i P CODE cocci. 1C`>S 0 'L%' eel-- lab PHONE DFZ'AIR i. -tr 1 t'•! DRIVER ADDRESS L Ate- &1 Y/) 4 r // i�+!�4, we-40 ei ITV, STATE ZIP CODE 3 DATE 0 BIR7H PAS Y0 VN DRIVER CLASS DRIV SS 1 COMM, VEN. 0RIVa' f DRIP Y 0 N 1 CLASS 1 SS CARRIER CARRIER ADDRESS CITY. STATE iC ZIP CODE T ONFitt. NO OF AXLES 1. CARGO BODY TYPE G INSURANCE INFORMATION —UNIT IT — ESCRIPTION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MPA Y� POLICY NO. AMAGED PROPERTY RELEASE OF HAZ MAT YO NO UNK❑ 3g 4 CARRi CARRIER ADDRESS CITY, STATE & ZIP CODE 0 CONRG. NO. OF CARGO BODY TYPE GWIR INSURANCE INFORMATION — UNIT I2— HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE OF HAZ MAT Y0 NO WIK0 COMPA POLICY OWNER iADDRESS PHONE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND OFFICE OF•TI DISTRICT ATTORNEY BUREAU 01? JUSTICE SERVICES • FORENSIC LABORATORY 37 East High Street • Carlisle, PA 17013 Chemisby: Latent prints: Computer: 717.240.6526 717.240 -5327 717- 240.6924 Toxicology: AFIS: Fax: 717- 240.5329 717-240-5371 717- 240 -5390 To: Offense: Suspect/Accused: 11 1111111 IIIill11111I11111111 lit Ifi l Hampden Twp Police Department Ptim. Joshua Fressell 230 South Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 DUI Deborah A Lucy COLLECTION INFORMATION: Item(s): Collection Location: Collection Date: Collection Time: Collected By: Date Tested: Gray Top Vacutainer Lot II: Gray Top Vacutainer Expiration Date: Laboratory Number: Received Date: Report Date: Department Case Number: Ref. Cases for Suspect: Suspect Date Of Birth: C12 -01000 August 27, 2012 August 28, 2012 HAM20120801242 March 07, 1955 One (1) sealed box - Blood Specimen - Chemical test of blood for BAC Cumberland County Central Processing August 24, 2012 22 :07 Julie Reifsteck August 27, 2012 2090382 04/2014 I IEADSPACE GAS CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS: Ethyl Alcohol 0.219% by weight in whole blood This certifies that I am available for any and all court proceedings. /f/ dii&AR Carol McCandless, MLT (ASCP), Robin McCann, Ph.D. RN Analytical Consultant Forensic Laboratory Technician Date Reviewed: 8/29/2012 Date Reported: 8/28/2012 Eric Radnovich Forensic Lab Director Date Approved: 08/30/2012 Page 1 of 1 Case Number: C12 -01000 Submission: I Type: DUI IIf 11111111111111I11111111JI1111 11111111 COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY BUREAU OF JUSTICE SERVICES • FORENSIC LABORATORY 37 East High Street Carlisle, PA 170) 3 chemistry: 717 -240 -6526 Toxicology: 717 - 240 -5329 Latrnt Prints: 717-240-5327 AFIS: 717-240-5371 'Computer: 117240 -6924 'Fax: 717. 240.5390 Evidence Receipt Agency: Hampden Twp Police Department Agency #i: HAM20120801242 Date: 8/27/12 Time: 8:37 am Case Names Deborah A Lucy Type Race Sex DOB Age SID - A W F 3/711955 57 Status CHAIN OF CUSTODY Secured at Cumberland County Forensic Laboratory Evidence Intake Area Item# Deseripfion of Evidence: Service Requested: 1 One (1) sealed box identified to contain Blood Specimen described as : Blood Alcohol Analysis Chemical test of blood for BAC (Dept. Item #1) • ALL ITEMS LISTED ABOVE OS AS DESCRIBED BY THE SUBMITTING AGENCY AND ARE SUBJECT TO YERIFIC.4170N UPON INSPECTION BY THE ANALYST Report To: 'SUBMITTED BY: Hampden Twp Police Department via Drop Box at Cumberland County Prison AMY Pagel oft Page 1 of 1 Prelog Request for Forensic Analysis Case Information Sent electronically to Lab: (08/24/2012 ® 22:17) ! /111/11 Cumberland County DA Office Forensic Laborator ! ! ! I I !I IIII 1 !!Il III��I IIl Incident : Number tlliA1.M2012080,1242.Submission f# 1 ' ` • Department: :Hampden Township .PD [04] /User Name: PA0210400 ' • Department Address: 230 South Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 • Officer Name: Ptlm. JoshuaPressell • Officer Email: jpressel @hampdentownship.us • Officer Phone: 717 - 761 -2609 • Offense Date: 08/24/2012 • Offense Location: E Trindle Rd and S Sporting Hill Rd • Offense Type: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE • Offense Type: HIT AND RUN • Connty: Cumberland • Case Type: DUI • Case Comments: Struck Motorcycle Operator and Fled Submission Information • Delivery Type: Drop Box at Cumberland County Prison • Comments: test for bac Name Information • Analysis Request Information Property/Item 11 Package One (1) sealed box Item Description Chemical test of blood for 13AC IExam Requests Blood Alcohol Analysis Relinquished By R Date Relinquished By Time ( Received By Date Rel wished By Time Received By une Received By https://www.prelog. state .pa.us /webprelog/webprelog.dll/EXEC ' 8/24/2012 EXHIBIT C Peter M. Good, Esquire Attorney I.D. #64316 Thomas S. Lee, Esquire Attorney I.D. #89440 Caldwell & Kearns 3631 North Front Street rHar-risburg, PA 474110 1(747)232 -7661 / (717) 232 -2766 (fax) Attorneys for Additional Defendants George and Leila, Inc. d /b /a Moe's Bar & Grill MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE NO.: 12 -6810 KEEFER, and 120 EAST ALLEN, INC. d/b /a SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, Defendants v. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. d/b /a MOE'S BAR & GRILL, Additional Defendant CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. DB /A MOE'S BAR & GRILL'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT GEORGE AND LEILA, INC. DB /A MOE'S BAR & GRILL SET NO. 1 1. Do you admit that Deborah Lucy was at Moe's Bar & Grill on August 24, 2012? Response to Admission 1: Admitted. 2. Do you admit that Deborah Lucy consumed alcoholic beverages at Moe's Bar & Grill on August 24, 2012? Response to Admission 2: Admitted. 3. Do you admit that when Deborah Lucy consumed alcoholic beverages at Moe's Bar & Grill on August 24, 2012, she became visibly intoxicated? Response to Admission 3: Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Deborah Lucy consumed alcoholic beverages on August 24, 2012. It is denied that Deborah Lucy became visibly intoxicated at Moe's tar and grill. To the contrary, George Keefer and Debra Lucy were at Moe's Bar and Grill for approximately two (2.) hours. Further, on August24,10,12 a payment receipt . indicates that two.sports pitehers,ofilighttbeerftotaingttwelve dollars ($12.00) were paid by George Keefer on or around 7:25,pm. Debra Lucy was not observed by staff to be visibly intoxicated at Moe's:Bar:and Grill. Dated: January 1, 2013 By: Respectfully submitted, CALDWELL & KEARNS Peter M. Good Esquire Attorney I.D. #64316 Thomas S. Lee, Esquire Attorney I.D. #89440 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-7661 (717) 232-2766 (fax) Attorneys for Additional Defendants George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe 's Bar & Grill 2 DEC -27 -2012 THU 03:16 PM VERIFICATION FAX NO. P. 04 I, Leila Castle, verify that these Answers to Plaintiff s }Request for Admissions — Set No. 1 are true and correct. J understand. that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date C -x,66, Leila Castle on. behalf of: GEORGE AND LEILA., INC, d/b /a MOF S BAR & GRILL DEC-27-2012 THU 03:16 PM VERTFICATION FAX NO, P. 05 I, George Castle, verify that these Answers to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions — Set No. 1 are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. behalf of: EILA, INC. d/b/a MOE'S BAR & GRILL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this V% day of January, 2013, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the within document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the 'U.S. 'Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: 12426 - 001/198073 David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 -17108 Counsel for Plaintiff Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers McDonnell Hudock Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg PA 17020 Counsel for Defendants Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer Amy Coryer Miller, Esquire Jessica S. Hosenpud, Esquire Lavery Faherty Patterson 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108 -1245 Counsel for Defendant 120 East Allen, Inc. d/b /a Snappers Bar & Grill 5 CALDWELL & KEARNS By: ." de Peter M. Good Esquire Attorney I.D. #64316 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-7661 (717) 232 -2766 (fax) Attorneys for Additional Defendants George and Leila, Inc. d/b /a Moe's Bar & Grill EXHIBIT D J. M.D. '�~'^~=^`~~=», GUZZARDI, December 5, 2013 David Lutz, Esq. Angino- Rovner 4503 N. Front Street 1Harrisburg,PA1711O RE: Kreider v. Lucy/Keefer/Moe's Dear Attorney Lutz, Thank you for askng me to assist you in the above- captioned matter. In ths regard, 1 have reviewed the foliowing information: Hampden Township Police Crash Report Sentencing Order of the Honorable Thomas placey Plaintiff's Complaint Snapper's Response to Complaint Plaintiff's Req forAdmissions to Defendant George Keefer and Answers of Defendant Keefer's Answers Moe's Response to Complain Plaintiff's Request for Admissions to Defendant Deborah Lucy and Defendant Lucy's Answers Depositon of Mary Conley dated September 10, 2013 Deposition of Deborah Lucy dated October 16, 2013 Deposition of George Keefer dated October 16, 2013. According to the information 1 have reviewed, Ms. Deborah Lucy consumed alcoholic beverages (mos likely Coors Light beer) at her home and then subsequently at Moe's where it is estimated that Ms. Lucy consumed about one third of each of two pitchers of Coors Light beer. Ms. Lucy was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which she improperly made a left turn into the lane of traffic traversed by Mr. Kreider at about 8:53 p.m. on August 24 ZO12. Ms. Lucy "Oed" the scene mf the accident striking a curb in the process. Airbags deployed in her vehicle. Ms. Lucy was apprehended very shortly thereafter at her house. Officer Joshua Pressel noted that Ms. Lucy smelled strongly of an alcoholic beverage and was wobbling on her feet. Her eyes were red and bloodshot and she slurred her words repeatedly. Ms. Lucy had a hard time answering Officer Pressel's questions. She initially stated EMERGENCY MEDICINE • MEDICAL TOXICOLOGY P.O. Box 1534 • Hockessin, DE 19707-5534 • Phone 717.854.7785 she "couldn't remember" her alcohol consumption-but then admitted to the consumption of beer at Moe's. She stated that "she did not remember hitting anything". Officer Pressel advised her that a passerby had observed her striking the motorcycle operated by byMr. Kreider and "swerving" down the road afterthe accident. Corpora Kevin Shaughnessy separately noted that at her house shortly after the accident Ms. Lucy staggered and had to lean against her vehicte. She had red glassy eyes and slurred her speech. She in6ornled[ocpora|Shauuhnessythatshmhadconsummd"4or5"beeopriortotheaccident.She could not explain the deptoyment of the airbags or the damage to her vehicle. According to Officer Pressel, during the FieId Sobriety Tests, Ms. Lucy swayed unsteadily on her feet. Ms. Lucy could not follow simple directions during the walk and turn test and staggered and lost her balance a few times. During a second attempt to complete the test, Ms. Lucy was repeatedly asked to place her le "just everai minu she made a few attempts to place her feet as instructed but she "staggered off balance". During the one Ieg stand test, Ms. Lucy had difficulties standing as instructed and lost her balance several times. There were . other behaviors indicating alcohol intoxication also noted. There is no question that Ms. Lucy demonstrated visible signs of alcohol intoxication shortly after 8:53 p.m. on August 24, 2012. At about 10:07 p.m. a specimen was taken to determine the blood alcohol concentration ("BAC"). This was subsequently reported by Cumberland County Laboratory to be .219% w/v of alcohol in whole blood. Accordirigto her information avaitable, Ms. Lucy consumed Coors Light beer priorfrom some time in the later morning or eary afternoon of August 24, 2012 to about 4:00 p.m. on that day. She arrived at Moe's at about 5:30 p.m., and was then served additional Coors Light beer. She consumed about one third of bwo°sports"pitrhersmfCooryLightbeeratK8oe's.Accordingtoyourinxest' ator, each pitcher served to her at Moe's held 48 ounces of beer when fully filled. Ms. Lucy weighed 120 pounds and was about Using the modified Widmark equation, each twelve ounces of Coors Light beer wheri fully absorbed will raise the blood atcohol concentration in an individual of Ms. Lucy's height and weight by about .031% v«/«of alcohol in whole blood (".031%,[ Ms. Lucy was 'metabolizing alcohol a1a rate of about .Ol8V8per hour once an alcohol level of about .02% had been reached which I have estimated to be around 1 p.m. Therefore, Ms. Lucy would have consumed the equivalent of about 12.3 bottles of Coors Light beer during the time period from the initiation of drinking to about 7:30 p.m. when she was leaving Moe's. Given her history of alcoho consumption at Moe's as described above (the equivalent of about 2.6 bottes of Coors Light beer each of 12 ounces), she therefore consumed the equivalent of about 9.7 bottles of Coors Light beer from the initiation of alcohol consumption to the time of her arrival at Moe's. Using the same Widmark formula and estimates of alcohol metabolism as above, then Ms. Lucy's blood alcohol at the time of initial service uf alcohol atK8oe~s was in the range of.22DV6.At various times, whOmohem/aaservedbeerat;W1oe'sherb|omdalcohavveuabovethat|eve|ofa|coho|'inthenangeof about .20% to .24% or perhaps somewhat higher than that estimate. At the time of her accident and at the time of observation bvthe police officers involved in her arrest, at which time she was demonstr.ating visible signs of intoxication,Ms. :Luoy's blood alcohol was inthe range of about .24%. Ms. Lucy and •Mr.•Kreidefhavetestified thatiMs.itucy:wasmotatlailyz.userof Shetlid have some tolerance to the effects of alcohol but these were minimal. Therefore, at the levels of alcohol estimated in this matter, Ms. Lucy would have demonstrated visible .signs of alcohol intoxication when served and consuming alcohol at Moe's from about 5:30 p.m. to about 7:30 p.m. These visible signs of intoxication would have been similar to those observed by Officer Pressel and Trooper Shaughnessy. Obviously, there is not definite information regarding the precise times of alcohol consumption and the amount'of alcohol consumed but I have provided the basis for my estimates of Ms. Luc/s blood alcohol level at various times in this matter. My o will testify to them at the time of trial if required. I reserve to modify my opinions if additional information becomes available. lly submitted PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Argument Court.) CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) Michael Kreider vs. ..„. (List the within matter forot: nal rn 7.7.3 co r"-- -<> c) 77. crl -< cD Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer VS. No 12-6810 Civil Geor cle and Leila Inc 1. -state matter to be afgued (Le., NritMlaSni 8r ill2aFtriNIPAfeq complaint, etc,): Additional Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement Term J-demurrer to 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: David L. Lutz, Esq., 4503 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Name and Address) (b) for defendants: Seth Black, Esq./Kevin Rauch, Esq., 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (Name and Address) Additional Defendants Peter M. Good, Esq./Thomas S. Lee, Esq., 3631 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: April 4, 2014 Date: March 11, 2014 Vztviiik.Clcvd g-nt) Signature Peter M. Good, Esquire Print your name Additional Defendants George and Lelia. Inc. dlbla Moe's Bar and Grill Attorney for INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. iSpri ,F_kobo CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 11th day of March, 2014, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the within document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the U.S. Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-17108 Counsel for Plaintiff Kevin Rauch, Esquire Seth Black, Esquire Summers McDonnell Hudock Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg PA 17020 Counsel for Defendants Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer CALDWELL & KEARNS By: 19A14,71n. Peter M. Good Esqui . #64316 Thomas S. Lee, Esquire I.D. #89440 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-7661 (717) 232-2766 (fax) Attorneys for Additional Defendants George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe 's Bar & Grill PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: (Check one) (XX) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court () for trial without a jury CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) Michael Kreider Plaintiff v. Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer, Defendants v. George and Leila, Inc., d /b /a Moe's Bar & Grill„ Defendants /Additional Defendants (check one) O Assumpsit () Trespass (XX) Trespass (Motor Vehicle) O Other The trial list will be called on 4- 22 -14. Trials commence on 5- 19 -14. Pre - trials will be held on 5 -7 -14 (Briefs are due 5 days before pre- trials.) (The party listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 314 -1.) No. 12 -6810 Civil Term Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: David L. Lutz, Esquire, Angino & Rovner, P.C., 4503 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Kevin Rauch, Esquire, 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050; Peter Good, Esquire, 3631 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110- 1533. This case is ready for trial. Date: 3 -18 -14 549508 Th Signed: Print Name: vid L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff ve,bik-9a79 MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, AND 120 EAST ALLEN, INC., DEFENDANTS V. GEORGE AND LEILA INC., D /B /A MOE'S BAR & GRILL ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS : NO. 12 -6810 CIVIL IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE GUIDO, J. AND EBERT, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 11th day of April, 2014, upon consideration of Additional Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the briefs filed by the parties and after oral argument; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Additional Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. By the Court, M.LVL t,J r., avid L. Lutz, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiff 669)" Kevin Rauch, Esquire Seth Black, Esquire Counsel for Defendants Lucy and Keefer /eter Good, Esquire Thomas Lee, Esquire Counsel for Additional Defendants bas MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, AND 120 EAST ALLEN, INC., D/B/A SNAPPERS BAR & GRILL, DEFENDANTS V. GEORGE AND LEILA INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS : NO. 12-6810 CIVIL 0 C11 IN RE: PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 7th day of May, 2014, after pre-trial conference with counsel in this niatter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. Trial counsel in this matter will be David Lutz, Esquire, for Plaintiff and Seth Black, Esquire, for Defendant and Peter Good, Esquire for Additional Defendant. 2. There remain outstanding objections in the deposition of the Plaintiff's doctor which will have to be dealt with. 3. There is no judicial conflict in this case. 4. Counsel has indicated that the trial will take approximately 2 -3 days. 5. Each party will be granted four peremptory challenges. 6. There is no need for a view in this matter. 7. The parties shall prepare an exhibit list. Two copies of this exhibit list shall be provided to the Court on or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, May 16, 2014. All visual aids used in the case shall be disclosed to the opposing party. 8. Counsel for each party is directed to file with the Court on or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, May 16, 2014, a list for proposed voir dire questions. 9. Counsel for each party is directed to file with the Court on or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, May 16, 2014, a list of the numbered standard jury instructions the party is requesting. If a party is proposing a unique jury instruction or requesting significant modification of a standard instruction, it shall provide the full text of the proposed instruction to the Court. 10. On or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, May 16, 2014, the parties will provide a proposed verdict slip to the Court for review. David L. Lutz, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiff By the Court, ��eth Black, Esquire Counsel for Defendants Lucy and Keefer /Peter Good, Esquire Thomas Lee, Esquire Counsel for Additional Defendants bas ti ' 5IqI13 bPS Copies fr6.1tErk, Wig . CNC i%;�' 28114N, r /4 CLItelBERL PENNSYLVANIA O UrdT , ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-mail: dlutz@anginolutz.com MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff v. DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, Defendants v. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL, Defendants/Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 12-6810 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, by and through counsel, Angino & Lutz, P.C., and respectfully requests that Your Court Order that Defendant Lucy be precluded from introducing into evidence that she has been ordered to pay $193,314.02 as restitution with regard to her criminal case. See, Defendant Lucy's Pre -Trial Memorandum. The issue was discussed at the Pre -Trial Conference before Judge Ebert. ORIGINAL 552102 Such evidence is not relevant to Defendant Lucy's civil liability. Pa.R.E. 402. As pointed out by Judge Ebert, if Defendant Deborah Lucy had paid $193,314.02, perhaps Defendant Lucy would have a legitimate reason to seek to introduce evidence of the Court- ordered criminal restitution. However, and quite obviously, Defendant Lucy seeks to reduce the Plaintiff -s damage award by introducing evidence of the ordered criminal restitution. Such evidence is highly prejudicial to Plaintiff Michael Kreider. Pa.R.E. 403. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine. ANGFNO & LUTZ, P.C. Date: 5 13--14 2 552102 avid L. Lutz PA I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 - phone (717) 238-5610 — fax dlutz@anginolutz.com Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Seth Black, Esquire • Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers McDonnell, et al. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Defendants George Keefer and Deborah Lucy Peter Good, Esquire Thomas Lee, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns 3631 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 Attorney for Defendants/Additional Defendant George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill Dated: I 552102 11E TWO I L/J Glut; a �h1Y PENNS YCUMBERLAND CGU/ , r \, ANSA " IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, NO. 12-6810 v. ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S DEBORAH A. LUCY and MOTION IN LIMINE GEORGE KEEFER, Defendants (Jury Trial Demanded) v. GEORGE and LELIA, INC. d/b/a MOE'S BAR AND GRILL Defendants/Additional Defendants #19607 Filed on Behalf of the Defendants Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, Pa. I.D. #83058 Seth T. Black, Esquire Pa: I.D. #203075 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & GUTHRIE, P.C. Firm #911 945 East Park Drive, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17111 (717) 901-5916 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. NO. 12-6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, Defendants v. GEORGE and LELIA, INC. d/b/a MOE'S BAR AND GRILL Defendants/Additional Defendants (Jury Trial Demanded) ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE AND NOW, come the Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer, by and through their counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock & Guthrie, P.C., and file the following Answer to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine. The Plaintiff's requests exclusion of Defendant Lucy's restitution order of $193,314.02 on the basis that it is not relevant to the Defendant's civil liability; however, 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106(g) specifically provides that the Defendant is entitled to a reduction. WHEREFORE, the Defendants, respectfully request that Honorable Court deny the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & UTHRIE, P.C. Bv: etlack, Esquire Counsel for Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE has been electronically mailed to counsel of record, this 16th day of May, 2014. David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Royner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Peter M. Good, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns, P.C. 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 (Attorney for Defendant/Additional Defendant) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & GUTHRIE, P.C. By: S T. Black, Esquire Counsel for Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer r... HE PROTHO/`t TAP 1O14!AY 1.6 API 9 /4.'i CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. NO. 12-6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, Defendants v. GEORGE and LELIA, INC. d/b/a MOE'S BAR AND GRILL Defendants/Additional Defendants (Jury Trial Demanded) MOTION IN LIMINE AND NOW, come the Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer, by and through their counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock & Guthrie, P.C., and file the following Motion in Limine and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. The Defendants seek to exclude the following from trial: a. photographs of the vehicles; b. George Keefer's alcohol consumption at any time except when he was with Deborah Lucy at a bar on the night in question; c. George Keefer's medical condition on the night in question and his admission to Holy Spirit Hospital; and d. the Plaintiff's claim for future medical bills. 2. The happening of the accident is not in dispute and Ms. Lucy has admitted to causing the accident. As a result, the vehicle photographs have no probative value and should be excluded. Pa.R.E. 401. 3. Neither George Keefer's alcohol consumption at home, nor his admission to Holy Spirit later that night have any bearing on whether Deborah Lucy was visibly intoxicated at Moe's or whether she was competent to drive at Snappers when she obtained the keys to the vehicle. Thus this information should be excluded. 4. The Plaintiff proposed verdict slip requests future medical bills. 5. To prove future medical bills, the Plaintiff needs expert support for the figures. 6. There has been no expert support for future medical bills. Therefore, they must be excluded as any award would be speculative. WHEREFORE, the Defendants, respectfully request that Honorable Court grant the Defendant's Motion in Limine. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & GUTHRIE, P.C. By: S- h . Black, Esquire Counsel for Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION IN LIMINE has been electronically mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record, this 16th day of May, 2014. David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Peter M. Good, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns, P.C. 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1.533 (Attorney for Defendant/Additional Defendant) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & GUTHRIE, P.C. By: .eth T. Black, Esquire Counsel for Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, co DEFENDANTS x GEORGE AND LEILA INC., �c) D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS : NO. 12-6810 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of May, 2014, upon consideration that David Jenkins failed to appear for Jury Service as directed: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. A Rule is issued upon David Jenkins to show cause why he should not be held in Contempt of Court. 2. The Rule shall be returnable at the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, June 3, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 2 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court, Hand Delivered 5/20/14 - BAS MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, -� DEFENDANTSzrn. cn GEORGE AND LEILA INC., )> r D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL : ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS: NO. 12-6810 CIVIL V. h., ate. rri-' ©CD fi}tl, -.24)rp- c :; STIPULATION Defendants, Deborah Lucy and George Keefer, admit their negligence and that their negligence was a factual cause of harm to Plaintiff, Michael Kreider. David Lutz, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiff lack, Esquire Counsel for Defendants, Lucy & Keefer MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, DEFENDANTS V. GEORGE AND LEILA INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS: NO. 12-6810 CIVIL rie r.J'1 IN RE: REQUESTED POINTS FOR CHARGE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 21st day of May, 2014, upon consideration of the Parties' requested points for jury charge, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: Plaintiff's Requested Points for Charge Action #1 4.00 #2 4.20 #3 4.30 #4 4.80 #5 4.100 #6 4.120 #7 5.00 #8 13.10 #9 Special #10 Special #11 Special #12 Special Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Generally Covered • Given Keefer Stipulation Not Required Generally Covered Generally Covered #13 Special #14 Special #15 Special #16 Special #17 13.20 Modified #18 13.150 Modified #19 7.00 Modified #20 7.20 Modified #21 7.110 Modified #22 7.40 #23 7.130 #24 7.240 Defendant's Proposed Points for Charge #la 4.20 #1b 4.30 #1c 4.40 #1d 4.50 #le 5.20 #1f 7.80 #1g 12.00 #1h 12.30 #1i 13.20 #2 Special #3 Special Generally Covered Generally Covered Generally Covered Generally Covered Accepted Accepted Generally Covered Generally Covered Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Denied — Not Required Accepted Withdrawn Accepted Denied Accepted Denied Denied Additional Defendants Proposed Points for Charge #1 4.00 Accepted #2 420 Accepted #3 4.30 Accepted #4 4.80 Accepted #5 4.100 Accepted #6 4.120 Accepted #7 5.00 Accepted #8 5.20 Accepted #9 13.00 #10 13.20 #11 Special #12 Special #13 13.160 #14 13.180 #15 7.00 David Lutz, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Xeth Black, Esquire Attorney for Defendants Peter Good, Esquire Attorney for Additional Defendants Co /Wck_ - =11 By the Court, Generally Covered Accepted Generally Covered Generally Covered Accepted Generally Covered Accepted bas MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, DEFENDANTS V. GEORGE AND LEILA INC., : D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL DEFENDANTS : NO. 12-6810 CIVIL VERDICT SLIP You must decide whether any party was negligent and whether that negligence was a factual cause of injury. Question 1: Were any of the defendants negligent? Please answer for each defendant Deborah Lucy X Yes No George Keefer X Yes No George and Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar and Grill Yes _No If you answer Question 1 "Yes" as to any defendants, please proceed to Question 2. Question 2: Was the negligence of those defendants you have found to be negligent a factual cause of any harm to the plaintiff? Only answer for those defendants you have found negligent in response to Question 1. Deborah Lucy George Keefer X Yes X Yes No George and Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar and Grill Yes x No If you answer Question 2 "Yes" as to any defendants, please proceed to Question 3. Question 3: Taking the combined negligence that was a factual cause of any harm to the plaintiff as 100 percent, what percentage of that negligence do you attribute to each party? Percentage of negligence attributable to Deborah Lucy Percentage of negligence attributable to George Keefer Percentage of negligence attributable to George and Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar and Grill Question 4: tp 5 % 35 % t) % State the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the • occurrence for past medical expenses, past lost earnings, future lost earning capacity, past, present, and future pain and suffering, embarrassment and humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life and disfigurement. $ i, a,S-oleop .5-,/> - ,V Cir Date Foreperson MICHAEL KREIDER ---- V S ---- DEBORAH A. LUCY AND GEORGE KEEL In the Court of Commons Pleas of Cumberland County, PA., Docket No. 2012-6810 Judge: EBERT Attorney: tYa-.+v et �4-- Z rar P1 Attorney:i660o( ' c C eer4c. 4 1e;1A .17AC Le; e / &.d /4e_ t Le; la-, �.tL, 1 ,11l0/C� DatC' sc' ff� 15 laCk �Cf <<jorti G{�6`� /1 OC SA PI OG-.S 43 a ,a V %i ! ( `.11.9 /I L( 6—ter, C Kee,rer JURORS No. Juror # NAMES OF JURORS CALLED CAUSE P D 1 1 11 1111111011111 11111 11111 11111 1111 1111 MAY19-20 SCHORPP„ II EARL L 2 11111111111111111111111111111111IIII 1111 1VIAY19-4 DENHAM, RANDI •K 3 111111HNl111111 luuu11111 u_.1 19-3.23---t — x 4 111 „. 5 1111111 111111111111111 111 111111111111111 MAY19-99 EARWOOD, JOHN H 6 111111111111111111111111111111111111110 MAY19-344 HAUPT, JOHN •R f 1 7 11111111111111111111111111111111 17 MAY19-62 NAGLE, CHAD J AO t ... . —9-1111111111M13 Y-�-9.228 NESS.KELS� e ,1 4_ O - 10 1111111110111II111111111111111111111111 MAY1 9-222 WATTS, AJA D 1 11 1111111 101111111 11111 1111111111 11111111 1\IAY19-283 COX, TRACY A 12 Imam 1111111111111111111111111111 MAY19-22 JENKINS, DAVID A 1:321- 14 IMill 111IIHH111111 0111I►u0Mill „ • , , --• 3 1 . r.. 04-( 19-27T DIVELY, CALEj 17 1 11111111111 1131 11111111 iuil..-- • - . . — !l 1 3 18 IIl 19 11111111111111111IDE 1111111111I1111111 MAY19-88 KESSLER, KEVIN W 20 111111111111Ion 111111111111IIIIIIIIIII MAY19-87 FINKEY, RYAN W 21- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111 MAY1 -74 r- 22 IIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII MAY19-246 SMITH, LEONARD A MICHAEL KREIDER ---- V S ---- DEBORAH A. LUCY AND GEORGE KEE JURORS In the Court of Commons Pleas of Cumberland County, PA., Docket No. 2012-6810 Judge: EBERT Attorney: Attorney: Date: No. Juror # NAMES OF JURORS CALLED CAUSE P D - ; 24 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 MAY19-114 EVANS, TAMMY A 25 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII MAY19-218 HANSEN, MARLA J DZ 27 HH1 • • • ' -122 BRETZMAN, MICHA 28 1 11 1111 11111 1111111 111 11 111 111111111 1111 MAY19-77 SENNETT, SHAWN L 29 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi)llnIIIIIIIIIIIilttiitl • : A 2 A , • . I ; IE De, t4-- 4--31 _, ... 7 . , 3 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 MAY19-75 ALLDER, HEATHER R 32 ultH , , . , - — 33IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII MAY19-19 PARSONS, JENNIFER L 34.11114 llIIII HI*IH11HitI111 • -- • • • '.' , /\ 35 1 11 1111 11111 1111 1 11111 11111 11111 1111 1111 1VLAY19-145 MYERS, AUDREY M 36 1111111 111111111111111 iliii 11111111111 11 14AY19-178 SCHNUR, ROY F 37 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFIIIIIIIIIIIn MAY19-57 MYERS, ANGELA L 38 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII MAY19-213 SHAMBAUGH, PATRICIA D 39 IIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111111111 MAY19-29 ERB, FRANCES A 40 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 MAY19-135 RINFRETTE, KAY M 4 EONA 42 11111111111111III11111111111111111111111 MAY19-79 COFFEY, DAVID J 43 111111111111111011111111111111111111III MAY19-210 ZIMMERMAN, CHARLES G 44 1 11 1111 11111 11 10 1111 1 11111 11111 1111 11 11 MAY1.9-42 MORRILL, DANIELLE E I . . MICHAEL KREIDER ---- V S --- DEBORAH A. LUCY AND GEORGE KEE JURORS In the Court of Commons Pleas of Cumberland County, PA., Docket No. 2012-6810 Judge: EBERT Attorney: Attorney: Date: No. Juror # NAMES OF JURORS CALLED CAUSE P D 45 111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi MAY19-148 HEIMBACH, DREW M 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 I66 MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants V GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR AND GRILL, Additional Defendants : NO. 12-6810 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, thi-s 19th day of May, 2014, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motions in Limine, the response of the Defendants, and after argument in chambers, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine is granted, and the defendant Deborah Lucy cannot introduce evidence regarding a court-ordered criminal restitution. David L. Lutz, Esquire 7FothePlaintiff h T. Black, For Defendants Peter M. Good, For Additional Esquire Lucy and Keefer Esquire Defendants .mtf co ►'est i 'L sp-A pv 70) By the Court, MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants (-) V m W GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., : NO. 12-6810 CIVIL TERM 7 D/B/A MOE'S BAR AND GRILL, Additional Defendants IN RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE 3: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19th day of May, 2014, upon consideration of the Motions in Limine filed by the Defendants Deborah Lucy and George Keefer, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Motion is granted in part in that only two photographs of the damaged vehicle will be admitted into evidence. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that there will be no discussion of George Keefer's alcohol consumption on the night in question, nor George Keefer's medical condition on the night in question and his admission to the Holy Spirit Hospital inasmuch as there has been a stipulation filed by the parties admitting negligence and cause. On the matter of the Plaintiff's claim for future medical bills, this issue remains unresolved. We will be checking the case law and making a determination after the Plaintiff's evidence. By the Court, Kreider V Lucy and Keefer V Moe's Bar and Grill 12-6810 CIVIL TERM In Re: Motions in Limine Page 2 ./ David L. Lutz, Esquire For the Plaintiff ,//veth T. Black, For Defendants /Peter M. Good, For Additional :mtf Esquire Lucy and Keefer Esquire Defendants COQ 1. 1)141.1' is. MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS : NO. 12-6810 CIVIL TERM DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE : CIVIL ACTION - LAW KEEFER, Defendants: VS GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL,• Defendants/Additional Defendant IN RE: MOTION FOR NONSUIT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of May, 2014, upon consideration of Defendants George and Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill Motion for Nonsuit and after argument in chambers, it is hereby ordered and directed that the motion is denied. By the Court, David L. Lutz, .Esquire Angina & Lutz, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Seth Black, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock & Guthrie, P.C. 95 East Park Drive, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17111 .....,//5eter Good, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns, P.C. 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 :mlc Q rcs 0221 CSL �2%y c `„ ,-n -0 CO r- -_-i r 7 CMC j- -7- I -11 --'Cf_: N7 - ., <a >C7 CI -I) C 6 C. --I ui > -< C =--} MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF. Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS : NO. 12-6810 CIVIL TERM DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE : CIVIL ACTION - LAW KEEFER, • Defendants: VS GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL,• Defendants/Additional Defendant IN RE: MOTION IN LIMINE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of May, 2014, upon consideration of the Defendants' Motion in Limine to exclude the Plaintiff's claim for future medical bills, it is hereby ordered and directed that the Motion in Limine is granted. There will be no argument regarding future medical bills. By the Court, David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Lutz, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 .//4leth Black, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock & Guthrie, P.C. 95 East Park Drive, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17111 /Peter Good, Esquire / Caldwell & Kearns, P.C. 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 :mlc eo7 es fizaitscL, / -< u 0-1 c) Zr CDs; ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-mail: dlutzaanginolutz.com HONOT 2111 23 P OUtldr LAND PENNSYLVANIA NNS yL ANIA i Y y MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff v. DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, Defendants v. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL, Defendants/Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 12-6810 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THE ATTACHED MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM THE FILING OF THE MOTION OR THE DELAY DAMAGES SOUGHT IN THE MOTION MAY BE ADDED TO THE VERDICT AGAINST YOU. Date: 552508 ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. Davi L. Lutz PA I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 — phone (717) 238-5610 fax dlutz@anginolutz.com Attorney for Plaintiff ANGINO &.LUTZ, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney 1D# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-mail: dlutz@anginolutz.com MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff v. DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, Defendants v. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL, Defendants/Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 12-6810 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 238 AND TO MOLD THE VERDICT Plaintiff Michael Kreider, by and through counsel, Angino & Lutz, P.C., requests that this Honorable Court award delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238 and in support thereof avers the following: 1. On November 6, 2012, an action was filed by the Plaintiff against Defendants Deborah Lucy, George Keefer, and 120 East Allen, Inc., d/b/a Snappers. Snappers then filed a Joinder Complaint adding George and Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill as an Additional Defendant. Eventually, Snappers was dismissed from the action. The above -captioned action was a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision. 2. The Complaint was served by the Plaintiff on Defendants Deborah Lucy and George Keefer on November 8, 2012. 552508 3. From May 19, 2014, to May 21, 2014, Your Court presided over a jury trial. On May 21, 2014, a jury returned a verdict and determined that George and Leila, Inc., d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill was not negligent. The jury awarded compensatory damages in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendants Deborah Lucy and George Keefer in the amount of $1,250,000.00. 4. In a civil action seeking monetary relief for bodily injuries, damages for delay shall be added to the amount of compensatory damages awarded. Pa.R.C.P. 238(a)(1). 5. Given that the Complaint was served upon both Defendants Deborah Lucy and George Keefer on November 8, 2012, delay damages began to run on November 8, 2013. Pa.R.C.P. 238(a)(2). 6. The prime rate as listed in the first edition of the Wall Street Journal for both 2013 and 2014 was 3.25% and therefore, the rate of delay damages for 2013 and 2014 would be 4.25%. 7. Delay damages to be molded to the $1,250,000.00 compensatory damage award would be $27,508.95 ($145.55 per day x 189 days). WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Your Honorable Court mold the compensatory verdict of $1,250,000.00 to $1,277,508.95 to reflect delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238. Date: 5 /,a 552508 a ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. . Lutz PA I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 — phone (717) 238-5610 — fax dlutz@anginolutz.com Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 238 AND TO MOLD THE VERDICT upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Seth. Black, Esquire Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers McDonnell, et al. 945 East Park Drive, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17111 Attorney for Defendants George Keefer and Deborah Lucy Peter Good, Esquire Thomas Lee, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns 3631 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA. 17110-1533 Attorney for Defendants/Additional Defendant George, and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill Judge M. L. Ebert, Jr. Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: 5,-nr,A 552508 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, NO. 12 -6810 v. MOTION TO MOLD VERDICT DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, (Jury Trial Demanded) Defendants v. GEORGE and LELIA, INC. d /b /a MOE'S BAR AND GRILL Defendants /Additional Defendants #19607 Filed on Behalf of the Defendants Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 Seth T. Black, Esquire Pa. I.D. #203075 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & GUTHRIE, P.C. Firm #911 945 East Park Drive, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17111 (717) 901 -5916 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. NO. 12 -6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, Defendants v. GEORGE and LELIA, INC. d /b /a MOE'S BAR AND GRILL Defendants /Additional Defendants (Jury Trial Demanded) MOTION TO MOLD VERDICT AND NOW, come the Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer, by and through their counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock & Guthrie, P.C., and file the following Motion to Mold Verdict. 1. This action involves personal injuries stemming from an automobile accident. 2. The jury returned a verdict of $1,250,000 against Deborah Lucy and George Keefer. 3. Prior to trial Ms. Lucy was ordered to pay restitution of $193,314.02. 4. The Defendants now seek to have the verdict molded to reflect a credit for the ordered restitution. 5. Pennsylvania law provides that "no judgment or order of restitution shall debar ... the victim who sustained personal injury ... to recover from the offender .. . provided that any civil award shall be reduced by the amount paid under the criminal judgment." 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106(g). 6. While Ms. Lucy has not paid the restitution in full, judicial economy dictates that the verdict should be molded once now rather than after every time she makes a payment. WHEREFORE, the Defendants, respectfully request that Honorable Court mold the verdict to $1,056,685.98. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & pUTHRIE, P.C. B ., eth T. Black, Esquire Counsel for Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION TO MOLD VERDICT has been sent via first class mail, postage pre -paid this 30th day of May, 2014. David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 -1708 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Peter M. Good, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns, P.C. 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 -1533 (Attorney for Defendant/Additional Defendant) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & GUTHRIE, P.C. Seth T. Black, Esquire Counsel for Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer ?p��(�l�''' '2 PENNS YL V/�/q C IA �l , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff, v. DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, Defendants v. GEORGE and LELIA, INC. d/b/a MOE'S BAR AND GRILL Defendants/Additional Defendants #19607 CIVIL DIVISION NO. 12-6810 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendants Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 Seth T. Black, Esquire Pa. I.D. #203075 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & GUTHRIE, P.C. Firm #911 945 East Park Drive, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17111 (717) 901-5916 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. NO. 12-6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, Defendants v. GEORGE and LELIA, INC. d/b/a MOE'S BAR AND GRILL Defendants/Additional Defendants (Jury Trial Demanded) ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES AND NOW, come the Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer, by and through their counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock & Guthrie, P.C., and file the following Answer to Plaintiff's Motion for Delay Damages. 1. The Defendants admit that this was a claim for damages stemming from a motor vehicle collision. 2. The Complaint was filed on November 6, 2012, and served on the Defendants on November 8, 2012. 3. Under Pa.R.C.P. 238 delay damages would run from November 8, 2013 through May 21, 2014, and would amount to $27,508.95 as alleged by the Plaintiff. 4. However, Pa.R.C.P. 238(b)(1)(ii) specifically excludes from the calculation any time during which the plaintiff caused delay of the trial. 5. This particular motor vehicle collision occurred on August 24, 2012 and involved criminal proceedings as well as these civil proceedings. 6. To preserve Ms. Lucy's criminal rights this civil action was stayed on February 22, 2013 through her guilty plea and sentencing. 7. Then on August 1, 2013, the Honorable Court held a status conference whereat the Plaintiff requested a trial date of May 19, 2014. 8. These Defendants had offered all insurance available to them, prior to that time; however, the Plaintiff wanted to proceed to trial on his dram shop action. 9. The purpose of delay damages is "not to punish defendants, but to reduce court congestion by encouraging parties to settle their claims." Schrock v. Albert Einstein Medical Ctr., 589 A.2d 1103 (Pa. 1991). 10. "Delay damages do not penalize a defendant that chooses to go to court; they simply do not permit a defendant to profit from holding money that belongs to the plaintiff ...." Costa v. Lauderdale Beach Hotel, 626 A.2d 566, 570 (Pa. 1993). 11. In this matter, the Defendant did not delay trial as evidenced above. The Defendants maintained an offer for all of the insurance benefits available to them. 12. They simple concurred in the trial date requested by the Plaintiff with the hope that their insurance limits would be accepted. WHEREFORE, the Defendants, respectfully request that Honorable Court deny the Plaintiff's Motion for Delay Damages. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & GU HRIE, P.C. By: Set1i T. Black, Esquire Counsel for Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES has been sent via first class mail, postage pre -paid this 30th day of May, 2014. David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Peter M. Good, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns, P.C. 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 (Attorney for Defendant/Additional Defendant) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & GUTHRIE, P.C. By: 1 �- ��Seth T. Black; Esquire Counsel for Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, DEFENDANTS V. GEORGE AND LEILA INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL• ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS: NO. 12-6810 CIVIL - i tom-? -17:Ef 71::21-Clq) CD >> IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES AND TO MOLD VERDICT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 2014, upon consideration of the Plaintiff, Michael Kreider's Motion for Delay Damages Pursuant to Pa. R. C. P. 238 and to Mold the Verdict; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. Defendants, Deborah Lucy and George Keefer shall file an Answer to the Plaintiff's Motion on or before June 30, 2014. 2. Hearing/Argument on the Motion shall be held on Monday, August 11, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom No. 2 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. David Lutz, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff .4; Black, Esquire Attorney for Defendants Peter Good, Esquire Attorney for Additional Defendants pt.ES Mt; � ko ,y By the Court, bas MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, DEFENDANTS V. GEORGE AND LEILA INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS: NO. 12-6810 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MOLD VERDICT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 2014, upon consideration of the Defendants, Deborah Lucy and George Keefer's Motion to Mold the Verdict; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. Plaintiff, Michael Kreider shall file an Answer to the Defendants' Motion on or before June 30, 2014. 2. Hearing/Argument on the Motion shall be held on Monday, August 11, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom No. 2 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court, %David Lutz, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff ✓Seth Black, Esquire Attorney for Defendants ,ter Good, Esquire Attorney for Additional Defendants �s 112 tisk bas PRL HO/ 2014 PM 2: CUMBERLAND PENNSYLVA COUNTY ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,)PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX (717),238-5610 Attorneys:for Plaintiff E-mail: dlutz@anginolutz.com MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff v. DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, Defendants GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A ;MOE' S BAR & GRILL, Defendants/Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 12-6810 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS DEBORAH AND LUCY AND GEORGE KEEFER'S MOTION TO MOLD THE VERDICT AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, by and through counsel, Angino & Lutz, P.C., and hereby responds to the Defendants' Motion to Mold the Verdict as follows: 1. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. EW 4 Admitted. Admitted. 6` Denied. Given Your Court's ruling before trial, the verdict should not be molded as Defendant Lucy has not paid any restitution as requested by 18 Pa.C.S.A. §1106(g). As a practicalmatter, it is extremely doubtful that Ms. Lucy will ever pay but a small portion of the verdict and/or restitution. Regardless, the civil verdict should not be molded. rfif WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Your Court deny the Defendants' Motion to Mold the Verdict to reflect potential criminal restitution. Date: 553110 ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. 60,31 •a � Lutz PA LD. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110. (717) 238-6791 — phone (717) 238-5610 — fax dlutz@anginolutz.com Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS DEBORAH AND LUCY AND GEORGE KEEFER'S MOTION TO MOLD THE VERDICT upon counsel for the Defendants and Additional Defendant via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Seth Black, Esquire Kevin Rauch, .Esquire Summers McDonnell, et al. 945 East Park Drive, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17111 Attorney for Defendants George Keefer and Deborah Lucy Peter Good, Esquire Thomas Lee, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns 3631 N. Front Street. Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 Attorney for Defendants/Additional Defendant George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar & Grill Judge M. L. Ebert, Jr. Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: 553110 MICHAEL KREIDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, DEFENDANTS V. GEORGE AND LEILA INC. , D/B/A MOE ' S BAR & GRILL ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS NO. 12-6810 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 3rd day of June, 2014 , the defendant having appeared in open court on a Rule to Show Cause why he should not be held in contempt, the Court will accept the defendant ' s apology and dismiss the Rule . This court will not impose any further sanction upon the defendant at this time . By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr. , J David Jenkins 236 Webster St . Carlisle, Pa. 17013 rnCZ . . :mtfcn� , r, MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, DEFENDANTS V. GEORGE AND LEILA INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS: NO. 12-6810 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MOLD VERDICT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2014, upon consideration of the Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer's Motion to Mold Verdict, the Plaintiff's Answer thereto, and after oral argument; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer's Motion to Mold Verdict is DENIED at this time. On June 11, 2013, Judge Thomas Placey ordered Defendant, Deborah A. Lucy to pay restitution in the amount of $189,952.11 in the criminal case docketed to CP -21 -CR -3137-2012. To date, only $452.13 has been paid by Defendant Lucy. It is understood that the Defendant will be given credit at the appropriate time for all restitution actually paid. David Lutz, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff .th Black, Esquire Attorney for Defendants By the Court, 0.ope£Sr,1_ eizfri ter Good, Esquire Attorney for Additional Defendants bas m rrlcn cn cp G7 -D ra MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, DEFENDANTS • • V. GEORGE AND LEILA INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL• ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS: NO. 12-6810 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2014, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion for Delay Damages, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238 and to Mold the Verdict, Defendant's Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer's Answer thereto; and after oral argument; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Delay Damages and to Mold the Verdict is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be awarded $27,508.95 in Delay Damages. Accordingly, the Verdict of $1,250,000 is molded to $1,277,508.95 to reflect Delay Damages. By the Court, David Lutz, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff ✓5eth Black, Esquire Attorney for Defendants -r Good, Esquire Attorney for Additional Defendants bas 'es iiza. ozopy g� / IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, NO. 12-6810 V. JOINT STIPULATION DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, (Jury Trial Demanded) Defendants V. GEORGE and LELIA, INC. d/b/a MOE'S BAR AND GRILL Defendants/Additional Defendants #19607 Filed on Behalf of the Defendants Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 Seth T. Black, Esquire Pa. I.D. #203075 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & GUTHRIE, P.C. Firm #911 945 East Park Drive, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17111 (717) 901-5916 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KREIDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. NO. 12-6810 DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, Defendants v. GEORGE and LELIA, INC. d/b/a MOE'S BAR AND GRILL Defendants/Additional Defendants (Jury Trial Demanded) JOINT STIPULATION AND NOW, come the parties, by and through and their respective counsel, and jointly stipulate as follows: 1. The final award for the Plaintiff was molded to $1,277.508.95 on August 19, 2014.; 2. That award and any judgment is reduced by $100,000 for payment of insurance benefits made on June 4, 2014.; 3. The Defendant is also entitled to credits for restitution made under the criminal case docketed at CP -21 -CR -3137-2012 pursuant to Judge Ebert's August 19, 2014 Order. ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. SUMMERS, McDONNELL, David L. - Esquire Counsel for Plaintiff 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 HUDOC & GUTHRIE, P.C. h Black, Esquire Counsel for Defendants 945 East Park Drive, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17111 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Joint Stipulation has been electronically mailed to counsel of record, this 25th day of September, 2014. David L. Lutz, Esquire Angina & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Peter M. Good, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns, P.C. 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 (Attorney for Defendant/Additional Defendant) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & GUTHRIE, P.C. By: ack, Esquire Counsel for Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer it_ ED OFFICE - 'OF THE PRO THONO TA Wi” 20111 SEP 29 PM 12: 59 CUMBERL AND COUNTY PENh'S YLVANIA ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff E-mail: dlutz@anginolutz.com MICHAEL KREIDER, Plaintiff v. DEBORAH A. LUCY and GEORGE KEEFER, Defendants v. GEORGE AND LEILA, INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL, Defendants/Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 12-6810 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT To the Prothonotary of Cumberland County: Pursuant to Judge M. L. Ebert, Jr.'s August 19, 2014, Order, please enter judgment against Defendants Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer in the amount of $1,277,508.95. Per Judge M. L. Ebert, Jr.'s second August 19, 2014, Order, a credit of $452.13 will be given to Defendant Lucy toward the judgment. As Defendant Lucy pays restitution (total restitution due in criminal case docket no. CP -21 -CR -3137-2012 is $189,952.11), additional credits will be avv1/4.k I lo •cf..) p Qv...1413,58a ORIGINAL'31'' M.tx-k 557091 given to Defendant Lucy. Additional credit of $100,000 will also be given based on State Farm's payment of $100,000 of liability insurance coverage. ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. Date: R 557091 a I'• L. Lutz PA I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 — phone (717) 238-5610 — fax dlutz@anginolutz.com Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angina & Rayner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT upon counsel for the Defendants and Additional Defendant via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Seth Black, Esquire Kevin Rauch, Esquire Summers McDonnell, et al. 945 East Park Drive, Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17111 Attorney for Defendants George Keefer and Deborah Lucy Peter Good, Esquire Thomas Lee, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns 3631 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 Attorney for Defendants/Additional Defendant George and Leila, Inc. d/b/a Moe's Bar Dated: 557091 Grill MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, DEFENDANTS V. GEORGE AND LEILA INC., D/B/A MOE'S BAR & GRILL• ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS: NO. 12-6810 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2014, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion for Delay Damages, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 238 and to Mold the Verdict, Defendant's Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer's Answer thereto; and after oral argument; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Delay Damages and to Mold the Verdict is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be awarded $27,508.95 in Delay Damages. Accordingly, the Verdict of $1,250,000 is molded to $1,277,508.95 to reflect Delay Damages. By the Court, David Lutz, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff eth Black, Esquire Attorney for Defendants Pr Good, Esquire Attorney for Additional Defendants bas i c.S Pa+ e 02.��y MICHAEL KREIDER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEBORAH A. LUCY, GEORGE KEEFER, DEFENDANTS V. GEORGE AND LEILA INC., D/B/A.MOE'S BAR & GRILL ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS: NO. 12-6810 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MOLD VERDICT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2014, upon consideration of the Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer's Motion to Mold Verdict, the Plaintiffs Answer thereto, and after oral argument; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Defendants, Deborah A. Lucy and George Keefer's Motion to Mold Verdict is DENIED at this time. On June 11, 2013, Judge Thomas Placey ordered Defendant, Deborah A. Lucy to pay restitution in the amount of $189,952.11 in the criminal case docketed to CP -21 -CR -3137-2012. To date, only $452.13 has been paid by Defendant Lucy. It is understood that the Defendant will be given credit at the appropriate time for all restitution actually paid. David Lutz, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff ./(eth Black, Esquire Attorney for Defendants By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., Ssza/gy t ter Good, Esquire Attorney for Additional Defendants bas