Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-0653 LAW OFFICE8 OF STEPI-IEN J. HOC~ 19 S. HANOVER STREET SUITE 101 CARLISLE, PA 17013 MARY SCHREIBER, Plaintiff DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS CLINIC and SHIRLY Y. BAILEY and RAYMOND C. BAILEY, JR., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW 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 wdtten 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 dghts important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 170t3 TELEPHONE: (717) 249-3166 LAW OFFICES OF STEPI-Ii~N J. 19 S. HANOVER STREET SUITE 101 CARLISLE, PA 17013 MARY SCHREIBER, Plaintiff DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS CLINIC and SHIRLY Y. BAILEY and RAYMOND C. BAILEY, JR. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 0~- COMPLAINT COUNT I MARY SCHREIBER V. DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS CLINIC Plaintiff is, Mary Schreiber an adult individual residing at 54 Partridge Circle, Carlisle, PA. Defendant Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic is a domestic corporation whose business address is 790 W. High Street, Carlisle, PA. Defendants Shirly Y. Bailey and Raymond C. Bailey, Jr. own the premises at 790 W. High Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA. On or about May 8, 2001 at or about 2:30 P.M. prevailing time, the Plaintiff was a business customer of Defendant Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic at the above business address. Plaintiff was lawfully on the premises at the above date and time for the purpose of receiving a tanning session. Plaintiff was directed by an agent, employee or servant of Defendant Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic to walk down a dimly lit hallway toward a room with a tanning bed on the above date and time. While Plaintiff was walking down the hallway at the date and time aforesaid, a large unrestrained dog, believed to be a Rotweiler, suddenly came out of a side room, lunged into the hallway and knocked Plaintiff over causing her to hit her head on a water cooler LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN J. HOGG 19 S. HANOVER STREET SUITE 101 CARLISLE, PA 17013 then trip over the dog and strike her right arm on the floor when she fell. Defendant Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic, had a duty to maintain its business property free from dangerous conditions which presented an unreasonable risk of harm to those lawfully on the premises. Defendant Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic knew or should have known that such a large dog could cause the kind of injuries Plaintiff suffered if permitted to run unrestrained inside the business premises lunging into, jumping on or attacking those lawfully on the premises. 10. Defendant Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic failed to meet its duty to keep the premises frcc from dangerous conditions as follows: Failing to keep a large animal restrained on the business premises; Failing to warn the Plaintiff that the dog was on the premises, was likely to move suddenly and could cause harm to the Plaintiff; and Otherwise failing to maintain the business premises free from dangerous conditions. 11.As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic's negligence, carelessness and recklessness as aforesaid, the Plaintiff suffered a tore right rotator cuff, right rotator cuff tendonitis, neck pain and other bruises, contusions and the like. 12.As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic's negligence, carelessness and recklessness, the Plaintiff was obligated to spend approximately $6,300.00 in medical treat~-nent costs for her injuries as aforesaid. 13.As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic's negligence, carelessness and recklessness as aforesaid, the Plaintiff lost approximately $500.00 in earnings. 14.As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic's negligence, carelessness and recklessness as aforesaid, the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer significant pain from the above injuries. LAW OFFICES OF $'[~],t]~ j. ~OGG 19 S. HANOVER STREET SUITE 101 CARLISLE, PA 17013 15. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic's negligence, carelessness and recklessness as aforesaid, the Plaintiff will have future medical treatments expenses, lost earnings and pain. VVherefore, Plaintiff requests judgment in her favor and against Defendant Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic, such judgment to include reimbursement for past, present and future medical expenses, lost wages, non-economic damages, statutory interest from May 8, 2001, attorney fees and cost of suit. COUNT II MARY SCHREIBER v. SHIRLY Y. BAILEY AND RAYMOND C. BAILEY~ JR. 16. Paragraphs 1-15 inclusive are part of this Count as if fully set forth herein. 17. Defendants Shirly Y. Bailey and Raymond C. Bailey, Jr. had a duty to maintain their real property free from dangerous conditions which presented an unreasonable risk of harm to those lawfully on the premises. 18. Defendants Shirly Y. Bailey and Raymond C. Bailey, Jr. knew or should have known that such a large dog could cause the kind of injuries Plaintiff suffered if pe..itted to run unrestrained inside the business premises lunging into, jumping on or attacking those lawfully on the premises. 19. Defendants Shirly Y. Bailey and Raymond C. Bailey, Jr. failed to meet their duty to keep the premises free from dangerous conditions as follows: Failing to keep a large animal restrained on the premises; Failing to warn the Plaintiff that the dog was on the premises, was likely to move suddenly and could cause harm to the Plaintiff; Failing to obey the Carlisle Borough Building Code which requires land owners to maintain their premises free from dangerous conditions; and Otherwise failing to maintain the premises free from dangerous conditions. 20.As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Shirly Y. Bailey and Raymond C. Bailey, Jr.'s negligence, carelessness and LAW OFFICES OF STEPI-IEN J. ItOGG 19 S. HANOVER STREET SUITE 101 CARLISLE, PA 17013 recklessness as aforesaid, the Plaintiff suffered a tore dght rotator cuff, dght rotator cuff tendonitis, neck pain and other bruises, contusions and the like. 21 .As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Shirly Y. Bailey and Raymond C. Bailey, Jr.'s negligence, carelessness and recklessness, the Plaintiff was obligated to spend approximately $6,300.00 in medical treatment costs for her injuries as aforesaid. 22.As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Shirly Y. Bailey and Raymond C. Bailey, Jr.'s negligence, carelessness and recklessness as aforesaid, the Plaintiff lost approximately $500.00 in earnings. 23.As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Shirly Y. Bailey and Raymond C. Bailey, Jr.'s negligence, carelessness and recklessness as aforesaid, the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer significant pain from the above injuries. 24.As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Shirly Y. Bailey and Raymond C. Bailey, Jr.'s negligence, carelessness and recklessness as aforesaid, the Plaintiff will have future medical treatments expenses, lost earnings and pain. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests judgment in her favor and against Defendants Shirly Y. Bailey and Raymond C. Bailey, Jr., such judgment to include reimbursement for past, present and future medical expenses, lost wages, non-economic damages, statutory interest from May 8, 2001, attorney fees and cost of suit. Date: LAW OFFICES OF STE~N j. ItOGG 19 S. HANOVER STREET SUITE 101 CARLISLE, PA 17013 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Complaint to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 19 Pa. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Date: SC~IREIBER SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-00653 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SCHREIBER MARY VS DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS CL ET RICHARD SMITH , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS CLINIC the DEFENDANT , at 0840:00 HOURS, on the 13th day of February , 2002 at 790 W HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to SHIRLEY BAILEY, OWNER a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 3.45 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 31.45 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~7~ day of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 02/13/2002 STEPHEN HOGG By: ~ff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR ~ASE NO: 2002-00653 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SCHREIBER MARY VS DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS CL ET RICHARD SMITH , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon BAILEY SHIRLEY Y the DEFENDANT , at 0840:00 HOURS, on the 13th day of February , 2002 at 790 W HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to SHIRLEY BAILEY a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~'~ day of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 02/13/2002 STEPHENBy: HOGG~~.~ ~ep~ty Sh4riff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR C~SE NO: 2002-00653 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SCHREIBER MARY VS DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS CL ET RICHARD SMITH , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon BAILEY RAYMOND C JR the DEFENDANT , at 0840:00 HOURS, on the 13th day of February , 2002 at 790 W HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to SHIRLEY BAILEY, WIFE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 77~ day of l~ro~[h(~not ar~/ So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 02/13/2002 MARY SCHREIBER, Plaintiff DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS SHIRLY Y. BAILEY and RAYMOND C. BAILEY, JR., Defendants CLINIC and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-653 CIV~ 19 RULE 1312-1. The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially in the following form: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: S t e p h e n J. H o g g, E s q u i r e , counsel for the plaintifffd~f6~l~fin the above action (or actions), respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action (~(~q~) is (iff~) at issue. 2. The claim of the plaintiff in the action is $. 2 5,0 0 0.0 0 o r 1 .e s s The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Stephen J. Hoqq, Esquire WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. foregoing petition, actions) as prayed ~or. Respectf~bmitted, _ ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, ~//4 ~ / ~ , '19"~':~, 'n consideration of the , q., are nppointed arbitrators in the above captioned action (or By the~ RJ. ,/ MARY SCHREIBER, Plaintiff DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS CLINIC and SHIRLY Y. BAILEY and RAYMOND C. BAILEY, JR., Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 02-653 CIVIL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAEClPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO: CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY Please enter the appearance of W. Darren Powell, Esquire, of the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, as counsel for Defendants Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic and Shirly Y. Bailey and Raymond C. Bailey, Jr. in the above matter. Dated: __~ ~. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP W. Darren Powell, Esquire I.D. No. 68953 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Attomeys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, W. Oarren Powell, Attorney for Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby certi~ that a copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance was served upon the following, by enclosing a true and correct copy in an envelope addressed as follows, postage prepaid: Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire 9 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 By: W. Darren Powell, Esquire I.D. No. 68953 Attorneys for Defendants 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 :163888.1 MARY SCHREIBER, Plaintiff DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS CLINIC and SHIRLY Y. BAILEY and RAYMOND C. BAILEY, JR., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 02-653 CIVIL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Mary Schreiber, Plaintiff c/o Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire 9 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. D at ed: {J[/~3..~./~) ~"~ THOMAS, THOMAS/,&-I.I~FER, LLP vv. aD'~en Powell, Esquire x I.D. #68953 P. O. Box 999 305 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 237-7154 Attorney for Defendants MARY SCHREIBER, Plaintiff V= DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS CLINIC and SHIRLY Y. BAILEY and RAYMOND C. BAILEY, JR., Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 02-653 CIVIL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS CLINIC AND SHIRLY Y. BAILEY AND RAYMOND C. BAILEY, JR. 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the averments contained in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof demanded if relevant. 2. Denied. By way of further response, the correct name of the corporation is Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic, Inc. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. §1029 (e). 5. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. §1029 (e). 2 6. Denied. The paragraph does not identify any particular person as the agent or employee or servant to which reference is made and, as such, Defendants cannot respond to the same. By way of further response, the remaining averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (e). 7. Denied. The averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (e). 8. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. {}1029 (e). 9. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. {}1029 (e). 10. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. {}1029 (e). 11. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. {}1029 (e). 12. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is 3 judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. {}1029 (e). 13. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. §1029 (e). 14. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. §1029 (e). 15. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. §1029 (e). WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. COUNT II 16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 above are incorporated herein by reference. 17. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. §1029 (e). 4 18. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response ~s required. To the extent it ~s judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. {}1029 (e). 19. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it ~s judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. {}1029 (e). 20. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response ~s required. To the extent it ~s judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. {}1029 (e). 21. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response ~s required. To the extent it ~s judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. {}1029 (e). 22. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response ~s required. To the extent it is judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. {}1029 (e). 23. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response ~s required. To the extent it ~s 5 judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. {}1029 (e). 24. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is judicially determined that a response is necessary, the same are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. {}1029 (e). WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint. 25. granted. 26. NEW MATTER Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be Plaintiffs claims and/or damages may be reduced and/or precluded by the doctrines of comparative or contributory negligence. 27. Plaintiffs claims may be barred or diminished by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. 28. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the statute of limitations. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. 6 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Dated: ~2- By: _ W. Darren Powell, Esquire I.D. No. 68953 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Attomeys for Defendants 7 VERIFICATION We, Shirly Y. Bailey and Raymond C. Bailey, Jr., verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that any false statements contained herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. ~4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. DATED: Shirly Y. Bailey nd C. Bailey, Jr. {~/ ' 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, W. Darren Powell, Attorney for Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing document was served upon the following, by enclosing a true and correct copy in an envelope addressed as follows, postage prepaid: Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire 9 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: t~ I ~'~f~"~ T MAS, THOMAS E~t,~,, LL~ By:. ~-' ' ~'~ W. Darren Powell, Esquire I.D. No. 68953 Attomeys for Defendants 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 :164691.1 9 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN j. HOGG 19 S. HANOVER STREET SUITE 101 CARLISLE, PA 17013 MARY SCHREIBER, Plaintiff DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS CLINIC and SHIRLY Y. BAILEY and RAYMOND C. BAILEY, JR. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-653 PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER 25. This paragraph constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent of the response that is required, however, this allegation is denied. 26. This paragraph constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent of the response that is, required, however, this allegation is denied. 27. This paragraph constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent of the response that is required, however, this allegation is denied. 28. This paragraph constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent of the response that is required, however, this allegation is denied. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests judgment in her favor and against Defendant's Dream Makers Weight Loss Clinic and Shirly Y. Bailey and Raymond C. Bailey, Jr., such judgment to include reimbursement for past, present and future medical expenses, lost wages, non- economic damages, statutory interest from May 8, 2001, attorney fees and cost of suit. Date: LAW OFFICES OF STEPI-IF..N J. ItOGG 19 S, HANOVER STREET SUITE 101 CARLISLE, PA 17013 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Answer to New Matter to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 19 Pa. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsifications to authorities. !~¥ S(~REIBER LAW OFFICES OF STEPI-H~N j. HOGG 19 S, HANOVER STREET SUITE 101 CARLISLE, PA 17013 LAW OFFICES OF STEPt~N ~. tlOGG 19 S. HANOVER STREET SUITE 101 CARLISLE, PA 17013 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire, ^ttomey for the Plaintiff, do hereby certify that I did on this day serve a copy of the attached Plaintiff's Answer to New Matter by United States Mail, first class postage, prepaid, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to the following: W. Darren Powell, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17108 Date: S~ephen J. gg! Attorney for Plai~ti LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN J. HOGG 19 S, HANOVER STREET SUITE 101 CARLISLE, PA 17013 MARY SCHREIBER, Plaintiff Vm DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS CLINIC and SHIRLY Y. BAILEY and, RAYMOND C. BAILEY, JR., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 02-653 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW PETITION FOR ARBITRATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw the above-named Plaintiff's Petition For Appointment of Arbitrators dated February 12, 2002 by consent of Counsel for Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendant. Date: S~ephen J. Hog,~ Attorney for Plafnt LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN J. HOGG 19 S. HANOVER STREET SUITE 101 CARLISLE, PA 17013 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire, Attorney for the Plaintiff, do hereby certify that I did on this day serve a copy of the attached Praecipe To Withdraw Petition For Arbitration via facsimile and by United States Mail, first class postage, prepaid, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to the following: W. Darren Powell, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17108 Jacqueline M. Vemey, Esquire 44 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Court Administrator I Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire 2109 Market Strcct Camp Hill, PA 17011 Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 MARY SCHREIBER, Plaintiff DREAM MAKERS WEIGHT LOSS CLINIC and SHIRLY Y. BAILEY and RAYMOND C. BAILEY, JR., Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 02-653 CIVIL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO: PROTHONOTARY Please mark the above case settled, discontinued and ended with prejudice. Dated: Stephen J.~H?g_c~uire I.D. No. 19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101 Carlisle, PA 17013 :165753.1 _CERTIFICATE OF SERVICF I, Klm Lehman, a secretary employed by Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing document was served upon the following, by enclosing a true and correct copy in an envelope addressed as follows, postage prepaid: Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire 9 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: August 27, 2002 im Lehman :179875.1