Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-7180COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NOTICE OF APPEAL Judicial District, County Of FROM CUMBERLAND MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. ~~-- _ ~ ~ ~ v C'~" ~ ~e1~' NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Magisterial District Judge on the date and in the case referenced below. Amber D. Clark and Gregory S. Clark 234 Green Hill Road 10/26/12 Heidi K. Newville Honorable Paul M. Fegley Pa ~s Amber D. Clark and S. Clark MJ - 09201 - CV - 000101 - 2012 This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. If appe! nt was Claimant (see Pa. R.C. P. D.J. No. 1001(6) in action R.C.P.D.J. No. 10086. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the Magisterial District Judge, will before agisterial District Judge. A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED operate as a SUPERSEDERS to the judgment for possession in this case. within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R. C. P. D. J. No. 1001(7) in action before Magisterial District Judge. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon C~j ~ 1 -~'~ appelfee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal Name of apPellee(s) J (Common Pleas No. ;%~ - ~~! ~ Q/ ~ ~) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. Signature of appellant or attorney or agent RULE: To S ~ , appellees) a of ap tee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complain: in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. l' / Date~~~ d~ 20 Z ~Q-~i ~l ~ ~u-t° ignature of Prothono or Deputy G YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPS 17241 AOPC 312-05 ~'2 SOY 26 P~ 2~ ~ ~ ~'U~3BERLA~U CUU~~S"`~, °ENNSY~.VaNI~ ~i~~~ so ~ °~ ~y ~ ~6v11 ~~ ,~ g 3 ~/$'S COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Notice of Judgment/Transcript Civil COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Case Mag. Dist. No: MDJ-09-2-01 MDJ Name: Honorable Paul M Fegley Address: 2260 Spring Road, Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone: 717-218-5250 Jane Adams, Esq. 17 W South St Carlisle, PA 17013 Heidi K McCloskey v. Amber D Clark, Gregory S Clark, Michael R Doporcyk, Enviroquest, Inc. Docket No: MJ-09201-CV-0000101-2012 Case Filed: 6/1/2012 Disposition Summary ._ Docket No Plaintiff Defendant Disposition Disposition Date MJ-09201-CV-0000101-2012 Heidi K McCloskey Gregory S Clark Judgment for Plaintiff 10126/2012 MJ-09201-CV-0000101-2012 Heidi K McCloskey Michael R Doporcyk Judgment for Defendant 10/26/2012 MJ-09201-CV-0000101-2012 Heidi K McCloskey Amber D Clark Judgment for Plaintiff 10/26/2012 MJ-09201-CV-0000101-2012 Heidi K McCloskey Enviroquest, Inc. Judgment for Defendant 10/26/2012 Judgment Summary Participant JointJSeve ral Liability Individual Lia bility Amount Amber D Clark $3,221.13 $0.00 $3,221.13 Enviroquest, Inc. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Gregory S C-ark $3,221.13 $0.00 $3,221.13 Heidi K McCloskey $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Michael R Doporcyk $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Judgment Detail ("Post Judgment) In the matter of Heidi K McCloskey vs. Amber D J d t C t J i t/S Clark; Gregory S Clark on 10/26/2012 the judgment was awarded D it A li d l Li bilit I di id l Li bilit as follows: Amount u gmen omponen o n eve Civil Judgment ra a y n v ua $2,981.00 a y $0.00 epos pp e $2,981.00 Filing Fees $240.13 $0.00 $240.13 Grand Total: 53,221.13 ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARYlCLERK OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. to ~ Date r~ _ J Magisterial District Judge Paul M Fegley ;,S" u 1 ( Ah, i r, e ~~ M ~' '~ ~q „. ~~:. W ~~4:: MDJS 315 Page 1 of 3 Printed: 10/26/2012 12:09:59PM Heidi K McCloskey v. Amber D Clark, Gregory S Clark, Michael Doporcyk, Enviroquest, Inc. Docket No.: MJ-09201-CV-0000101-2012 certi a is is a true an correc copy o t e recor o e procee mgs containing t e ~u gment. Date Magisterial District Judge MDJS 315 Page 2 of 3 Printed: 10!26!2012 12:09:59PM Heidi K McCloskey Docket No.: MJ-09201-CV-0000101-2012 v. Amber D Clark, Gregory S Clark, Michael R Doporcyk, Enviroquest, Inc. Participant List Private(s) Jane Adams, Esq. 17 W South St Carlisle, PA 17013 Lauren Elizabeth Bogar, Esq. Law Ofc of James D Bogar 1 W Main St Shiremanstown, PA 17011 Allison Marie Domday, Esq. 4200 Crums Mill Rd, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Plaintiff(s) Heidi K McCloskey 138 E. Penn Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendant(s) Amber D Clark 234 Green Hill Rd Newville, PA 17241 Gregory S Clark 234 Green Hill Road Newville, PA 17241 Michael R Doporcyk 2116 Walnut Bottom Rd d/b/a MRD Services Carlisle, PA 17015 Enviroquest, Inc. Go John Staz 1738 N. 3rd St. Ste A Harrisburg, PA 17102 MDJS 315 Page 3 of 3 Printed: 10/26/2012 12:09:59PM HEIDI K. McCLOSKEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. : NO. 7180-2012 AMBER D. CLARK, and GREGORY S. . CLARK, husband and wife, MICHAEL : CIVIL TERM ; - R. DOPORCYK, d/b/a MRD SERVICES, and ENVIROQUEST, INC. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ; :r CD r DEFENDANT ENVIROQUEST, INC.'S -- PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT w PI AND NOW, comes Defendant, Enviroquest, Inc., by and through their counsel, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire and provides the following Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint: 1. Plaintiff has included. Defendant is a lawsuit over a property she purchased, as plead in her complaint at 138 East Penn St. Carlisle, PA 17013. 2. Defendant provided home inspection services which were controlled by a contract which Plaintiff agreed to. (See attached email) 3. Regardless of the merits of Plaintiff's claim if any, Paragraph 11 of that agreement requires binding Arbitration. 4. Preliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading for pendency of a prior action or agreement for alternative dispute resolution. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(6). 5. An agreement to arbitrate may be asserted by preliminary objection. 42 Pa. C.S. § 7342(a). 6. Pursuant to Rule 1028(a)(6) this matter should be dismissed as to answering Defendant, for failure to seek Arbitration, or alternatively referred to Binding Arbitration as required under the contract. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests this matter should be dismissed for failure to seek Arbitration, or alternatively referred to Binding Arbitration as required under the contract. Date: February 20, 2013 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Defendant 2/20/13 Gmail - Enviroquest/John Staz To: Enviroquest Inc. Subject: Re: Enviroquest Home Inspection Confirmation-Please Respond Prior to the Appointment I AGREE to the home inspection of 138 East Penn St., Carlisle Heidi McCloskey From: "EmAroquest Inc." <mail_generator@discoverhorizon.com> To: hatrsmc@comcast.net Cc: "linny 0317" <Iinny.0317@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 12:50:58 PM Subject: Enviroquest Home Inspection Confirmation-Please Respond Prior to the Appointment Dear Heidi McCloskey, RE: Inspection address: 138 East Penn Street, Carlisle Scheduled for: Friday, December 30, 2011 at 9:00 AM Duration: 2.5 hr(s) Total fee: $290.00 Thank you for choosing Enviroquest. We look forward to meeting you at the house. Please read these documents carefully and if you agree, respond by entering I AGREE in the Subject Line of the Email and clicking REPLY. Please do this prior to the inspection. - PAYMENT- For your convenience, we accept Cash, Check and Visa/Mastercard at the time of the Home Inspection. We suggest you dress comfortably and we encourage you to accompany us as we go through the home. There is no need to take notes during the inspection. We will provide you with a detailed report. Please feel free to ask any questions you may have about the home as we go. We trust you will find the inspection a pleasant and valuable experience. Our inspection and other correspondence are sent via email. We try to get the inspection reports to you within 24-48 hours. Radon and water and Termite Inspection turnaround times may be longer. Sometimes reports are blocked by "spam blockers" or we have a bad email address. Please call us immediately if you do not receive a report when you think you should have it so we can correct the problem. Sometimes we have no way of knowing that you did not receive the report unless you call us. Please make sure that all utilities are on at the property for the inspection. Our Inspection Agreement below sets out what is included in the home inspection and what is not. We have also enclosed a link to the ASHI Standards of Practice, which describe the scope of work in some detail. Inspection is performed to the standards of the American Society of Home Inspectors. The standards are located at: http://www.ashi.org/inspectors/standards/standards.asp 1. Inspection Services. The Inspection Company will perform or arrange for the following checked inspections and the client shall pay the Inspection Company the fees as agreed. 2.Time of Payment; Release of Inspection Report. Client shall pay the Inspection Company the sum of $ https://rnai I .g oog le,corTVmail/u/0/?ui=2&i k-2f7d8bl c43&\Aew--pt&cf1_has=en\Aroq uest&search=cf&th=13cf368bf3e363c2 2/5 2/20/13 Gmail - EmAroquesUJohn Staz (Inspection Fee) for the home inspection service. Additional services may be purchased through the Inspection Company and are to be considered separate from the home inspection. Other services may, as a courtesy, be arranged by the Inspection Company and are not subcontracts. By arranging for and providing ordering and billing for any such services, Inspection Company does not warrant or assume responsibility for the work of such provider(s) or for providers contract with the customer, which shall remain strictly between Client and provider(s). Payment is due when Client signs and delivers this Agreement to the Inspection Company. The Client shall not be entitled to the Inspection Report unless Client has first paid in full all Inspection Fees and has signed and delivered this agreement to the Inspection Company. If Enviroquest agrees to accept payment at another time, the c! lient agrees to pay all collection, attorney costs required to collect the fee as necessary if Enviroquest is forced to collect fees due to nonpayment in a reasonable time period. Discounts are only applicable when fee is paid as agreed. 3. Home Inspection Law. The Home Inspection and this Agreement comply and reflect the provisions of Act 114, Section 75, known as the Pennsylvania Home Inspection Law. The Client acknowledges and agrees that the purpose and scope of the Home Inspection of the Property by the Inspection Company is to discover readily visible, apparent or obvious Material Defects at the time of the inspection and assist the Client in evaluating the overall condition of the Property and provide an inspection report describing the Material Defects according to Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics of a Pennsylvania State compliant National Home Inspection Association. A Material Defect is defined as follows: A problem with a residential real property or any portion of it that would have a significant adverse impact on the value of the property or that involves an unreasonable risk to people on the property. The fact that a structural element, system or subsystem is near, at or beyond the end of its normal useful life is not, by itself, a Material Defect. 4.Not a Warranty. The Home Inspection and the Inspection Report do not constitute and shall not be considered to be a warranty, either express or implied, concerning the present or future condition of the Property, the presence or absence of latent or hidden defects that are not reasonably ascertainable in a competently performed home inspection, or the remaining useful life of any system or component of the property. The inspector cannot predict the life expectancy of any item. 5.Further Evaluation. If the person conducting your home inspection is not a licensed structural engineer or other qualified specialist whose license authorizes the rendering of an opinion as to the structural integrity of a building or its other component parts, you may be advised to seek a professional opinion as to any defects or concerns found in this report. Enviroquest recommends that all repairs be performed by qualified contractors. It is up to the client to specify, agree to, or otherwise control the quality of repairs made as recommended by EmAroquest. The home inspector is a generalist and is not an engineer, or expert in any craft or trade. 6.Not an Appraisal. This home inspection is not to be construed as an appraisal and may not be used as such for any purpose. 7.Permission to Release Report. The Company will issue an inspection report to the Client only. This report becomes the confidential property of the client and may not be relied upon by any other person through unauthorized distribution of the inspection report. The Client may give the authority to the Inspection Company to release a copy of this report for his or her named representatives sole use in this specific real estate transaction. (see agent). 8. Limitations & Exclusions The Client expressly acknowledges and agrees that the following matters are not included in the scope of the inspection and the inspection report and further acknowledges that the Inspection Company makes no representations or warranties and offers no opinion as to: 1. The presence or absence of latent, concealed or hidden defects not discoverable by a non-intrusive, non- invasive, visual inspection. (client assumes all risk for conditions which are concealed from view at the time of the inspection) 2. An examination that is limited to inspect one or more of the following: wood destroying insects, underground tanks and wells, private sewage, swimming pools, hot tubs, spas or saunas, burglar, fire or other hftps://mail.g oog le.corNmai 1/u/0/?ui=2&i k=2f7d8b1 c43&view=pt&cf1_has=enHroq uest&search=cf&th=13cf368bf3e363c2 315 2/20/13 Gmail - Enviroquest/John Staz alarm systems, fire suppression systems, irrigation systems, air and water quality, mold, chimney flues, fireplace accessories (smokilators, etc.) tennis courts, playground equipment or any other recreational or athletic equipment apparatus or facilities, pollutants, toxic chemicals or any environmental hazards. 3. The inspection of any system, component or part of the property that requires moving of personal property, dismantling, or other destructive measures to gain access to a system, component or part of the dwelling. 4. Property's compliance with municipal, county, state or federal statute codes, rules, ordinance rules, or regulations including without limitation building, zoning, or property maintenance codes. 5. The presence or absence of any hazardous condition or material which would constitute a Material Defect or would other pose a health or safety hazard to humans, including, without limitation, asbestos, radon, formaldehyde, lead or lead based paint, mold, water and air quality or electromagnetic radiation. Specialists may be arranged on your behalf for this type testing. 6. On site private water systems such as underground wells or springs, as well as the evaluation of private sewage and their respective components. 7. Whether visible or not, the following items are outside the scope of the inspection: adequacy or efficiency of an item, detached buildings, elevators, engineering analysis, freestanding appliances, geological stability, heating equipment heat exchangers, prediction of life expectancy of any item, radio controlled devices, solar heating systems, thermostatic or time controls, underground piping and water treatment systems. 8. Any item or component specifically excluded from the scope of the home inspection by or noted on the home inspection report. 9. Any item or component excluded from the scope of the home inspection by the Standards of Practice of a Pennsylvania State compliant Home Inspection Association. 9. Damages. If the Inspection Company or any of its employees, agents, providers, officers or shareholders are found to be liable by a court of competent jurisdiction for any claim or damage due to the alleged negligence or willful misconduct of the Inspection Company performing the home inspection or in reporting on the condition of the property in the inspection report, the maximum damage that the Client can recover from the Inspection Company shall not exceed two times the home inspection fee paid by the client. The limitation and all terms of this agreement applies to all inspections conducted by Enviroquest for the Client. The Inspection Company shall not be liable to the Client for any loss of use of the property, repair or replacement cost, consequential or punitive damages or for attorneys fees or court costs. The Inspection Company shall not be liable to the Client for any claims, loss or damage if the Client alters, tampers with or repairs or replaces the condition! which is the subject matter of the Clients claim before the Inspection Company has had an opportunity to inspect the alleged defective condition. 10. Notification. The Client must commence any action for damages arising out of or related to this Agreement or the Inspection Report according to the provisions set forth by Section 7512 of the Home Inspection Law (68 P.S. 7501-7512) within one year of delivery of the Home Inspection Report to the client or the named representative. 11.Arbitration. Any dispute, controversy, interpretation or claim including claims for, but not limited to, breach of contract, any form of negligence, fraud or misrepresentation arising out of, from or related to, this contract or arising out of, from or related to the inspection or Inspection Report shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration under the Rules and Procedures of a qualified arbitration service chosen by Enviroquest. The decision of the Arbitrator appointed there under shall be final and binding and judgment on the Award may be entered in any Court of Competent jurisdiction. At least one arbitrator must be familiar with the home inspection profession. 12.Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that any section, provision or part of this Agreement is void, voidable, unenforceable or contrary to the laws or the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto contain all the terms and provisions between the Inspection Company and Client relating to the Home Inspection and Inspection Report. A term or provision not incorporated or stated in this Agreement shall be of no force and effect. The terms and provisions of this Agreement are binding upon and shall benefit the Client and the Inspection Company and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. I have read and agree to the terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions found in both pages of this document. https://maiI.g oog Ie,corrVmai I/u/0/?ui=2&i k=2f7d8b1 c43&\Aevw pt&cf1_has=en\Aroq uest&search=cf&th=13cf368bf3e363c2 4/5 2/20/13 Gmail - EmAroquest/John Staz agree to the terms of limitation of liability and the provisions of the Pennsylvania Home Inspection Law. Acceptance of the report also constitutes agreement to the terms and conditions in this agreement. I understand that if I do not agree to the terms and conditions set forth that I have the right to cancel the inspection at this time and I have the right to hire another inspection company. Thanks very much. Sincerely, Enviroquest Inc (717) 233-6144 (717)2332699 fax email: evq@comcast.net https://mai I .g oog le. corrVmai I/u/0/?ui =2&i k= 2f7d8bl c43&\ iew--- pt&cfl _has= en\i roq uest&search=cf&th=13cf368bf3e363c2 5/5 HEIDI K. McCLOSKEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. : NO. 7180-2012 AMBER D. CLARK, and GREGORY S., : CLARK, husband and wife, MICHAEL : CIVIL TERM R. DOPORCYK, d/b/a MRD SERVICES, and ENVIROQUEST, INC. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the Preliminary Objections upon the following by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Jane Adams, Esquire 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendants Amber and Gregory Clark Allison M. Domday, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C. 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant Michael Doporcyk Dated: February 20, 2013 Lauren E. Bogar, Esquire One West Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Heidi McCloskey Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Enviroquest. Inc. r -r MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Allison M. Domday, Esquire ID No. 307547 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3538 Our File No. 19210-03511 Attorney for Defendant Michael R. Doporcyk d/b/a MRD Services HEIDI MCCLOSKEY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 7180-2012 VS. AMBER D. CLARK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW GREGORY S. CLARK, MICHAEL R. DOPORCYK and ENVIROQUEST, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Lauren R. Bogar, Esquire Karl E. Rominger, Esquire James D. Bogar Law Offices Rominger & Associates 1 West Main Street 155 South Hanover Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 Carlisle, PA 17013 Jane Adams, Esquire 17 W. South 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 filed against you. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: �G�•�/Y� � Allison M. Domday, Esquire ID#307547 Attorney for Defendant 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3538 Dated: April 2, 2013 05/1021977.vI MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Allison M. Domday, Esquire ID No. 307547 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3538 Our File No. 19210-03511 Attorney for Defendant Michael R. Doporcyk d/b/a MRD Services HEIDI MCCLOSKEY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 7180-2012 vs. AMBER D. CLARK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW GREGORY S. CLARK, MICHAEL R. DOPORCYK and ENVIROQUEST, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT MICHAEL R. DOPORCYK d/b/a MRD SERVICES' ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. It is admitted that Plaintiff is who she says she is. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 2. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 3. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 4. Admitted. 1 5. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 6. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 7. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 8. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 9. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 10. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 2 11. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 12. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 13. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 14. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 15. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 16. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this 3 paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 17. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 18. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 19. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Answering Defendant prepared an invoice dated January 31, 2012. The remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, Exhibit "E" is a written document which speaks for itself, and as such, any averments set forth in this paragraph and consistent with the same document are specifically denied. 20. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 21. After reasonable investigation and inquiry, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this 4 paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 22. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proofs thereof are demanded at trial. 23. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proofs thereof are demanded at trial. 24. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 25. Admitted upon information and belief. 26. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proofs thereof are demanded at trial. COUNT Breach of Agreement of Sale of Real Estate and Reply to Inspection/Reports Addendum Plaintiff vs. Defendants Clark and Clark 27. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 5 28. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 29. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 30. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 31. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 32. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Michael Doporcyk respectfully requests judgment be entered in his favor and against Plaintiff, together with such other relief as this Court shall deem just and appropriate. COUNT II Negligence Plaintiff vs. Defendant Donorcyk d/b/a MRD Services 33. Answering Defendant incorporates his responses to paragraphs 1-32 as if set forth verbatim. 34. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) 35. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Answering Defendant produced an invoice. Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form 6 a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining averments set forth in this paragraph and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 36. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendant Doporcyk started the furnace unit, bled out the water in the tank, and turned the furnace off prior to Plaintiff moving into the home. The remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 37. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) 38. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) WHEREFORE, Defendant Michael Doporcyk respectfully requests judgment be entered in his favor and against Plaintiff, together with such other relief as this Court shall deem just and appropriate. COUNT III Negligence Plaintiff vs. Defendant Enviroguest 39. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 7 40. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 41. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 42. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 43. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 44. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Michael Doporcyk respectfully requests judgment be entered in his favor and against Plaintiff, together with such other relief as this Court shall deem just and appropriate. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF 45. Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against Defendant Michael Doporcyk. Services, Inc. upon which relief may be granted as a matter of law. 46. No act or omission on the part of Defendant Michael Doporcyk Services, Inc. was a substantial contributing factor in bringing about Plaintiffs injuries and/or damages, all such injuries and/or damages being expressly denied. 47. Defendant Michael Doporcyk Services, Inc. owed no duty of care to Plaintiff under the circumstances described in Plaintiffs Complaint as a matter of law. 48. Plaintiffs injuries and/or damages, if any, all such damages being expressly denied, are caused in whole or in part by the acts and/or omissions on the part of other parties 8 and/or other entities over whom Defendant Michael Doporcyk Services, Inc. had neither control nor right of control. 49. All injuries and/or damages sustained by Plaintiff, if any, such injuries and/or damages being specifically denied, were the sole, proximate and direct cause of intervening and or supervening causes, which were not within the control of Defendant as a matter of law. 50. Plaintiffs claims are derivative in nature and barred as a matter of law. 51. Plaintiffs injuries and/or damages, all such injuries and/or damages being expressly denied, were caused in whole or in part, and/or were aggravated and/or exacerbated by either pre-existing conditions and/or subsequent occurring conditions and not as a result of any act or omission on the part of Defendant Michael Doporcyk Services, Inc. 52. At all times material hereto, Defendant Michael Doporcyk Services, Inc. acted in a safe, legal and non-negligent manner. 53. Plaintiffs claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 54. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 55. Plaintiffs claims are barred by her own contributory negligence. 56. Plaintiffs claim is barred by the defenses listed in Pa. R.C.P. 1030 as discovery may prove. 9 NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM Defendant Doporcyk vs Defendants Amber D. Clark and Gregory S. Clark Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1031.1 57. The material, well-pled allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint as against Defendant Dorporcyk are hereby incorporated without admission as if fully set forth at length herein. 58. In the event that the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint are proven, and there is a determination that Defendant Dorporcyk is liable to Plaintiff for any injuries and/or damages alleges, all such injuries and/or damages being expressly denied, then Defendant Dorporcyk avers that Plaintiffs injuries and/or damages were caused solely or in part as a result of the negligence and/or other liability producing acts and/or omissions on the part of the Clark Defendants, and accordingly Defendant Dorporcyk is entitled to indemnity and/or contribution from the Clark Defendants and claims are made therefore. WHEREFORE, Defendant Michael Doporcyk demands that Amber D. Clark and Gregory S. Clark Defendants be found solely liable to Plaintiff,jointly and/or severally liable with Defendant Dorporcyk, or liable over to Defendant Dorporcyk for contribution and/or indemnity. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Allison M. Domday, Esquire ID#307547 10 Attorney for Defendant Doporcyk 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3538 Dated: April 1, 2013 11 VERIFICATION I, Michael Doporcyk, hereby state and aver that I have read the foregoing document which has been drafted by my counsel. The factual statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief although the language is that of my counsel, and, to the extent that the content of the foregoing document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. MICHAEL DOPOR K Dated: 19210-0351 UAWNM MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Allison M. Domday, Esquire ID No. 307547 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3538 Our File No. 19210-03511 Attorney for Defendant Michael R. Doporcyk d/b/a MRD Services HEIDI MCCLOSKEY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 7180-2012 VS. AMBER D. CLARK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW GREGORY S. CLARK, MICHAEL R. DOPORCYK and ENVIROQUEST, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Allison M. Domday, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on April 2, 2013, I served a copy of Defendant's Answer with New Matter via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Lauren R. Bogar, Esquire James D. Bogar Law Offices 1 West Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff f Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger& Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Enviroquest Jane Adams, Esquire 17 W. South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Clarks �, Allison M. Domday HEIDI K. McCLOSKEY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff V. NO. 7180 - 2012 AMBER D. CLARK and GREGORY S . r*3 CLARK, husband and wife, CIVIL TERM MICHAEL R. DOPORCYK, d/b/a c� ' MRD SERVICES, and ENVIROQUEST, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED E -7- a.:p Defendants cry PLAINTIFF' S REPLY TO DEFENDANT MICHAEL R. DOPORCYK d/b/a MRD SERVICES' ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER NOW COMES Plaintiff, Heidi K. McCloskey, by and through her attorney, Lauren E. Bogar, Esquire, who makes the following reply to defendant Michael R. Doporcyk D/B/A MRD Services' Answer with New Matter: REPLY TO NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF 45 . Denied. Paragraph 45 states legal conclusions to which no response is required pursuant to Pa.R. C. P. 1029 (d) . To the extent, however, that response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R. C. P. 1029 (e) . Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial . By way of further response, see Plaintiff' s Complaint at Paragraphs 33 through 38 . 46 . Denied. Paragraph 46 states legal conclusions to which no response is required pursuant to Pa.R. C. P. 1029 (d) . To the extent, however, that response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R. C. P. 1029 (e) . Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial . By way of further response, Plaintiff' s injuries and damages were solely caused jointly and severally by defendants Clark, Clark, Doporcyk (d/b/a MRD Services) and Enviroquest, Inc . 47 . Denied. Paragraph 47 states legal conclusions to which no response is required pursuant to Pa.R. C. P. 1029 (d) . To the extent, however, that response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R. C. P. 1029 (e) . Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial . By way of further response, see Plaintiff' s Complaint at Paragraphs 33 through 38 . 48 . Denied. Paragraph 48 states legal conclusions to which no response is required pursuant to Pa.R.C. P. 1029 (d) . To the extent, however, that response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R. C. P. 1029 (e) . Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial . By way of further response, Plaintiff' s injuries and damages were solely caused jointly and severally by defendants Clark, Clark, Doporcyk (d/b/a MRD Services) and Enviroquest, Inc . 2 49 . Denied. Paragraph 49 states legal conclusions to which no response is required pursuant to Pa.R.C. P. 1029 (d) . To the extent, however, that response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C. P. 1029 (e) . Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial . By way of further response, Plaintiff' s injuries and damages were solely caused jointly and severally by defendants Clark, Clark, Doporcyk (d/b/a MRD Services) and Enviroquest, Inc . 50 . Denied. Paragraph 50 states legal conclusions to which no response is required pursuant to Pa.R.C. P. 1029 (d) . To the extent, however, that response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R. C. P. 1029 (e) . Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial . 51 . Denied. Paragraph 51 states legal conclusions to which no response is required pursuant to Pa.R. C. P. 1029 (d) . To the extent, however, that response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C. P. 1029 (e) . Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial . By way of further response, Plaintiff' s injuries and damages were solely caused jointly and severally by defendants Clark, Clark, Doporcyk (d/b/a MRD Services) and Enviroquest, Inc . 3 52 . Denied. Paragraph 52 states legal conclusions to which no response is required pursuant to Pa.R.C. P. 1029 (d) . To the extent, however, that response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R. C. P. 1029 (e) . Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial . By way of further response, see Plaintiff' s Complaint at Paragraphs 33 through 38 . 53 . Denied. Paragraph 53 states legal conclusions to which no response is required pursuant to Pa.R.C. P. 1029 (d) . To the extent, however, that response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R. C. P. 1029 (e) . Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial . 54 . Denied. Paragraph 54 states legal conclusions to which no response is required pursuant to Pa.R. C.P. 1029 (d) . To the extent, however, that response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R. C. P. 1029 (e) . Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial . 55 . Denied. Paragraph 55 states legal conclusions to which no response is required pursuant to Pa.R. C.P. 1029 (d) . To the extent, however, that response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally 4 pursuant to Pa.R. C. P. 1029 (e) . Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial . By way of further response, Plaintiff' s injuries and damages were solely caused jointly and severally by defendants Clark, Clark, Doporcyk (d/b/a MRD Services) and Enviroquest, Inc. , and were not caused in any way by Plaintiff' s own contributory negligence . 56 . Denied. Paragraph 56 states legal conclusions to which no response is required pursuant to Pa.R. C. P. 1029 (d) . To the extent, however, that response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C. P. 1029 (e) . Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial . Defendant Doporcyk vs. Defendants Amber D. Clark and Gregory S. Clark Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1031. 1 57 . The averments contained in Paragraph 57 are directed to a party other than Plaintiff and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 58 . The averments contained in Paragraph 58 are directed to a party other than Plaintiff and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant Doporcyk, together with the costs of this action, delay damages, interest, attorney' s fees and such other relief allowed by this Court on Plaintiff' s complaint . Respectfully submitted, Date : Lauren E . Boga , squire Attorney ID No. A5966 James D. Bogar Law Offices 1 West Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 (717) 737-8761 Attorney for Plaintiff 6 VERIFICATION The facts set forth in this, Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant Michael R. Doporcyk D/B/A MRD Services' Answer with New Matter, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. HEIDI K. MCCLOSKEY Date i 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lauren E. Bogar, Esquire, hereby certify that I am on this date serving a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff' s Reply to Defendant Michael R. Doporcyk D/B/A MRD Services' Answer with New Matter, as filed this date with the Prothonotary of Cumberland County, upon the following individuals by depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, at Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows : Jane Adams, Esq. 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendants Amber and Gregory Clark Allison M. Domday, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P. C. 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant Doporcyk Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover St . Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Enviroquest, Inc . Date: �� 3/i� _�—A� 0 Aft� ren E. Boga , squire PA Attorney I-.D. No. 205966 One West Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 Telephone : (717) 737-8761 Facsimile: (717) 737-2086 E-mail : lbogar@bogarlaw. com Attorney for Plaintiff 8 HEIDI K. McCLOSKEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. No. 71.80 - 2012 Civil Term C AMBER D. CLARK, and GREGORY S. rn CLARK, husband and wife, =::;o a' -"'�r MICHAEL R. DOPORCYK, d/b/a "'��' tv C)r� o . MRD SERVICES, and �i ENVIROQUEST, INC. XC DEFENDANTS, AMBER D. CLARK and GREGORY S. CLARK'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs information is admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a parry other than Answering Defendants.. and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 5. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendants, and as such,no responsive pleading is required. 6. Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 7. It is admitted that Defendants Amber D. Clark and Gregory S. Clark entered into a Standard Agreement of Sale of Real Estate regarding 138 East Penn St., Carlisle, Pa. 17013. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted, that the agreement did direct the parties to provide proof and Defendants did provide such proof. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. Furthermore, Defendants Clark and Clark did repair and replace damaged outside electrical cable on the left side exterior of 138 East Penn Street. 12. Admitted. Furthermore, Clark and Clark did replace the damaged or corroded water fitting supply lines in the basement of 138 East Penn Street. 13. Admitted that Plaintiff did fill the furnace. Regarding the remaining allegations in this paragraph, or whether the invoice is accurate, strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 14. . Denied. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 15. Denied; after reasonable investigation and inquiry, Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph, and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029c and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 16. Denied; after reasonable investigation and inquiry, Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph, and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029c and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 17. Denied; after reasonable investigation and inquiry, Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to truth or falsity of the averments set fort h in this paragraph, and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029c and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 18. Denied; after reasonable investigation and inquiry, Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph, and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029c and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 19. Admitted; Defendants Clark and Clark did produce an invoice showing service of the furnace. 20. Denied; The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 21. Denied; after reasonable investigation and inquiry, Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph, and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029c and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 22. Denied; The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 23. Denied; The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 24. Denied, The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 25. Admitted upon information and belief. 26. Admitted. COUNT Breach of Agreement of Sale of Real Estate and Reply to Inspection/Reports Addendum Plaintiffs vs. Defendants Clark and Clark 27. Admitted. 28. Admitted; and Defendants Clark and Clark did provide proof of service to Plaintiff. 29. Denied; Defendants did provide proof of service; The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 30. Admitted as to the contents of the Reply to the Inspection Reports Addendum, which is attached as Exhibit B; denied as to further allegations in this paragraph, as The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 3 1. Denied. as The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 32. Denied; after reasonable investigation and inquiry, Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph, and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029c and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. - COUNT 11 Negligence Plaintiffs v. Defendant Doporeyk d/b/a MRD Service 31 Admitted. 34. The averments in this Paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 35. The averments in this Paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 36. The averments in this Paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 37. The averments in this Paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendant and as such,no responsive pleading is required. 38. The averments in this Paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. Also, after reasonable investigation and inquiry,Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph, and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029c and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. COUNT III Negligence Plaintiff v. Defendant Enviroquest,Inc. 39. Admitted. 40. The averments in this Paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendant and as such,no responsive pleading is required. 41. The averments in this Paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 42. The averments in this Paragraph are directed'to a party other than the Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 43. The averments in this Paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 44. The averments in this Paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendant and as such, no responsive pleading is required. Also, after reasonable investigation and inquiry, Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph, and as such, said averments are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029c and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. Respectfully subs fitted, Date: a V J Adams, Esquire .D No. 79465 17 . South St. arlisle, Pa. 17013 (717) 245-8508 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this ANSWER are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. r Date: f� g S. Clark, Defendant Z Date: 'a Am er D. Clark, Defen t f �' E 7L PRO IHQN(JTA r 291.3 NOV -8 AM11: 4 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Allison M. Domday, Esquire ID#307547 Suite 201 100 Corporate Center Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-651-3538 Our File No. 19210-03511 Attorney for Defendant Michael R. Doporcyk d/b/a MRD Services HEIDI MCCLOSKEY • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff • : No. 7180-2012 vs. AMBER D. CLARK, • CIVIL ACTION - LAW GREGORY S. CLARK, • MICHAEL R. DOPORCYK and : ENVIROQUEST, INC. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS To the Prothonotary: Kindly note the change of address of counsel for Defendant Michael R. Doporcyk d/b/a MRD Services, from 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B, Harrisburg, PA 17112 to: Allison M. Domday, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin Suite 201 100 Corporate Center Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717-651-3538 Respectfully submitted, r MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Allison M. Domday, Esquire Attorney for Defendant ID# 307547 Suite 201 100 Corporate Center Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-651-3538 Dated: November 7, 2013 MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Allison M. Domday, Esquire ID No. 307547 Suite 201 100 Corporate Center Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-651-3538 Our File No. 19210-03511 Attorney for Defendant Michael R. Doporcyk d/b/a MRD Services HEIDI MCCLOSKEY • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS • CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • Plaintiff : No. 7180-2012 vs. AMBER D. CLARK, • CIVIL ACTION - LAW • GREGORY S. CLARK, MICHAEL R. DOPORCYK and . ENVIROQUEST, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Allison M. Domday, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on November 7, 2013, I served a copy of Defendant's Praecipe for Change of Address via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Lauren R. Bogar, Esquire James D. Bogar Law Offices 1 West Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff 4 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger& Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Enviroquest Jane Adams, Esquire 17 W. South Street Carlisle,PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Clarks Allison M. Domday ah PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. HEIDI K. McCLOSKEY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff v. NO. 7180 - 2012 AMBER D. CLARK and GREGORY S. CLARK, husband and wife, MICHAEL R. DOPORCYK, d/b/a MRD SERVICES, and ENVIROQUEST, INC. Defendants CIVIL TERM -<t 1. The subject matter to be argued is Defendant Enviroquest, Inc.'s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint, which were filed February 20, 2013. 2. Identify all Counsel who will argue cases: a. For Plaintiff: Lauren E. Kays (formerly Bogar), Esq., 1 West Main St., Shiremanstown, PA 17011. b. For Defendant: Defendant, to Petitioner's knowledge, is pro se: John Staz, President, Enviroquest, Inc., 1738 North Third Street, Suite A, Harrisburg, PA 17102. 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. etLtt asgq 4. Argument Court date: September 26, 2014. Respectfully submitted, Date: naguu+).Apt 2.19)14 INSTRUCTIONS: Lauren E Kays squire Attorney ID No. 205966 James D. Bogar Law Offices 1 West Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 (717) 737-8761 lkays@bogarlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff 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. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lauren E. Kays, Esquire, hereby certify that I am on this date serving a copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Listing Case for Agument, as filed this date with the Prothonotary of Cumberland County, upon the following individuals by depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, at Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Jane Adams, Esq. 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendants Amber and Gregory Clark Allison M. Domday, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C. 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant Doporcyk John Staz, President Enviroquest, Inc. 1738 North Third Street, Suite A Harrisburg, PA 17102 Date: A -1,c9 -ug -1- Z fp, ZO/i4 auren Esquire PA Attorney I.D. No. 205966 1 West Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 737-8761 Facsimile: (717) 737-2086 E-mail: lkays@bogarlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff • HEIDI K. MCCLOSKEY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff v. NO. 7180 - 2012 AMBER D. CLARK and GREGORY S. CLARK, husband and wife, MICHAEL R. DOPORCYK, d/b/a MRD SERVICES, and ENVIROQUEST, INC. Defendants CIVIL TERM C:=3 co ▪ (/) • r -r1 PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW CASE FROM THE ARGUMENT COURT SCHEDULE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: 1. Please withdraw the within matter from the Argument Court scheduled for September 26, 2014. 2. The subject matter to be argued was Defendant Enviroquest, Inc.'s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint. 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been removed from the argument list. 4. I have asked the Court Administrator to remove this matter from the Argument Court Schedule. Date:Sep}-toiloRA S2/ ipici Respectfully submitted, 004444 Lauren E. K s, Esquire Attorney ID No. 205966 James D. Bogar Law Offices 1 West Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 (717) 737-8761 lkays@bogarlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lauren E. Kays, Esquire, hereby certify that I am on this date serving a copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Withdraw Case From the Argument Court Schedule, as filed this date with the Prothonotary of Cumberland County, upon the following individuals by depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, at. Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Jane Adams, Esq. 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendants Amber and Gregory Clark Allison M. Domday, Esq. - Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C. 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant Doporcyk William Adler, Esq. 4949 Devonshire Road Harrisburg, PA 17109 Attorney for Defendant Enviroquest, Inc. Date : ap+2244 otA 72, 1,-0 I t( *Lauren E. Kays Esquire PA Attorney I.D. No. 205966 1 West Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 737-8761 Facsimile: (717) 737-2086 E-mail: lkays@bogarlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff