Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-0271~~ .,G„ ~"* ~ W r b ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~, ~~g ~ ~~ 0 ~~ ~_ < ~ " , ~ ' ~ 3 ~ . ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~.m ~ , . W ~~ ,, ~ ~ - y NnINtlAIASN Q~ ONb'lNjp~ ~1 'Z Nd 91 NVffIOZ~ y ~' !,~lK1CNOH10 .3 ~. ~ n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. 3 2 ,$ o~~~i ~.a.~ ~ r ~ v. I ~ ~ ` ~ ~3_ CWi~ TE'.t'Mt ., ~~ ~~~~~ . ~,~.~. ~ ca3.,J,,o.~~s~. 2'''~a. 63.0~+o~,~~C(~ ~ eovn~.w„ o~ o n~~~~-~', ,PA r~roa3• 3, `~y'~'M1`.~ -d,;,~¢v,,v'°JZ.P~,. ,i-~ it.Q.e 63.o~o-ru~R ,onrc .~~ -~' ~.~2°'~n'~ccA.~o ,i~ti°4u'-i~l`.e,e~la~ ,~,~,~ .a~ -,~~-.~-ems- $.a ~~ ~B ~2,u 6io~o-u~ ~ ~A R b A ~'' '~.~. ~a.~arr~~$ ~" luaa (Y~o~e : 1~ol1R .u~.o~.a --p~o~.r-~? p- -~'cQ man ,w-~¢~ .a. .e.¢~", .o~~ -~'"d1'.c~°`.~' .~ ~" o,,,, ass, ~,.~-n-'-„g ,~ ~~~~~ ~ FS, ~Ra, ,do-~A-eo..a~P' ~.en .v~ Y~-o~-~ -S.~o+~~? ~ 1<1a-Qmu~ .~~ic.e.e~'a (u • s• 4~ou~ ~ ~ ~ f 5) .,~ 7~2 b~T,^-o-u$..Q ~ ,,d.c~.a.~w^g .a.n ~~~L~~ .ua-a`P.(~.o~t. 2. . ~~ ~ ' ~~.~i~~l~I~ ' 0 C J~ ~ ~~ j ~ ;~ ~fY1.Q--~&. ~1_ 4 c~-~.c.d ~ ~ .~ ~ ~- _'" ~e .-~~ . ~ .c~~n.r~J' v~1 p~ B .9. //lit. ~ f ~ ~. s~:. ~'~~~Q~I.Q~ f 3, . ~ru~~ t . Y~r-..~s~-Q ,~,,~ ~.~- ~~~ ~ ~ 6~3.e ~ .~ ~ a ~ (~(j(, ~ ~ ~.~- ~ -~ 1'3. ~~ ~-v-',, fl f ~-~~° 'AJUs. i~.2 1 I . ' /V~ _" a ~ ~~ /~i I v v~ ~ ~ ~•/~~i~~9 VfiL;,rp 1 ~~ ~ 1~~~ A ~ -51-~4.~ ~ ~~~~d.d ~L,t~C) ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ t 0 I ~ -.~~ .~ -~ ~~ ~ ~u~~ r ~, ~ ~ s. ~.-~e 2<w4 .Casa Yb.'k009o 2 759 ,~o~yL~ ~1.m-rr~ ,cvn~-cAe _a~`a~irv~v~%N.d ~..~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, ~. ~ ~ --_ S• - ~P ~- yv~-QP e ~ 0 .age .~o-~ ` ~ ~~.3~.,~~ '~ -~'- ~ , ~d ~' ~ ~a,~-~ r~nw Ll ~n AiX v ' ~r~ d ~~ ~ J ,~ .~ 4 ~~ ~ / I 6~ °~~ ~ ~ ~~~ y,ADA ~,~,,,-B,s, i, 20 i3; S~ -~ ~w~R C$zsop o01,~~; *ra~ s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. ~I~ .~° ~ ~ d-~-~C .S ,~. e Y y i rtig It , ,l`'101 I ~~ ~ ~pA 143 ~~ ~'~ ~~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~~~~~ ~~ I~~'a• r ~( ' ~ O~ ' "7L a ~ ~ ~~ ~ i c6 t3 ~ K. yK~ 5~er Line I~, ~ of l , pra sL PENNSTATE HERSHEY Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Patient Name: MOLL, STERLING K MRN: 0182747 Date of Birth: 1/2/1932 Patient Gender: Male Penn State Hershey Tel: (717) 531-8055 Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Health Information Services, HU24 500 University Drive P.O. Box 850 Hershey, PA 17033-0850 Visit Number: 15514163 Visit Type: Clinic Patient Location: PC13 Outpatient Note RESULT STATUS: DOCUMENT SUBJECT: ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED BY: Name: MOLL, STERLING K HMC Number: 182747 DOB: 01/02/1932 Date of Service: 01/24/2011 Established patient clinic visit: Final Galvan,Dan A (1/28/2011 05:09 EST) OUTPATIENT NOTE Mr. Moll is a patient well known to me who has a large incisional hernia which has been repaired multiple times. He also has a fistulous drainage emanating from the left side of the abdomen. It is most likely that he has a chronic tow-grade infection of underlying mesh. Because of his ongoing low-grade infection and the size of his hernia,'it will be impossible to fix this abdominal wall hernia, especially in light of his comorbidities. Thus, I have NOT recommended that he undergo a hernia repair. Significantly, Mr. Moll had a previous CAT scan in June of last year that demonstrated an asymmetrical marked thickening of the pylorus with narrowing of the lumen as well as a large filling defect within the distended stomach. A neoplasm could not be excluded and according to my recollection, we had set him up for a GI followup, but this was never completed. Thus we are going to send him again for referral to the Endoscopy Clinic for upper endoscopy to evaluate for a neoplasm. Followup in the General Surgery clinic will be on a PRN basis. 18742 Electronic Signature on File Electronically Reviewed/Signed by.' Dan A Galvan, MD DAG /CO DD: 01/24/11 DT.• 01/25111 02:04 Author Signature Dt/Tm:28.01.2011 05:09 AM Date/Time Printed: 1 /11 /2013 14:10 EST Page 1 of 3 Printed By: Stevey,Sarah L ~~~.` r ~~` , a ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~v~ ~ ~~~ ___ .. .__ ~_.. _---~.~ ~_ ,. _. ____ ...A~... ________.. _ - ~ ~~ Q~ ~ ~4 -F~~ ~~ ~~ C3~r-~, X 0'1 ~ 6~~, ~~%~r,~~~ ti~n.yb'e ~ ~n :4crP- -~Yasq' s _--' '` a -1e~ LL ~~.7~ ~ a ~y$ ~~~$ ~~ ~ ', COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Sterling K. Moll, Complainant v. Borough of Wormleyburg, Respondent PIiRC Case No. 200902789 ANSWER Respondent, the Borough of Wormleysburg, by and through its counsel, Salzmann Hughes, P.C., files this Answer as follows: 1. Admitted in Bart and denied in part. It is admitted that the Human Relations Commission has jurisdiction over Count 1. It is specifically denied that the HRC has jurisdiction over Count 2. By way of further response, sidewalks on the property of others are not a public accommodation as defined in the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Parties 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. Count 1 5. The answers to Paragraphs 1 through 4 are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 6. After. a reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information to form a belief that Mr. Moll has been medically diagnosed with a severe hearing problem, diabetes and spinal damage; and to form a belief that those medical conditions are a handicap or disability as defined in the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. 7. After a reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to whether or when Mr. Moll was diagnosed with a severe hearing problem, diabetes, and spinal damage. 8. After a reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to whether Mr. Moll has medical conditions that limit his ability to hear, bend, walk, lift, stoop, turn, climb, stand, and sit for long periods of time, and care for himself. 9. It is admitted that Mr. Moll has notified Gary Berresford that he has diabetes, spinal damage and a severe hearing problem. 10. After a reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to whether Mr. Moll has been medically diagnosed with a severe hearing problem, diabetes and spinal damage and that these medical conditions constitute a disability as defined by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. 11. Admitted. 12. It i8 admitted that Mr. Moll made the requests stated in Para. 11 at Borough Council meetings. 13. Denied in part and admitted in part. It is denied that Council members have refused Mr. Moll's request to talk into the microphone. By way of further response, Council members have intended to comply with Mr. Moll's request. It is admitted that an additional microphone was not installed for guest speakers. By way of further response, the Borough's sound system has been modified and an additional microphone will be provided for guest speakers at the Borough Council meeting on February 8, 2010. 14. Admitted 15. Denied. 16. Denied. It is denied that Respondent has violated the Human Relations Act and that Mr. Mall is entitled to the remedies prescribed in Section 9 of the Act. 17. The answers to Paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 18. After a reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information to form a belief that Mr. Moll has been medically diagnosed with a severe hearing problem, diabetes and spinal damage; and to form a belief that those medical conditions are a handicap or disability as defined in the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. 19. Admitted. 20. Denied in part and admitted in part. It is denied that Mr. Moll has need of an accommodation. It is admitted that Respondent has instructed property owners to repair their sidewalks and curbs. 21. Denied. It is denied that Respondent has not taken action to have the sidewalks and curbs repaired. By way of further response, Respondent has taken such action as authorized by the Borough's Code of Ordinances and the Pennsylvania Borough Code. 22. Denied. It is denied that Respondent is required to provide an accommodation to Mr. Moll. 23. Denied. It is denied that Respondent violated the Human Relations Act. By way of further response, sidewalks on property not owned by the Borough are not a public accommodation. Also, after a reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information to form a belief that Mr. Moll has a handicap or disability that denied him use of the sidewalks. 24. Denied. It is denied that Respondent has violated the Human Relations Act and that Mr. Moll is entitled to the remedies prescribed in Section 9 of the Act. Respectfully Submitted, Salzmann Hughes, P.C. ~,6. ~ 2oi o By: William W. Thompson, squire 364 Alexander Spring Road, Suite 1 Carlisle, PA 17016 Counsel for Respondent f '~ Sterling K. Moll vs. Borough of Wormleysburg PHRC Case No 200902769 Certificate of Service Pursuant to the requirements of 1 Pa. Code §33.31, I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Answer by first class mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Sterling K Moll 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Date: / ., 6rzv~.~y ~ 2 ~<v Very Truly Yours, SALZMANN HUCIHES, P.C. ~'W` ~~~- William W. Thompson, Esquire ~ • i varii~r that all tho atatementR made in the fcn+egoing Anawor are true and apr~t tp ~ best of my knowkdgc~ infocmatinn and belief. Y understand that any falso :etstemcnts heroin aru made subjoot to the pet~altiea of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 i+el=tting to uc~swttirn fhisifiaation ~ authorities. ~; 0 o3.~B/v Gary W, ~ gomugh of Borough Manbger FILED-OFFICE r THE PROTI-ICNC TAIRY ZO N APR.25 AM S' 16 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 5 1 g ,, - ,VA,��a � �I '�• fi473.��o --v -V —tv RI 6-19 . Px a C*) r.y CD nn pp_- == rte: PA n I 7 p 1 Co '34-0 Lk rl OD/ a r C, 'S' o r Vto,5o P13 PLFF MSH ec�$q t j Id"d � 7j © Cis-"Y1 - ' , d 1 -3. of ILO 4 E r • K. �� Uk 9 C� e F � e m CAP R. M 11 , Mft43 p PA P 04-:7 Atval v ��.�un-C ,- VI W U9 h • t 1 T V o f d.ay- a Aj O,t C a IL PA t (701-3 fi rLc S ter f rft�,If. M � 6� c rho A6, I ~� 9 fo 1 Of ow 6W -&uJR 330 ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK& DEMILLE NOTICE TO PLEAD By: John D. Kearney, Esquire You are hereby notified to file a written response IDENTIFICATION NO.: 44207 to the enclosed pleading within twenty(20)days 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 from service hereof or a judgment may be entered Mt. Laurel,NJ 08054 against you. 856-778-3220 (phone); 856-778-3222 (fax) Attorney for Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough STERLING K. MOLL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY r V. NO: 13-271 rn� = CO WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH Defendant. -n • .mac -n aC-5 C-> Y�C x DEFENDANT,WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough, by and through their attorney, John D. Kearney, Esquire, hereby answers Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. This paragraph requires no response pursuant to the Pennsylvania.Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Denied: This paragraph requires no response pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 7. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2 12. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in 3 this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended'Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without 4 knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 26. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 26. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in 5 this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 30. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in 6 this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 34. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 37. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 38. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without 7 knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 40. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 42. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 43. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 8 NEW MATTER 1. If it is determined that Answering Defendant is liable on the Plaintiffs cause of action, Answering Defendant avers that Plaintiffs recovery should be eliminated or reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 7102. 2. It is further averred that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as alleged, they were caused solely and primarily by Plaintiffs own carelessness, recklessness and negligence. 3. It is further averred that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as alleged, they were caused solely and primarily by Plaintiffs own carelessness, recklessness and negligence. It is further averred that if the Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as alleged, they were caused solely and primarily by the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of third parties unknown to Answering Defendant and over whom Answering Defendant had no control. 4. It is further averred by Answering Defendants that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as alleged, said Plaintiff by his conduct assumed the risk of those injuries or damages. 5. The situs referred to in Plaintiffs Complaint is owned by parties other than the Answering Defendant and the responsibility for its care, maintenance and supervision rests solely upon said party and/or persons or entities unknown to the Answering Defendant and over which the Answering Defendant has no control, and Answering Defendant is in no way responsible for its condition. 6. It is further averred by Answering Defendant that the Plaintiffs cause of action is barred by the appropriate Statute of Limitations 9 7. The injuries and damages claimed in Plaintiff s Amended Complaint were not caused by the actions or inactions attributed to Answering Defendant. 8. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his injuries and damages claimed in the Amended Complaint. ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK& DeMILLE By: )C\, Au VI jr\"AA hn D. Kearney, Esquire Dated: April 25, 2013 10 VERIFICATION I,JOHN D. KEARNEY,ESQUIRE,hereby state that I am the attorney for the Defendant in the within action and verify that the averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing are true based upon my personal knowledge, information and belief. If the foregoing contains averments which are inconsistent in fact,I have been unable,after reasonable investigation,to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true,but do have knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief that one of them is true. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. JO . KEARNEY, ESQUIRE Dated: April 25, 2013 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John D. Kearney, Esquire hereby certify that on April 25, 2013, 1 forwarded a true and correct copy of Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff s Amended Complaint to all parties listed below via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid: Sterling K. Moll 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 J011615. Kearney, Esquire 12 EaiCL ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK& DEMILLE O THE PRO���NO TA,^, By: John D. Kearney, Esquire 2013 HA Y —6 PH 3: 27 IDENTIFICATION NO. 44207 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 C€1MBERLAND COUHTY Mt. Laurel,NJ 08054 PENNSYLVANIA 856-778-3220 (phone); 856-778-3222 (fax) Attorney for Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough STERLING K. MOLL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. NO: 13-271 WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH Defendant. PRAECIPE FOR WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT TO THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF SAID COURT: Issue summons in the above case. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded t ttorney. May 3, 2013 Signature: Print Name: 'klo `d�, i�: Address: Zirulnik Sherlock& DeMille 309 Fellowship Road, Suite330 Mt. Laurel,NJ 08054 Telephone: 856-778-3220 Supreme Court ID No.: 44207 • • • • • WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: Ralph J. Granados 127 N. 2nd Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043 YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT HAS JOINED YOU AS AN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT. Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division Date: b Deputy ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK& DEMILLE John D. Kearney, Esquire IDENTIFICATION NO.: 44207 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 Mt. Laurel,NJ 08054 856-778-3220 (phone); 856-778-3222 (fax) Attorney for Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough STERLING K. MOLL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. NO: 13-271 C= C=3 -71 -0z WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH Defendant. -Ij M ::f ca C) P&4ECIPE FOR SUBST ITUTION OF VERIFICA TION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the attached Verification for that of counsel with regard to Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough's Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Respectfully submitted, Jo A Kearney-, Vq-N<e Dated: May 3, 2013 VERIFICATION I, Gary Beresford,hereby state that I am the authorized representative of defendant in the within action and verifies that the statements or denials made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter,are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made therein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. GARY BtREfFORD Dated: P-4353 Moll ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK& DEMILLE ' By: John D. Kearney, Esquire IDENTIFICATION NO. 44207 1, `1:1' 1 7 P11. 11: 1 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 ,i, '` f_r3, ` r, Mt. Laurel,NJ 08054 '"' ! r Y i 856-778-3220 (phone); 856-778-3222 (fax) Attorney for Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough STERLING K. MOLL : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY • v. : NO: 13-271 WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH • Defendant. PETITION TO OPEN DEFAULT JUDGMENT Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough, by its counsel, John D. Kearney, Esquire, hereby petitions this Honorable Court to open the judgment by default entered against it on April 25, 2013 upon the following grounds: 1. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing an Amended Complaint on or about February 27, 2013. A copy of the Amended Complaint is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and is marked as Exhibit"A." 2. Plaintiff mailed a Notice of Praecipe to Enter Judgment by Default on April 11, 2013. A copy of said Notice is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and is marked as Exhibit «B » 3. Plaintiff's Notice of Praecipe to Enter Judgment by Default was received by counsel of record for the Defendant on or about April 15, 2013. 4. Counsel of record for the Defendant is John D. Kearney, Esquire. He was out of the office attending hearings and depositions from April 15 through April 18, 2013. 5. Defense counsel requested a brief extension of time to file the Answer by leaving fs S ' a voicemail message with the Plaintiff which went unanswered. 6. Defendant mailed its Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to the Prothonotary's office on April 25, 2013. A copy of said Answer is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and is marked as Exhibit"C." 7. Plaintiff entered judgment against the Defendant on April 25, 2013, the same day that Defendant mailed its Answer to the Amended Complaint. A copy of Plaintiff's Praecipe for Entry of Judgment by Default for failure to plead to Amended Complaint is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and is marked as Exhibit"D." 8. Defendant has a meritorious defense to the claims raised in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, namely, Defendant did not breach any duty of care it may have owed the Plaintiff; and the injury claimed in the Amended Complaint was not caused by the accident described therein. Furthermore, Plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the occurrence of the accident described in his Amended Complaint. 9. Plaintiff is not prejudiced by opening the default judgment. Defendant's Answer to the Amended Complaint was mailed to the Prothonotary on the same day that Plaintiff entered judgment. Furthermore, the parties have not engaged in any discovery. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough respectfully requests this Honorable Court to open the default judgment and that it be given the opportunity to defend itself in this litigation. Respectfully Submitted, , /7/4"--Y-1- ...._ gs..._{ ( -(-- '''-- 2. 16 J-- (C-.---1 John D. Kearney, Es uire Dated: May 16, 2013 4 ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK& DEMILLE By: John D. Kearney, Esquire IDENTIFICATION NO. 44207 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 Mt. Laurel,NJ 08054 856-778-3220 (phone); 856-778-3222 (fax) Attorney for Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough STERLING K. MOLL : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY • v. : NO: 13-271 WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH • Defendant. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S PETITION TO OPEN DEFAULT JUDGMENT Plaintiff commenced this action by filing an Amended Complaint on or about February 27, 2013. Plaintiff mailed a Notice of Praecipe to Enter Judgment by Default on April 11, 2013. Plaintiff's Notice of Praecipe to Enter Judgment by Default was received by counsel of record for the Defendant on or about April 15, 2013. Counsel of record for the Defendant is John D. Kearney, Esquire. He was out of the office attending hearings and depositions from April 15 through April 18, 2013. Defense counsel requested a brief extension of time to file the Answer by leaving a voicemail message with the Plaintiff which went unanswered. Defendant mailed its Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to the Prothonotary's office on April 25, 2013. Plaintiff entered judgment against the Defendant on April 25, 2013, the same day that Defendant mailed its Answer to the Amended Complaint. Defendant has a meritorious defense to the claims raised in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, namely, Defendant did not breach any duty of care it may have owed the Plaintiff; and the injury claimed in the Amended Complaint was not caused by the accident described therein. Furthermore, Plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the occurrence of the accident described in his Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is not prejudiced by opening the default judgment. Defendant's Answer to the Amended Complaint was mailed to the Prothonotary on the same day that Plaintiff entered judgment. Furthermore, the parties have not engaged in any discovery. Boatin v. Miller and Salgals, Inc., individually and d/b/a American Taxi, and American Taxi Appeal of Salgals, Inc., individually and d/b/a American Taxi and American Taxi, Appellants, 955 A.2d 424 (Sup. Ct. 2008). Respectfully Submitted, John D. Kearney, Esq 're Dated: May 16, 2013 VERIFICATION I,JOHN D. KEARNEY,ESQUIRE,hereby state that I am the attorney for the Defendant in the within action and verify that the averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing are true based upon my personal knowledge, information and belief. If the foregoing contains averments which are inconsistent in fact,I have been unable,after reasonable investigation,to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true,but do have knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief that one of them is true. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. JOHN D. KEARNEY, ESQ IRE Dated: May 16, 2013 ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK& DEMILLE By: John D. Kearney, Esquire IDENTIFICATION NO. 44207 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 Mt. Laurel,NJ 08054 856-778-3220 (phone); 856-778-3222 (fax) Attorney for Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough STERLING K. MOLL : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY • v. : NO: 13-271 WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH • Defendant. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John D. Kearney, Esquire, hereby certify that on May 16, 2013 I forwarded a true and correct copy of the Petition to Open Default Judgment to all parties listed below via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid: Sterling K. Moll 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 John D. Kearney squire .„„ L P , ( `-'1/4'441 n.f,,, 4 j)„,s, •,6 i v •,,, sLo..cz: ::,),A4 . . ....,,,•,..,-. ,,,,,,,,#-,. .... -Ak- , viO3 1 \C, - . t '' AI' 1 • ; --5 4`) 0.A. • OR 9fr›A 13\IYIG . ., „:),c4-e'j\j- 12**21'P')Attn)20:0,SA ‘ IT 7,0 t3 ' aos\"Dix/"., 4VAAAJ:0;t 14 C.PArj - 04 ., , •i •-•"1"r.- ttl‘1))1'/" "Cs- PC7ic -'.k.i ''cirlA° 11 10 107—Cfit .,t ■ IC)>CrC-‘ ' .‘,A,"'s_u, 2'' .)1\ ‘ • /LA).A.A" c;tif&..1. ;„ rj ivil.V"V". -1:,k-- • - ......„‘<p}o4-- (3 4;44 ,...-- em, i,,., .., - ,- ,.. , „c„ _..fk„,__ s,Arl..xxio •• • 1 .--.r rfi' , -,t-o .,A)0 -......„, __ _:A..,0,0-0-A1---,- ..,.. ,„.,t)-4.---- ' vn ' ' ._,..- tv•N'' .. /4,. , . ), 3..s ,„,, - .. '11- 3 _ ON j _,(, ..(1:. , k.-5‘-• , ,1",,,:-. ,c„..Z. ILI ” f--) - "N ' •11 —,,Ar c.,, . Ie4it- A 2 ,,,r,' '.",;134- di A'■1 " )21"4 -'‘ Cdi C. .t: ,, , ..i.A.::vm- ' )< 1 : -,,:-• L ,--I,- -5 , :, irirl ; I ' ) Kh!qs(9 e,te 4.02 5 8 NAlg .40104 AP 1290 ;=:444.ta 03 tvl. "In..051-t Vi irk CO-Wit t 0.4711~1 0,64 R,24;(1246 , eLtivw-e-eArio_4, ay-weals) 0.42.,y1...71_444.2viveu:a iotrEA1_4i 414,teofoup ! 0.-Z71 6:&.javA,yri e4.v-;-2 tfa.LA 40- MA/1143)14 4 0 41 14101 -`Y 1-0-(A)' /re011 all" ..0.eetl-i-'ni41).144-4.118 X")1147-e2 "i:X /k9 +Le-44 .;t44i,c3 (1.-iquitt cfg-n-Lit ,D...aer,2-,rx -tAeItrutg ez-cvni-4 153.---e-"'Net."YAALVLIAJY‘La.. ; /CLA ; R'eCtLvlAiri -4t12)LeA..^CLA K, Ynip-Rq (.0:526:441240, 7W--444.Q.4 Ina S 6 YtxPit2A .e..2,-n.--n-4.4etroldri-42. 70 4U 69.4-Ao-cAR.,a 10-0-Px...rnial-e..retit.,n eci :Utz 00-t.z./#4-ko6 q2-1/Yo-e-eit ) oilica6 a..0 Ylkevl-rte.t PA 1704: d t4Zi.a evn(Y1-0-(20-1tvt EXHIBIT A /L2-,(1-dien Pa . io (c) 1 ( 94.0.val 4) ik 0 I; 6)}-u_QA,,pAiz---" e_e,kati4= 1 .4 0-6ims/ Pa'Wc`P. 19 ?%-9 (c) tt)) 4fLe &I-4J-3 . _"(Ls--yt,cibz4314.r&a4b,Ak zictrw140. „t4.04,-A;N, Aeuka 44+74)-z La.. 40. -e-P-140-ee.1 4-6 -13n-a-Cni"YVCO‘ . • A 7tQQ /cerfe-4 4 " *-1:L.,Ydjd ?Ter-A-0--64-Ao-Y4 4-0 1v2-120-i-L-0M\ I 9, .013". 'D z4-11,--yyvp.- n,csJ Itow_ 6429451 e'CP-VIN- 41-4-A411 ,) !CA ■.S.Al2) 1K (1(147- 6° V. liter'CtAe 40^r 1,0-4,-11-'M-eaelee4,01i) eet4e 00_90V159 4 WAA/yr 6Letty4--i-an4 42..Z4?-co-4 AvA ,cudi;en i-afitQA -.4+14- . .0 - A Ce-cA-h4 -64.A.143 -66)/ a 16, Icoizzi--(0-t/Af-Qa -e+k`z. "t44.14 ceect;,* Gi6) e..zrinrottro R,s&a,z, ._-eau.4)412A4 da.-4(1014 EXHIBIT A .t.tyyN-itozek -n ‘-t-.Le,.;14A 16J ° 13 .0,Jiti,ZAL,4415 AA/n .4/1-4tAit4.4,,or ‘-cv•el--0--ts 8, q...b i to. . irC/C42A-ARSI/Z/ri Ad)10)101.10 • a.vrafrizAs4evy4 II, -IA, AMCL14:0-6 AZ' 4 # <1-1- 14A 4 '‘ A - 4 •ct-44/ /Aft15)--A4A:t- „Stu/A Kerwitz4 flA` It .ctiy4 15) • -3-.0, ."- ,,0--(.0-4 634. -trtAt-R ,ett'S A.Afrasz ,k;(2. fro-fAil(4) K.4-flp.n...v14 ° f Atiz, ..A4v./rot-t 4,1 524.6142 A:9-6 • 14 L ‘19)11,-LAAO s--eee-`" (9-j)-Cal2AAO 0 4ta2 e st-o.,y,rt-ed .11-Ltn%g`i2; • • )44).-/YY-1.4 15% ./--4Z -,1•(901, -4.tkrth t:401“UlA ‘).1ALtU-a ;taa 611104-atatiewtinixd- eetA7A, 11.0, 7%.,0090 V59., „Riati;,,oufrf AAA-L-1 a ,w412.4149 .-to-afikei) 3. EXHIBIT A ..4)4241 A,yi_keta.442. ,t4,a) 2 -41-41-4 • Li420i) a.eQ„v , a)til,t,cIerri --6?/2-042 00-A ;k2ta fixqleir 4V41-Q —1410-e8 _.(4)40--(1 „hit 42fiQ 71aivtics4 ,t_L-rn_e_ —p4.4424.7) , ) tLkiig w .F di .)Q--eaa3nq &dew) c4-kKAZJIS AA--NA-0(2 1 ‘2- )Le4.4,1: (1rt49-1- 1 Z 1, at wal. ;&: /tat 49.4:4,cat„ej1a --472-8.SZ ,O-YN -Z;6 -/P-ae ./Q4ert442)t 41-642-0-r-r-L)2,11 12. 44: 4a- 4 --(QA-0-7(1.elLeek 69 -4;62eQ ;4 - t çc ,A1-42 'n 4- , .)N-gt.,,cx--yrte, anvfm, V-24.4--CZNIYVel21 -aV rn Vt-i4tetit51 24 leZ o II 14- DA 41- „ti,L4 x0.4-e 4.44k4Z2e0 "at Al2-2* 1-4-CLAt3--A \A*-e■Wl:CVW CIS/W1 ;tell'A-12C&tk aVA-te)11 T■2,0-cts110-nd ,63. 7-11--rtyv-vvn.2;1.) 0-1) wej31,,,Lutv • 4:r-co—awl ---rwdcazLtkl-gif2 4: EXHIBIT A 1 `);wry. 7 ) � j 4i , , ;y4, p;A:t3-15iNvI43212) . , ai ,, CO 4 R)2 . L .L)411 , _.. 6Z12- 4 * ,zeen . _:.-i„i.L.‘„rt,) ,A/7- 15,„64, 0;vv, ii„. c/0.4.A/-4,0-) 2,04.7v-tv -6,2 rt 59) 'Aft‘ '61'0)14144 4 PI t10“ ". ' ' ):/°Ael" I ' C , , . , tCriV ice. .r,./ si.„60-L "eAd ,I,L)14,t,,,,i,dr - Nivok`')L4 A " � 5'l) ' n c ,,t,' - ., „ 1 M, ijk4 5--TA;(4-'5e . 4x. i1.-.5.4 /' °4` ').&L'xi-)i.,,,,,-;t:axrui-° ' "t0, r'eN_ Y:(;)4,.. Al,* ..tP} `1A)" . ,c,* -i4katx:.: 9,,- --:".- ' , A ,,,,,e,..-0-4/14- ---La /ore-4'4' A} )61'5( --g-ti-Nj '4' ,Vix-iC'' ' - 1 - ' 0-v67 0)k*, 1 .,71.1 itz‘,, 44,14 /1'elt it,''N -0" EAN"BC1 P1/4 latvvo-ture A.,,ouzzaNt Th2A-Lee p2i APt2 't' o ) ,c1,4 4-XPa. C.S. A.g55gZ (2.)) .47-Aa4A-m. 1/) 0II; t4tat Ite.) k. NY‘v-ee zr,y11 ' • . Aka 4-34.,, Itrvitsil • fwm it CI OrvW-e1.1 1 6j 2011. 3 Z. AP Q01t _10.0471- 5Z ' 6 4424 ta Atttici -04,YLA4-4"-44 . . 3.3. ç 4;i6 -e Szta jaYti • 4t OALL-yt14 .1 444* /04101, • ,C.( 10-45 4,0-ag ftX44)1ThiiLle2:414 ,_niect-1414 • -35. .,Q • A341A5 CLC-14)-(X4:44;a4te A .Aci2. 01/4L, Ali A44d? .9epti 4-600 _28fLee,t.o wAt' 4,402. - taar4 A:,,ftitiuntk z'8. ,aect .46) .dtt,x -Ee --Rt )-Q 4-'14 -44-tfref\-1-1, &LA ) AfT411-a -keett 39. • --49k.a.4 M A el,,A;n001,61, e4-4-j2 ?i■l*A.44;, EXHIBIT A 3 3 • 40 J- --6-c2,c/t4 .,..caetteS A)criutexp-itio "n4. 13 2. /1-e-ko-tia, )10, u9 &Le: . frQto-f 14)431/1141.21 •=0"-+A.41 --6A4- 8-60 , 61011-0-11-04-14' iotte,eviide,„ cifia , 1.0 10 Aa. eiNIA.-rwl-o-Y‘A-a-e-tstS2Apn "19-4'f"e"t247G"-z? geo_v_p_pu,11.0n.:3 (swa_el 4:11,2,„rtitsvix,,,„0,41 Wet --(YV--C-v0 ad524.1,4:01,t4 C4r-nfL.,YV1:1-446, 4 . 17,,,,jael) ARA, 11-3,A„,11 ...sk„A aotuta, a ---Yur-o-- )1 ott -44cLogea *(4-1.;4` 44-a() 411fr4j2- 5P-4-"-xiff 11") ,-44A-R-Q71-At --erv-to-a ea-120-11-‘1/4 eaR9 A.Qua i24-e-14 A-Yedecgc4.1' ),04.48110trei \net. T3 -3 9 IscL-nA,42 .-4.4)-Lfa 14)\9_3J2e,,,, j? ,G) ' ' 4 z -3 44 a0)1„1,41 4,,A• 3y-A --ta.44$ 41.,,n6Q /ny24W 7, EXHIBIT A 3 3 • 43. -3AiL 610)1,5-1 3 .4e,A .4. /vyLtki.z6 .4 (d ,p,a4;si, Pr r i Xti•Aal A•LA erV-k,t412 A igval X(tA ZitgA1/0--OL-E .IYL/YVAL) ei2A"* 4 Ot2rYLA A,frtiA J-R-C2 `T-Ct /CIA-oQ .4A0*- 1111j 344-tepuz, ,■yYvit-tb2))3 -S" (7e'v ctA(?-au4: ct4 1(2e. Q41 z},t1Q: eAP . --1/ /124)NAi )2,6a of e,; ng ,ct-ge A 444444; #41 ,a)142 / _e_y*tft&94 .06d.44 1.4.)47ufv.y1 ) .Auccesi 4lt,etivt<, yao_eel .)-L4AA2ael .0. _ j e/o-rAAt- 1-1;n0Q i2n4I'm • c4)-4=tg Act,-,e1 ., tA,0-0iNag of • " --12-c144 0-/nP0Q ----maLooP .7- 1O 0 • id . , ••Q441-0/n4Q4 y * a4<1 \ite9U04 ) CLaa-Ags, 401-ttet Ct44)-eVIAZ 8 EXHIBIT A two 414.4.1,141A4 fee6 ($2.50,0c0) /10-Q-ectit4 4 -1Qct Al'44442 1 $ Agtat . ,e-aLytstieo —ee "fut,t,coN4,042 e . . , A AdLAV 'Aitn )1414 C44 494:et** (2/1 ,1" Li210 • atl Of 9 (C"1"c4"%-"e-011:614) -eediiytt:61y 518 vleAtg-egeens 11-1(tryl.2214-e4.0.44, PA 11(343 Ph. ',f% 63. 44/2.1 EXHIBIT A Ci atrPo►son , Commissioners STEPHEN A.GLASSMAN • ISMAEL ARCELAY Vice Chairperson r ' l 14.30ELBOLSTEW RAQUEL O.YIENGST . 7 WHYAT7 MONDESZRE Secretary S.KVVEIIINNASSAR DANIEL D.YUN , -. A' GERALD S.ROBINSON Assistant Secretary .: SYLVIA A.WATERS REV.DR.JAMES EARL GARMON,SR. DANIEL L.WOODALL,3R. Executive Director COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOMER C.FLOYD Human Relations Commission 301 Chestnut,Suite 300 Harrisburg,PA 17101-27os (717)787-4410 Yoke (717)787-4o87 TTY • - www.phrc.state.pa.us December 14,2010 Sterling Moll 518 North Second Street • Wormleysburg PA 17043 RE: Sterling K.Moll v Borough of Wormleysburg Case No.200902759 Dear Sterling Moll: It has been one year since you filed your complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.This is to notify you that you now have the right to bring an action in the appropriate Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas based on the alleged violations of the PHRAct contained in your Commission complaint.This right is provided under Section 12(c)of the Human Relations Act,43,P.S.§962(c). Please be advised that you are not required to file such an action in the State Court of Common Pleas.The Commission is continuing to process your case,and we will make every effort to resolve it as soon as possible.If we are not notified otherwise, we will assume that you want the Commission to continue handling your case. - If you do file a complaint in a Court of Common Pleas,the Commission will dismiss your complaint This means that you will be unable to have the Commission decide your case even if your complaint is dismissed in State Court because of a procedural error. Procedural errors may include filing the complaint in State Court in the wrong county or filing in State Court after your time to file has expired.For this reason,you should make every effort to assure that any complaint you file in State Court will be properly filed before you file it. If you believe you might want to take your case to State Court,we suggest that you consult a private attorney about representing you in that action.This should be done before you file the complaint so that your attorney may advise you on the best course of action for you to take. Should you file a complaint in State Court,you are required by Section 12(cX2)of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to serve the Human Relations Commission with a copy of the Court complaint.This copy must be served on the Commission at the same time you file it in Court.The copy is to be sent to: Michael Hardhnan,Chief Counsel-Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission 301 Chestnut Street-Suite 300 P.O.Box 3145 Harrisburg,PA 17105-3145 • If you have any questions concerning this matter,please feel free to contact the investigator who is handling your case. Very truly yours, Edward Rogers • Director of Compliance EJR:cmw l ,- EXHIBIT A 4. \44 2F3JA't: 17 r;i 1: 37 .5"1 -As-ceAtO.U,L-2-471- . Id.,,,J1A.,022.e.e,d1)Nilo 43 _ 449c 14o)421,1"^1%-4`) e- 4e044 • h4vrna",6W2a-tg.ena etroivrvt4444A ,301 • ;01,941-,,e0;te 300 13). 0,4:1014 3145- ww.i—e-cot) PA ii!o1 3 145 ecooliacQ ' vidl/SZ v.63004v-84 4.16-344er-8444 90 z7,59 evAz \zevt ta,tets , 4 0.2.-ea,-n3,PAA 14,2 go 14 tva-ZenAcg-0= -11-Q1A,432. fe:vvig: ,r4-r-ki of--(INV/14 4-e- -1metee -- 044"-cal.6 Ant-L4avrv4 t4 Cr * 'be,: I 3- e D.-4212.arceAtogarrivfn-cpyt ei,..dtv.:-62.,005.1.4.4%, 121 of 3.) 94 4-0-0-1Z4,1 !VOW ,16.44-rYta,n6432aitertAl 00-$) 4 3,e §96Z N. 9, n4214.42.44- 4,3.9-12 -0-0-411-241&Yal/vve--E) 4-52:14(Atern tQt.a. ecryx-t--Yvt--4:44 ft-C62. Itioivna4-44,4--P--‘41,A-de-4)2J litAa-xe-tO Ut-4-)2• likR)14 titai vc)1Aki -2AS21)9et;w1 \Y1,&-P--e atop 1;ily ivt D I OW 7V7.7G3,4OXR elg'zr.1`;(2515 EXHIBIT A , ) , . . ,_3. • 4 . . ___ , Rimiest for Oroaissais, .. . • the wormieraparm Borough Cialkd'is ••,* reilleating,.0:11441.4“100 PIVI,Ofall for do- ",11 lirtatIar VantICurfbtirinil.,711;it ::::„ , • • litii511Oiv of Radii.11/15 and North• ,;, -.- . :Sidoxik.nlIdaprolict isliiadaildt a C.014q: . *dal Cumfbactond Ctrun- ,‘, . .' • . ,..v.17' IttiV,a110:YOdr 015000 and .ii, . ..,... • ' ItiiiWatiftjtiribtomitar- 00 aumb Hall. ..•'1AaddIfiSkait,Warattaid- ..g. . -- , • . .. , . ,.. ,.. ... . . . . . . . .. . . .:,. .: . • :;Et. ,i 2'3" . - -- ,-,. . . . . - -, 63. \y‘1,-32-q V, ■ „ -:.I! cf ' ,. , , 4 1 ■ • 9 , 0 z-iii?pit -0-1".49 teAQ1 a NY/OSIQ _ • \i'Afetiq ?•° ,1 1 . • wItecArd . JZ?itt/e":"%'j2 '4*441j4t)%re6C) *4(b el.6:3C;A‘t°1HAIOn%n'. .N(114tAA 14:4 ' 4 I .. e05,C1,44:44tel1f4/1 . . • V ... ..M(Y14.,AAI.eSil a . L ) go,:,,n A '‘x reTiriTi-a-3-..4■40 .1, -. • -',,,...„ .- • 0 - re et.6. NI\4734 4,t ICIA, 7.942(2Z94.1“:4.1 a 11:493 ckli. cot....6.61...c.xQ Cj .Pe° 41111 .. 11' °27C.4.44.Ct"(2‘ • tost. • C .e) e/L12) ... PI I art" IN,1 Cre'"Att2)1 N._ ......c .o....f&A EXHIBIT A ,-) • . . . . ..v....)% _kA --CriLlLe D3-1. ,...,- -c,,_.1261 .e_ei. e14-- ( ô- ' M - 6-2A-Q-120-ce).- -- o.com-r------- pa%gme .•••...Ic • corn and MIIPUIT.i.., cd.gn .,.., . ......_..., . ..•---.. • . . . - . .. ., * • -::,•,1,Y.:41=-;:':71•11,,,,,,;;•,':-ti%,"--,• `...!-:1;‘,-•,.`••••,'•• ,-•.,••••:;:•s-'`,;--?•••■•'•V''AP,.-.i.''3!'•,,;',41:434 V•1,..•;.i. ii Pi'i'• .::'ittlar:. " it •• flat,Otis nOtlostorthettiefacrelary of • )may be obigkted'from ihe Borouolu of- ...ft •:. EST'FOR 10113.::;-,,- . -• . . the PUC.P.O:Ileg_301V1farrIlbure,PA' floe at 20 Mdilmt Street,Worndersbars ;•.•• Dauphin Ontatr... . ....• 'allt11011- • .-• • . ? 17163.3265.youdibostwd botbs d.•,., PA17043. - • • _ If- sooldno_glas.fc services ,• oige ice . any protest to CASs allittnriattOksid- Each•bid'Shell-be mated. arobtfle - . •the11210 ' ..t3Mce BMW., • Build- Box dross hided bswyt.:,.. .... . : 01. marked as ADA go*13ortod af Second • .••..IpCalod at 100 coy-47t._•liar- t • By onathroughteuni011 Mickey_Moon/ SWIM . Walnut Weir eadgedriened' •MO**PA MM. The . WWI ill' ' the ' CEDITTMPOlter ENERGY SERV'-1 to II*: . obottabil Codiellr "000rtibilidlobOrdalsOLtt. . .,. -:,•,...-...',.. ,,':,-.-• "- - ',..w:-• • ICIIIIAPIC-' ..1 2i1 • -Stmet. Wormleyibura, PA ,Bid'eactssees'v:touttriktrafewsled*be....: • . 1111•LealialleaSalteM00. •.„.-,.1 17043i•'* ' • . hot later thmi11:011 callftelltat Jennifer .- at (717)..:. , :Alen.. ' • Hood0o,TX MO .,- P".... , •• Litoolnoo Time on..9115447"; -it you -- •-10:4011MOrto. . • 713.607-7231 i the " • dole to JO ltd.Boe ....1ho..boildid:.did ter sufanatlatt a bid. .LC • - 212407-0101 ' --.-' •such Building. VI/Mtatewal,Of bkle• Please schedule Ithea reatertano.thamd.s... . ,--- ot the low 4110,1 be in aged* noskase. Alf,was must be doiod.00d' .,. .•,: r .,-.:'---,,*----,.- •want in..144tin,PA.Sodton 1602. .-euliadfled.to this officconilater•tlion'Om . .. '• 7••'''''L' .).'' * ':"" 7i5-; itemed check.or-bid bond,*'• ' Mats le,2011 at 166;p66.7'.Atthsit.111n3 '. . . --A,.,:'...:' s- ,-,i4Ltt ,:f,i ..-A-A!,..,-J-1,- ' ,equal to Ian t1034nmIM of the ........ ,A"Aall blastvill bt.cidened; No tHitilat or .. , ':.-•••••••,•;,,:o.k...4i,•:-'''•,,•::t''.',.." ',..V.',•,L'• "---`,' .':!.' 7' ' shall:a *Wiiiiilflikis. A• „.. •_ ":"•-• Phrfornianeo 6100d..-Itt*MP adount d .1.741W1:7•Boiatko,Execdlos Dtroc- ...."4—' r' BOROUGH OF WOOdttYSINFIG,.' NO%bf,theoddrad amount win be ra, tor'.-- •:. .,., .,: - . .1...M.CrraRkill„ rt •dArdrol.the Sucomodut WOK. . • Dtitiodn County General Authority • , :Amu.•.. , „... .--- .... .—....:., 1110Akirogeh,Oguiricil..ii.osikrvint Ito, .,,,51.111,1r,l.larrliaurs SITIO::' • 7- ' 1= Council if the alint-24''. .. -MK io,rblocig.coiv or di'bids or%dot •'Hdrhidwo,PA 1710-• , •:• •• • " ' 4-1-,illot.:.'teidatIcatilehhitatmdlisicesof any bide ---•Z To • 14111011Vathl• at ' . ;:'' " that It to be hi the best bier-' ',:BY ORDER OF TH1130_BOARD. ,.. la= • located at M. ' ,•31reereljt ': 1St-., ' • .-._ _ _. 'M,Wa A,-Zmnifick:cmirporiPon• . ..• .,..- • -. P.M.Eaderit; , ...0.01' .,yfigh. id Is Mine assisted viewed, ..-'17ettld7 Tram00;VI0pLatalrrig0 :d... ,'•nth• • OctoberAL2011.ant Mall ba: * .g,et-Mif.f. W.:-.2tovelotenent-eta*, -•• • :dimwit%Secretory . *of .,.. • lead Itteradfandy Mirsanet wi • .,,.;,,,. .d.::•.(como,) tonos provided oljoush,:. :„ow! D.Kohl.Treasurer. ..,..______, ..coy• limns da/c Award of retedlest_._cofiltg_;.„: wiumri -County, Ponnwivenla.•As• •._ . .* lc Gilder,• -A-°-'0uni •.• . . ITI.., .11 to arilikraft=id101"'"'W°1-'0,•* -sudv:It le or Mar be gabled to several 'amenarirMssIsited Treasarer • L. .., . .::terge101/ef: mostsmowisistont,4nanatuat*maw .. ..,,... .. :1WIWIth' • • - ' • ' .....GSM:. K.Wi 7.30 p.m. Eaalarn Ocrt11111): ' t1.Waite rate.-Section'3,and ••. .•• . . • •• , . , . 1.ConsIrTa.'-ef..4uf.:(4)AID.A.aid) 67,k1;;;;$ mieseits, poions .„.- ••• - • -- •: -'S ; - o6n .-.--2 7-...r779 • -',':';'. ' .• . -alid hi '-'..,.•,,;,StreetraniPs•'Md. Wed kderNeligt:(1116.3.41"da011) tattled.7thf 7d-um-b. ., , • -, - • ••:;;.„..„,.„.4.,:„. _::•••,,,.„:„:„,,,,,,,,..... •, 4.•• .....t•,. _cind.all Indrovdidat'related thereto in- , .. • ropttlont:• -.ii.-. .,.dperinneolod plior..:_on Ilda,44.'*NlyttrnlYvItviotaar=ob:7,,sec_ ,Z-,.-..•,...6•, .0i.,ii;1,046ii••• • ,,:rvait-77.".,--0.-35,,:. :.... Ir.:,.._......,4,-V.:4":;:-,-.>...vrv;...1-;;...3:;*',,t.,., Anicimie .•e'd 81.-4. 461;ilePatild .; Cie..161 ilik-APeCcatlenlior Ware . L # . .., . , • •-•- •slf.Secant*.- ::X4C.,defillII Alk' • r• •: oaths Distdors Wobbiloot • o sansiaa.. 'east Thipt.-,•,,'.t• -. . _• .. _" • L._ .-'*„-- ..',... aciarcionno • For all your Rocrtxittnept tehrtlired. _!!).1_,MW 01-W°M.'clostlionOttAit,..,1—.01, 'Mt' • ;Moder of Operations at .Ad'.,-- 13•TTfli048•both -. ) •,itithoos or• ‘0 Doctemees are locatiALizr. ..71-, wa.•311011.16)doPtinlettwal be ,212ger2S7,03:14'.:.-wOMS4',Olin'• -ws mike • • Barman af Warl=b1-wa.- ..,.- on Wockiddoy.OstobOrlditorilli. . IVF.P.1;4-1:•-. .. .. • • .counlY.Penns, . and Illustlfa • Anlhe -"Gem allheAdmilds- - • •:- sa-t..a .1 . : • shaded In accordance with said Contract.-i•••fration •• - • Street.. : - ...-............-ay,qr.cpulauu. AriL;Li. . •DocumenWSpedfleadero. P/V77057. - ciassinedwep7200.corn Os . , Att work idiot be corodetiot by alrieW-k4ridieteb , ,-. . • s. . I (90)daYrfrartivIth=t1 of'Award-.Pre- '. '...r.oktacittr• — —..- .. -.-- - k.• :,-x-- --'''.•IN'—44 ' And ., yelling wen. ...Abli akar far'' ' ssaticksAnsah, ..-.. ..• •.'e.,; . :.-', .....:kf.S-=::!,...! .-.- :rietraoro*.) r wus proleck,.-Itefer fo'Applendlx•Afor OP- • •• . a ' oftcable wow-fates.effective Awned 0, tirlaarld call : ..`,:'"'54,,C.46-•"•',•A'w:',51 ,P-'-?'•-,:r'-'7!..• .g.' / 2011. • -•-. -•L . .-,:. ......./ :- "thotrushrlirldoys.,Or oroatk .. _.:.,-'-'..12,.•,--1",,'."•,,:..taq:.•*k•i;',.';:g-.',.;‘,- ,:. ' al' contract doc,,,ininbisps,:jitaitiiii .., '., . *Iidoltliod*Lapnco.stOto ),','i,..•',..q.--.---.•-',--•-: ••-•L; ....,,•:,•,...„.4,..t-L4,,,-... • .;: .: . ,... .. , .• •, -----;.....,..., • :0. - - - v. - .i. • - • —--. • - - . • • . .., _ _ . .„... . .. ., ,.. 1 . 2, • • st.1, A• 4 . . , • 5 EXHIBIT A • PENN STATE HERSHEY Penn State Hershey Tel:(717)531-8055 Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Milton S. Hershey Health Information Services, HU24 Medical Center 500 University Drive P.O. Banc 850 Hershey, PA 17033-0850 fr Patient Name: MOLL, STERLING K Visit Number: 15514163 MRN: 0182747 Visit Type: Clinic Date of Birth: 1/2/1932 Patient Location: PC13 Patient Gender. Male Outpatient Note RESULT STATUS: Final DOCUMENT SUBJECT: ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED BY: Gaivan,Dan A(1/28/2011 05:09 EST) OUTPATIENT NOTE Name: MOLL,STERLING'K HMC Number: 182747 rr DOB: 01/02/1932 Date of Service: 01/24/2011 • Established patient clinic visit • Mr. Moll is a patient well known to me who has a large incisional hernia which has been repaired multiple times. He also has a flstulous drainage emanating from the left side of the abdomen. If is most likely that he has a chronic low-grade infection of underlying mesh. Because of his ongoing low-grade infection and the size of his hernia, it will be impossible to fix this abdominal wall hernia, especially'Might of his comorbidiities. Thus, I have NOT recommended that he undergo a hernia repair. Significantly, Mr. Moll had a previous CAT scan in June of last year that demonstrated an asymmetrical marked thickening of the pylorus with narrowing of the lumen as well as a large filling defect within the distended stomach. A neoplasm could not be excluded and according to my recollection,we had set him up for a GI foliowup, but this was never completed. Thus we are going to send him again for referral to the Endoscopy Clinic for upper endoscopy to evaluate fora neoplasm. Followup in the General Surgery clinic will be on a PRN basis. 18742 4 Electronic Signature on File Electronically Reviewed/Signed by: Dan A Galvan, MD Author Signature Dt/.Tm01.2011 05:09 AM DAG/CO DD: 01/24/11 or 01/25/1102::04 Oate/Tme Printed: 1/11/2013 14:10 EST Page 1 of 3 Printed By: Stevey,Sarah L 3 EXHIBIT A 1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Sterling MoII, Complainant • v. PHRC Case No. 200902759 Borough of Wormleysburg, Respondent FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS In this two-Count Complaint, Sterling Moll, the Complainant contended that the Borough of Wormleysburg, the Respondent, first, failed to provide a reasonable accommodation at Borough Meetings for his severe loss of hearing: specifically, Complainant requested that all members of the Borough Council speak clearly into the six microphones on the tables in front of them, and that an additional microphone be given to all other guest speakers. Secondly, Complainant contended that Respondent failed to have property owners repair and maintain their sidewalks and curbs so that Complainant could safely walk on the sidewalks. Complainant specifically stated that the sidewalks along North Second Street failed to meet minimum accessibility requirements in that there were uneven pavements, tripping hazards and rises. Adequately maintained sidewalks were necessary because of Complainant's permanent disabilities related to lumbar spinal stenosis, spondylosis, radiculopathy and _degenerative_ disk disease, which placed complainant at permanent •risk of falls and required him to have/use assistive devices in order to walk. SUMMARY OF RESPONSE Respondent admitted, first, that Complainant had requested all members of the Borough Council speak clearly into the six microphones placed on the tables in front of them, and that Complainant had requested that an additional microphone be given to all other quest speakers. Second, Respondent admitted that it had instructed property owners to repair their sidewalks and curbs, and that it had'y:taken such action as authorized by the Borough's Code of Ordinances'and the Pennsylvania Borough Code. EXHIBIT A r SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS A PHRC investigation involved Face-to-Face meetings among the Investigator, Borough Manager and Complainant, and Complainant and Investigator alone, group on-site inspection of Respondent-responsible sidewalk 'land intersection properties, and review of relevant documentation and records. Considering the Reasonable Accommodation-Hearing Loss allegations first. Investigation determined that since at least June 2, 2006, Complainant and Respondent had attempted to resolve Complainant's hearing' accommodation request(s). Respondent purchased an electronic amplification device for Complainant to use at Council meetings. However, its effectiveness was limited. Thereafter, Respondent installed a public address system with. multiple microphones for use at Borough Council meetings. Subsequently, Respondent purchased and installed an add-on mixer and a microphone to be used by the public at Borough meetings. • At the January 6, 2010, Face-to-Face meeting among the PHRC, Complainant and Mr. Berresford, Borough Manager, Respondent agreed that: it would purchase two additional microphones and an improved amplifier in time for the next Borough Meeting of February 8, 2010. In addition, Complainant would have a reserved seat next to the public microphone stand. Mr. Berresford would be seated immediately to Complainant's left, at the Council table, should clarification of Member comments be needed by Complainant. Complainant agreed that if these actions improved his ability to hear the proceedings, he would consider them sufficient to settle the matter of Count 1 of the instant Complaint. On February 12, 2010, Complainant informed the PHRC that he had seen the new microphone and seating arrangement, and that he accepted that arrangement. Furthermore in his March 10; 20I0-;Teter -- to the PHRC, Complainant affirmed that he had attended the March 9, 2010, Regular Monthly council Meeting. He found a Reserved seat for him in frint of a "guest" microphone. Importantly, Complainant reported that "for me the hearing problem was much better," and when the Borough officials spoke "directly into the microphones, most times I could clearly understand what was said; the same for the citizen speakers." Lastly, in Complainant's March 18, 2010, letter to Respondent's Borough Officials, he informed that at the March 9, 2010, Regular Monthly Borough Council Meeting, he sat in the assigned/reserved seat, near the recently provided microphone for citizen/guest speakers and "I could hear the borough officials speaking much better" when they spoke directly into the microphones on the tables. EXHIBIT A ! Fc Therefore, regarding Count One of this Complaint, the evidence showed that Respondent was responsive to Complainant's requests regarding his hearing impairment. And in as much as the Complainant expressed both to Respondent and the PHRC that the accommodations in place as of March 9, 2010, were satisfactory, Count One of the Complaint was deemed satisfactorily resolved. Regarding Count Two and the maintenance of Borough sidewalks, investigation found that during the calendar year 2009, Respondent issued several hundred violation notices and approximately 17 non- traffic citations for unsafe sidewalks. In addition, on April 14, 2010, a team from the PHRC Harrisburg Regional Office conducted an on-site sidewalk and intersection inspection of Respondent's property, which involved measurements for ADA compliance and photographs of potential "violations of ADA standards. As a result of this on-site inspection, and Legal guidance which clarified what responsibilities a Borough ad regarding ADA compliance questions, it was determined that the` only sidewalks and curbs directly maintained by Wormleysburg Borough which showed ADA-non-compliance were: the curb cut at Market & South 2nd street which had an excessive slope of 15.2; the curb cut at the southeast corner of North 2nd & Chestnut streets which had a storm/sewer grate as part of the curb cut; and that there were no curb cuts at any of the corners of the intersection of North 2nd and Walnut Streets (Routes 11/15). The PHRC informed Respondent of its findings. In response, on November 28, 2011, it was confirmed that the curb cut at the southeast corner of North 2nd & Chestnut streets had been corrected and was ADA compliant. On June 25, 2012, it was verified that ADA compliant ;curb cuts had been made at the intersection of Walnut (Routes 11/15) & North 2nd Streets. And on July 23, 2012, it was verified that the excessive slope(s) of the curb cuts at Market & South 2nd street4were made ADA compliant. Therefore, as of July 23, 2012, when it was-confirmed-that all Respondent-responsible-properties were now ADA compliant, full remedy has been achieved for Count Two of the instant Complaint. • DETERMINATION The evidence gathered during the investigation proved that Respondent ,virps 'initially not in compliance with the PHRAct or the ADA. Subsequent to the investigation, Respondent has sufficiently accommodated Complainant at its borough meetings and has made thexticigwalks it has responsibility for accessible. EXHIBIT A o . • y ; 0 4� } W\ 42_ Pa.. C.5.A § 552 (a)) k. ' n -€7 'Po- Aca 810-6-44-te, .)-Lx1-44.4 , -frrA A: 1** A46 .01 ck-advev-ki 18, zo Ilj 41 exicrfo onwet4. 11) .Ziali et-iteiftseie.44.90,AltbA 5+ev ti ni K M0 U .0k; Waal u Is NroAmi__.:w.itrte9,411140.1 ,PA 11043 nit 3 - 4-'11 EXHIBIT A J.) 4.■ • • ../, r 4..t'\I/ ;rt3 . 1 y -4- ..ZA. .---€1-e-U-i4' • taiz 1?-.2...2.44 --1 ■•••/' C •..?)• --57L.-, tr,•2,-;/) 4 4 2 1? , r r; 1 • )1 • • EXHIBIT A ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK& DEMILLE NOTICE TO PLEAD By: John D. Kearney, Esquire You are hereby notified to file a written response IDENTIFICATION NO.: 44207 to the enclosed pleading within twenty(20)days 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 from service hereof or a judgment may be entered Mt. Laurel,NJ 08054 against you. 856-778-3220 (phone); 856-778-3222 (fax) Attorney for Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough STERLING K. MOLL : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. • : NO: 13-271 WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH • Defendant. • DEFENDANT, WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough, by and through their attorney, John D. Kearney, Esquire, hereby answers Plaintiffs Amended Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. This paragraph requires no response pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Denied. This paragraph requires no response pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in EXHIBIT B this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 7. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2 EXHIBIT B , 12. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in 3 EXHIBIT B P this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without 4 EXHIBIT B knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 26. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 26. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in 5 EXHIBIT B this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 30. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in 6 EXHIBIT B this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 34. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 37. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 38. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without 7 EXHIBIT B • f `Y knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 40. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 42. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 43. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 8 EXHIBIT B NEW MATTER 1. If it is determined that Answering Defendant is liable on the Plaintiffs cause of action, Answering Defendant avers that Plaintiffs recovery should be eliminated or reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act,42 Pa. C.S.A. § 7102. 2. It is further averred that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as alleged, they were caused solely and primarily by Plaintiffs own carelessness, recklessness and negligence. 3. It is further averred that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as alleged, they were caused solely and primarily by Plaintiffs own carelessness, recklessness and negligence. It is further averred that if the Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as alleged, they were caused solely and primarily by the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of third parties unknown to Answering Defendant and over whom Answering Defendant had no control. 4. It is further averred by Answering Defendants that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as alleged, said Plaintiff by his conduct assumed the risk of those injuries or damages. 5. The situs referred to in Plaintiffs Complaint is owned by parties other than the Answering Defendant and the responsibility for its care, maintenance and supervision rests solely upon said party and/or persons or entities unknown to the Answering Defendant and over which the Answering Defendant has no control, and Answering Defendant is in no way responsible for its condition. 6. It is further averred by Answering Defendant that the Plaintiffs cause of action is barred by the appropriate Statute of Limitations 9 EXHIBIT B • 7. The injuries and damages claimed in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint were not caused by the actions or inactions attributed to Answering Defendant. 8. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his injuries and damages claimed in the Amended Complaint. ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK & DeMILLE By: C .Ihn D. Kearney, Esquire Dated: April 25, 2013 10 EXHIBIT B ( VERIFICATION I,JOHN D.KEARNEY,ESQUIRE,hereby state that I am the attorney for the Defendant in the within action and verify that the averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing are true based upon my personal knowledge, information and belief. If the foregoing contains averments which are inconsistent in fact,I have been unable,after reasonable investigation,to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true,but do have knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief that one of them is true. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. JO f . KEARNEY, ESQUIRE di Dated: April 25, 2013 11 EXHIBIT B • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John D. Kearney, Esquire hereby certify that on April 25, 2013, I forwarded a true and correct copy of Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to all parties listed below via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid: Sterling K. Moll 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 John . Kearney, Esquire 12 EXHIBIT B 1 . (n r: -100AAva..,144-4-e-g-li N )7043 2.-: •- --.-, 17 i 7.; 1 G I-4-07%Z . , ,8 tvaA:1-11 K , n ct-O) ICI:r"ei -3-i\Q-Ce11)1A Orcrt :04 '. .20,-.4 -ti -16)11'"uel '..6?-11)13A-"4 .1'ir 311.6. DivYvek2,3113-. Q Cl-ctt'crv% \g-ct-ctil . 1 En„,c,_1 Gf? 510 14,ASZA) .? :1 0 ..19,002442 C, ei. , iC1-yrp.124,. ..L.ret,i. Y1/0 4-fi.Q11(2 /C4rtleLJLa /kTiZtfiti,nt4 .:?,±12,1,12." k.bk.0-124; 1 ICk r4t-t-1 C-ri,t'■-t.1/4 .(yA_IL,Ary)fr PaA:t3_11.414,419- '.71e71) ' ,11.4.4„0,4-)LL „ . -Jo . 042 73o 0_,-orve,itc(11/42 a"-dr-v-Yill-Uct-i-/-ii-t) 0,Ly4-+ te 'N 1 / v , I .0",\ _.■Ci-e)1-12.-1-'1\xt,./42-4 ...-41t-NA-0-0t) i . za.,..„, • , k ( ' A EXHIBIT C 4 4 (61,:peete; L.A.c;41,L,(42izeQ a )1_0. 0_,i2 3 0 4 .• cl„,e1 a 0 i3. a . azo2.14.s-wl , 0-0 aft:lit? I I, a 13, )1A.0a-Q _)9 Jo . . k 04 cie .%e-P4A.,4 Ci2rais4 \? 2 a-a2424,0 C4-31A13-Q0-1A4 4 " -0-5) ) JA 1(Y:Lco- (4 "t(44 7(j).-A-CLet41152 171,6'1 E//v)-ii-I' cse 4-0-A 541,6:(2-t)LAZ d \ • -30 OLAryttcai4 d-, A--• ecrYYN_fOLCL .YAX 5: a cDA:66-4=e-&tieis aA 4Vrd&-yx-i. T4,-isa'' . G Ery a 91,0A 17t-tazl r-1 CIA-vb2,(1.,414Qeeynikeeifli. EXHIBIT C 4 • l'AV4e)1)2 1 ;Rja-I-Llj:46) . - r. 1014v.ik 4, 14.4 4 A ' Ill 4'4 .0)14-A---K1 tgt$2. .$1/ .° • . . ' CA ' = CePar-i'lzA,:qt 6,4eitilavtt-vt . ate-6-/A-A-1( 1 e, 44,6,QtAy1J2, 111 1 2 , -7.10/5Q1 ;7,11A,Q, • . 0,i2fi.et_zici,c,i(ti ,t6 1C:1)2 C4/4413Y • C-0-"il-laet,ftril iti A,1-1■-a Ze/Y11L-It/I--11-040 A1,1 kLket- --Ftglf Al-ili 0-ed,4-Gt416Q. 66,4412/e/trioiNe4 -0:•--trts'-'C I • .11../2- 1.-13 Si- eviCing1-< , frioli 5 1 Irtco4 -C.0,11trVi 14 429-te-GIIIA, 174 1170 43 1. 11 , 1G -5 , 4-0 -a" EXHIBIT C 1C t 5 t 8 8s +ttR t pA 11134-3 :Wet.v■14. ecL,„y41.4,ixec.42eit-al1912- Ltioita, vt I �rw 4,11:3 - Altte f��'�-a►�xi c 7t) atv.. X634 1-k", Oatt ‘-)1 ?b.-rink-a ezt-ctiL4t %.ct:L.001) -JO Ern*QA a lailitktl, 9.4444-mckSecif 01 4\ Cl Dseid/' -4.4-zz 0-1 erit,...-,11.4 410,4 . akin-4-A6- 1-ke-ck.4 1L-h-CE.44 act Afrt -aV 4 t w-rva-ru:n_2 0-4 't.k. )(A al 4 ace EXHIBIT C \ . \ 4 \ ‘4 .141UP- 11 4L"'S °'firal 1C1 X4°I. 1\ ACI`C'c -3 gakia- la. .1.411.4 %,••tit'" 1 ) *1° . , \ tz91 ,: ,i4c _evil,c_ 1 Jo. (1v,cv e. Air ilvp„-td,v*,Il cAN-tV2 ,*4*i%. s4s, tvetvief;1003.ifrir6 9a-Itr lk-...4;:tL‘ A i t_,Lai. vt 1:94:LA C6C-Vir )-4 it#76/4A '' evy)Ai 41" • -1 Yt..0C4 k 1. '' 4z)-1/4e4.1.7 -'0\14-,-.5. 4"; • -a z C ---7-- Gt 4 ,,,,L .9,.e, 9smerivi a ' -9:, so,tlie, . - .. (1...v ar 0,446. tge'4•41 - Cru-ikt4A4-'1 ik Q c, a?A .3 9-1A -e_ 001-5 1#_c (c.( e.:, 1119 ... qt./0 , 316G 6/y„1,c,, -,.;t toPs.k/44 - 7-fiuttS) 7:1CFifon-:\ti:-(73- 2CeA:Gt W-vm.c_c_eft?ikk 96 4-3 'X L9‘9) 70 - 4z. vole,\I c • '*& ja$2" (1-41" S . CkIt (74 Lfra4 424$AA ) Q1/4 L\> Aso-v-i4S2 rpkoz, "cii-v,c/Q /c413-4-A 'ef f?c6V--4 -111 ? EmvtihdeckNiV21117 (22,t7A. I a Q.5bz&tV. a„0 D. 17L)2-dyvvx. 330 0 80 Sk- ' I % 5-26V DX , , Sig 'M*1/Q -113,c,-1,,,y32?-C/41?ADA) EXIAV c f � •�' � K' ! i 3 � � 22 Pik Z 50 CUMBERLAND COUNTY 518",—Zoc,04 8 PENNSYLVANIA 1)o 4-3 no `717 r 763a�4 ��, f�A C, G-n1 9 , (� If, 24r3a P �i� J � � —e-(212 0/14 yLe. 6 00 0 VkTLafA 7!,A�j i 0 ,t.'6 ---,� -i A.0 U CD llama ftA Q �'78 �1� ,� 0 � 2 f VERIFICATION i i I,JOHN D. KEARNEY,ESQUIRE,hereby state that I am the attorney for the Defendant in the within action and verify that the averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing are true m personal knowledge, information and belief. If the foregoing contains averments based upon y p g , g g which are inconsistent in fact,I have been unable,after reasonable investigation,to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true,but do have knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief that one of them is true. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. JOHN D. KEARNEY, ESQVJIRE Dated: May 16, 2013 I jro-� n r p,�X1049 STERLING K. MOLL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH, DEFENDANT NO. 13-271 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28th day of May, 2013, upon consideration of Defendant's Petition to Open Default Judgment and Plaintiff's, Pro Se Objections to Petition to Open Default Judgment; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Defendant's Petition to Open Default Judgment is GRANTED. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Xterling K. Moll, Pro Se Plaintiff 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 _/hn Kearney, Esquire 309 Fellowship Road Suite 330 p Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 ; bass - L CO _ --t C SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith " Chief 50,- 4 Richard W Stewart Solicitor CTFiCE err THE SHC.R1FF Sterling K Moll vs. Case Number Borough of Wormleysburg let al.) 2013-271 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 05/20/2013 06:57 PM-Deputy Ryan Burgett, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Writ of Summons by"personally"handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be the Defendant, to wit: Ralph Granados at 127 N. Second Street,Wormleysburg Borough, Lemoyne, PA 17041 RYAN BURGETT, DETTUT�4� SHERIFF COST: $46.08 SO ANSWERS, May 24, 2013 RbNPrY R ANDERSON, SHERIFF (0 County5uite Sheriff ,jeieosoi#,Inc. Tv-, Ilk" THE PROTkINC)" v Pii 2� 38 CUMBERLANO coUj�,�Ty PENNSYLVANIA 3 v pApo+3 rill,17-6,f.40 AIX- C�e�oA (9f S Pa. C.S A 4 04q&q4L� jAzc4_" cif .5 (8 LIJ-1 943 3. � Pa� C.5�A, 01 Ilk" p�44,-n,-�-- GGy� . .. ric JD vl�� .31 IZO 13) A, f r �l.ou•� lvu�,r wJ-0 8014, 44 A b 111jt 110 2sj 29, .*,4 '3 !� jwc � vi4- 3,?.4;2O,.. cQ > lo ' --�a.c,r-e. ---�r,o.�' fir►.� ,�,.o:� ..��t..Q� c� �'.�o1c� , IJ 0 At& ` ►' �1. aA t ' « a 16-9 41VAAJ� Y6, �j ,y J QA ylo r c Al QA� Uk of a A t 1 r . I�, Y11 a-- ', Q 9 v 13� , f .�' l , ' .p is Pa' �Q f i`I o4 T, fi �I"I.� �,3 . .�' PA 17043 w y �•i..o._...,* ��=.��^�+�� .i,�✓t-�-.-c��,<,s'}" e.�i:.--t.i`a�✓4'V�s �O�J y?@ a �f�, ,mot p� %` o,�;..::'�,�' .:��.St.:`�.4i -'�'' iz..•• '�� -��.-d.ri,.�, /'C'e•�...,.y..i``F,.� r".`';'�'r�...(f `fig=� - `r Ta ,.1�' �.L.,/ek_,L!` "t'.4 4[--'i�.� ✓�! I.,.�'���,�,'��•�'.,r!1 ZA Ij r-4 Cl f , t PA WO 7 V7 lk . vim` �•�-�" a � '�.�v1 �.. ,�.—9,t3`e�,� t`e 1; �.f3°YYVb1�>�r► �.�z�+J F 1,70 4U, t _ .aim , q tl ¢J , ' Y' I . f � � iju .,a� .0090I , 17594 a �s ., ,rye, • tl i rti � y X E F1_ •"} -ooe UL #,��.�� WL v. We-Nney- 00059, �� 4 d 1 op .�+ � ';V(4jzn B I E vo 6 Ns 9\,c, z 4 �s h n { rs `�t��'G°�� ..-�i.r°-'L� Ef t✓'L�°i..✓NU'�'i'?�"�`.''-.t'tz���e �•':`� r i #. U�.%�L°'tX,,,F -'�� •f3� �.t�`%'T'- E,.-;�,.td�,�-�-rf?� j, X11 �i/L`'3"� � .. -- i°- ' 2� - �."1„� , � �j �,v* Sj' � � ✓:� .�`u .dam '�'ti' "l. l � � t'i 4�52/Eif✓�-�'�'1 co �j 7.. -1j' Ak O Al "Q ib r` A � - Gi, r d r FFF"' s p { A,ULtal �. .. . I `0., ri ,�..e�. ;g� � !w� �} ..lair. °' �'3• . 0.1 �'S °i 'J ..r+"'Vri.. ,db. 1-- .,r `i�»-'„ —`•, ,.•6, ~ °.s �.."'- 5� t � vt Al 9 r 4-a 3 0 10) -. Ll AALn 1 • d i ,,� 06-Ad, lu i f a x i' A --yf � E7*tl �fn Avo 1411�-Ilkqj ft q- z� , 5 Cyj 0 f; t 19 76 _571 PA tq v 43 Ph. q 1q3 !7 f, - 4.0Z-Z ehatrperson „r Commissioners STEPHEN A.GLASSMAN �� ISMAEL ARCELAY Vice Chairperson K]OEL BOLSTEIN RAQUELO.YiENGST 1 WNYAATT MONDESIRE Secretary y. i.. S.KWEILIN NASSAR DANIEL D.YUN :° .,,.: GERALD S.ROBINSON Assistant Secretary , SYLVIA A.WATERS REv.DR.7AVES EARL GARM€SN,SR. DANIEL L.WZDvCiALL,3R Executi've Director Co WkANULTH OF PlErDISSYLVANIA HOMER C.FL€)YD Human'Rewotm Commission 301+1 n-s-ft it,Suite 300 ffaII°d sbuM,PA 17ioi-27D2 (717)7ft°4410 VOICO W-7)787-4087 TTY =.PhMstata.Pa uS December 14,2010 Sterling Moll 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg PA 17043 RE: Sterling K.Moll v Borough of Wormleysburg Case No.200342759 near Sterling Moll: It has been one year since you filed your complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Camrmission.This is to notify you that you row 1,ave the rift to bring an action ill the appropriate Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas based on the alleged violations of the FHRAct contained in your Commission complaint.Thais*iglu is provided under Section 12(c)oM- e Human Relations.Act,43,P.S.§962(c). Please be advised That you are not required to fl-le such an action in the St&'e Court:of Common Pleas.The Cowin-Assson is continuing to prods your tee,and we iit make eve m., of art to z�oive it as soon as possible.if we are not notified otherwise, vill as fiv wna?e that you viant the Com;-rission ia±ae handEitgg yourr use. 'Tr-- ra 'M :: r mod'+ '!� ai.;.r „'f..+ 'si.?:,. 1�. 8=21 T}.,r r o-ie2t you will l,n a C a ou do M ;}a}i;lixsete.;ia a�.ww-.t f a.f`ss�nnoli L le as,:he.Ca•}"—n- sss`.en vvr sa+sss:'a�iiss yise.. =—npsrzs_aa� _^sssa� s a _��qa u. F?e� ,`•.A`#Ct i'IR'E.°tom#'s1a? `.^L'::"9:,6'C,�,EZ:Y2P.1;' r?.V:eS:'^Y_' tif^'1 ST mob' [iT f',ff_t?T�i_a9f!?'S�6'e"*4?-C'11 :°i =i Le:�s_s^`gc' ,Sk:1if izn.:ii a:}i n 3'}Ti °a4}?.§ z G:}tin`_ . '=-a v�°. G errors"3 i f he t£COT in tbt�iTC}Mre 1 0-u '� ling in S!Ote CO- ���t yd?R33 ti.�?; t� Lx i3:ed befrore Ta �e �t z.. QS•`}dC„4}�,:�SYISC'VA�t jyS5 Y!} S t%!$fFPt iG1 t:_}K.'' T1}SF{,j' ;Cf'.#Rj yO t�tv01z' 'L�LF,1'�tX `.L',�53„ -L�Oii i k97tt f �'iti_v ryi:L`�_f_1'Y}.`^,i7 j ii`sjS ' 7�i t'k:C�.t!}+f f� you in mat acv;on,This should be cone before you rte me co a pia so mat your attorney may advise you on the best woMe-Of action for you l take, you in.±..�l.rrm P'}..,Mt .1 i-..:Rn..s�.... 3^tl..1Nll W.&", A-m 1.Var* nux TJ..3,.a........ f4..a Ff. vuvussa you as e a vesu}Essuasta sad Utu6a,Wtti 1.yvu u¢v sw.peii6�na v� x=wstUt= LS:tV 6.�W.7aLiL S tie111IJ�I VpJ}lLt Llae}Liaa=LW=Q,61WltA rid a aW serve the Hurnar,Relations Cowsrrtission with a copy of-1-he Court c4 mpiaini This cop=y must be served or the Co nmission at the same th e you file i=in cbm t.'M-popy is to iDe sent to: P-Alictiael Hwadl}ii`aan,Clais-&–C.€tmse1-Penz'3syi an s Elm=Relations Commies o� 301 Chestnut Street-Suite 300 P.O.Box 3145 Ha-i isburg,PA 171!05 3145 -as you$ve any qu.esz?om ir:nceern=n this 3rA ater,Pease fee firee to Contact'd veslu@ AD.'s3laho is h+'c�nfflhig y, cme. Edward Rxg�e.—, d Dimtor of k"01niNiallce r lR:=w fj >, .lR Ff f2 S'S t t-r e�� ms's § ° �tl.% {kf�Yh a � r, �'.�r.r. ��{�`s t�iER s a�•�i._ :'f�".i far-3;:"4 'z# •r-- ,r ri - ..d 3 i � �. # '�a, - -rQ `s ;1 o Ol f����c ,. *_-�°•'�,'��^'';�"�: p�� ��" nr.`�`-sue.-°e.��r��.r°.�="'� ��'�'�'�'� 3$j Q �3;���=�,,-y�R ��^'�';5'?�'"s :77'• J Y Lo .ear y 3 o off'` ' _ t 3 a..Y,t `- I iile VMrrmI�YS�fe;4urough Cmttttil'Is - requesting engli-,eering Or-aPasals ior de- _•> 819rt_arwd mw' sirueuun +.vorB jor-.ta- - - stalh>Yon of ADA Curd Ramps.tit*lie in- . - This A1^OIact IS:faSltfatJ,(ty •:• 'a CC)BG Gidnl Pbhn uzust- tv..ply €vYbmlt:Y-5 p'o 1 a i e scams ul`aaatk la ille v Grm si%�sire 8or- :r aus i Hail,2Q Rar" street warmlevs- }:tr,; PA..T7$k3 Prap=Is V411 be re- sa '!3 V, � - - 1 ! � { .4.a.����LT�y�,g.r•f�� t/•�; Ea p' Eyy,sNV'bi,(S� �"� vt, a 1 ' E� N ' � P IVL FC ILY _- Y om:% • 6 j .Rf'. +' .Y P.- `-X0.120M enil_n►e.com and yP I o ,ces-com °aid,'+`. cff date of this notice with the Secretary of-: may be obtained from the Borough:of- ¢R�QUEST FOR BID>c r •: Ihe.PUC;P.O.Box 3265;Harrisburg,PA ftce at 20 Market Street Wormleysburg, T(te Dauphin County,Gerteral'Aufhoo- 043. ty i5 b� 17105.3265.You should send copies of PA-17 seeking bids for:lanitorfal services Fce any protest M CES s attorney atthe ad Each:bid sttoil be seated, properly for'fhe 100 Chestnut,Street.Office Build= Box dress listed below. marked as'ADA Curb Ramps at Second big.located at 100 Chestnuf,S!reei,._Her- By and through Counsel:Mickey Moon: Street and Walnut SireeY and addressed rltWra,PA 17101. The coverage arva is the CENTERPOiNT ENERGY SERV- `: to the Wormleysburg Borough Council, cpproximately36;000 so ft. Ices,INC. 7 20 Market Street Wormleysburg, PA Bid Packages may Je-re�iesfed'by.: ,- 1111 Louis(ond Sulte.9600 __.,.f 17043, or.delivered not later than 3:00 contacting Jennifer LairWier::at..(717) rhleh Houston,TXF7e(!2 p.nl.Eastern Daylight Swings.Tlme one 4851627. if eau would -walk-Jo 713-207-7231 j the.above-metittoned-date to ft o,Bar? the !wilding prior to submitting a bld, ..LC 723-207,0101 ouch Building. Withdrawal of bids afteR Please schedule.when requesting the bid r-- - opening of.the bids shall be In accord; package. Ali.bids must be-sealed and ance-with 73.P.S.Section 160? submitted to this office,no later than Cc- €�3`Y A certifted check or.bld bond-In the tobee 14,2011 at 1:00.PM .:At that time 2' tyy0&ca S�(' arno0nt'equal to ten(10)o.perce- t,of the all bids will be opened'. No e-mails':oir r .•S b, f bid Price shall occompan all•bids. A taxes accepted. - Performance Bond in the amount of Cynthia L Beratko, Executive Direc- BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG, 100%.of the-contract amount will be re- for CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PA au(red of the successful bidder. 4 Dauphin County General Authority. Sidled bids will'-be received by the sSIQN Ttie"'Borough, Council reserves the 4•:530 S:Harrlsburo5lreet 13nrough Council of 'the Borough of right to relect arty or all bids or waive Harrisburg,PA T7113 rgy Wormleysburg, Cumberland Coup*,., technical.defects:and to accept.any bids )vdl To Pennsylvania, at.fhe:Borough Building that it may deem M be in Me best utter- BY ORDER OF THE BOARD located 01.20 Morket:'-Street'Until-3:00' !Elea estoftheBorough. Barbara A.Zemlocr Chairperson. avic6e p.m.Eastern FJOYlight Savi..8s Time on This protect is being assisted with fed ..David'M.Transue,Vice Chairman sultdA't October 7;2011,and shall be-opened and eral;-Comrnunity Development Block David W.Shannon,Secretary ?piYln' :read immediately thereafter on the .Grant (CDBG) funds provided ihrowh William D.lechl,Treosvrer Com-• some day.Award or relectton of the bids'. Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.•As' Douglas S. Gelder,. Assistant %viii be made at o special meeting the such;1i Is or may be subfect to several Secretary/Assistant Treasurer `"on with Borough.'Council scheduledlar October federal provisions including payment of Com.1 11, 2011 at-7:30 P.m. Eastern Daylight federdl wage rates, Section 3, and utl �suppW SavingsTlme.. {{zatlon`of minority-and'wameno 1.Construction of four (4)ADA curb a broker, romps at the intersection of Second business enterprises Details are cone led in the talned In the bid documents. Street and Walnut Street (S.R. 0011) , _ generation r ;Ielectrld- and all Improvement related thereto in- ihoutalf t dicated on the Highway Occupancy iy re choo lcf TZCG`i lsions of the Permit Pion for ADA Curb Ramps-:Sec- I seeking bids for a used van with a 35L �- J .ustonter end St &Walnut St'.prepared by Snydr f aerial llft,SpeGtications for bid are -en Secary-&Assoclafes,LLC,dated Au- _ v .. -avullable on the District's website at For all our Rec:ruitinent applica- I. gust if 201]. iw�vw.rdlderWeb.orgarbycohracting your 'itfitlesso - All areas of tents designated.In- Bl llMetter,DirectorofOperationsat Advertisin need �ifitnessot , Contract Documents are located.9n tiie t! 8' - ,_s•,both cEW -lys of the t Borough'of Wormleysburg, Cumberland {717-Wednesday,ext.3000:Bid 12th at p.be in-print and online;Cell. ' County,Pennsylvania,and must.be.con on Wednesday,October 12th at 1:30 p.m . 255-8207 Mor-L'through' {n the Coherence Ra mattheAdmiitls- } ducted in accordance with sold Contract , 'Fr id or eitia£l find l Documents/Specifications. Middle own, tv at 55 West Water Street,. classifiects0 nco.com •ssifie& All work must be completed'by ninety;, Middletown,PA 17057. - P (90)days from.iheMotice of Award.Pre- _ =ind `, vailing wage provisions shall app{Y for For ail yourRecraiitnelit Xe Too. t this Protect...Refer to Appendix A for op- Ads �,ads,both in The Plfcabte cyage rates,effective August 5, tint:and onii»e,call 255-5207 tsusics�cs 4. ywhere! 2011. Mon.through Friday,.oremat!- clrc r6Copr��nGF"F afoul -classifieds nco.com Contract documents//sspeeificctfons @P — --- ' .`- 00. Aff ' kit ; .•.k. n 0 a / Y �.r S ' .•1r .a_ .: ` `�-- 4%•4.`� ._ %L-l.l,.�:... -�:;-`�.c-C ' ..N'C✓F+ Lx2-f •..;..- ,J}�?c..p;,:Y t,rk;,•�e S"�+•`-+k,. (,..,ty^-t"!�L r.�:-s ��.t.��� � i'v' a `�; �i��,.'i..:-'1"L-/^a Ale �' k:�� �;�i mss?••tl� . ^L• •- .�..sibs•� P lr �S.J:.'t.15.,. -:•(•✓..✓V"'�•e•'L. � >5 r •4.:w^d['�.�o.h1 C!••t•r' ,.✓ " bey 1'.• t� € 6 5. '•� iS 3 ���y,```�n.rss:- �>° ¢ ��s..,d✓`✓�:� /'/':ter� '%;:,,�,,, • Jay CIVIL ACTIONS Rule 1024 "A-motion requesting sanctions under this rule denial of fact shall state that the averment or denial is tiled in the trial court before the entry of final true upon the signer's personal knowledge or informa- tion and belief and shall be verified. The signer need April 2Z-2002,effective July 1,2002. not aver the source of the information or expectation of ability to.prove the averment or denial at the trial. A Explanatory Comment-2002 " pleading may be verified upon personal knowledge as to rianatory Comment following Rule 10211. a part and upon information and belief as to the remainder. "= E323.3. Sanctions upon Rule to Show Note: See Definition Rule 76 for definition of"verified." C - ause - (b) If a pleading contains averments which are mcon- -.its own initiative, the court may enter an order sistent in fact,the verification shall state that the signer x. g the specific conduct:that appears to violate has been unable after reasonable investigation to ascer- 161 c and directing an attorney, law firm or ( ) fain which of the inconsistent averments, specifying to show cause why it has not violated Rule them, are"true but that the signer has knowledge or h'2(c)with respect thereto. information sufficient to form a belief that one of them d April 22,2002,effective July 1,2002. is true. ., Explanatory Comment-2002 (c) The verification shall be made by one or more of explanatory Comment following Rule 1023.1. the parties filing the pleading unless all the parties (1) lack sufficient knowledge or information, or (2) are <M 1023.4. Sanctions outside the jurisdiction of the court.and the verification a)(1) A sanction imposed for violation of Rule of none of them can be obtained within the time .1 shall be limited to that which is'sufficient to deter allowed for filing the pleading. In such cases, the tition.of such conduct or comparable conduct by verification may be made by any person having suffi- similarly situated. cient knowledge or information and belief and shall set forth the source of the person's information as to .) Subject to the limitations in subdivision (b), the matters not stated.upon his or her own knowledge and on may.consist of,or include, the reason why"the verification is not made by a party. "(i) directives of a nonmonetary nature; including Adopted June 25,1946;effective Jan.1,1947. Amended Oct. .° striking of the offensive litigation document or 16, 1981,imd.effective; April 12, 1999,effective July 1,1999. on of the litigation document, Explanatory Comment-1981 (ii) an order to pay a penalty into court,or, J Verification of Documents `_"(iii) if imposed on motion, and warranted for ective deterrence, an order directing payment to n pt t Section d it the Judicial Code introduced"the concept that an affidavit "includes an unworn document e movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys' containing statements of fact and a statement by a signatory ices and other expenses incurred as a direct result of that it is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.`§ 4904 the violation. (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities)." The word Except in exceptional circumstances, a law firm "4rified"was similarly defined. be held jointly responsible for violations commit- This concept has been incorporated into Rules of Appellate by its partners,associates and employees. .. . Procedure 102, defining"Verified.statement," and 561, gov- erning "Form of IFP Verified Statement." Rule of Civil st a o arty for violation of awarded Procedure 1920.72, relating to the form of complaint under represented P Section 201(c)and(d)of the Divorce Code of 1980,provides a 3A(e)(2). similar form of verification. Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the These amendments extend the concept of the verified 's initiative unless the court issues its order to show statement to the Rules of Civil Procedure generally. The e i5 before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the definitions of"affidavit"and"verified"in Rule 76 have been 4. s made by or against the party which is,or whose enlarged to include two alternatives: an affidavit or verified torneys are,to be sanctioned. document may contain(1)the usual oath or affirmation before a notary or other person authorized to administer oaths or(2) r...(c) When imposing sanctions,the court shall describe a statement by the signer that it is made subject to the penalties conduct determined to be a violation of Rule 1023.1 of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unworn falsification to n d explain the basis for the sanction imposed. authorities. opted April 22,20024-effective July 1,2002- Conforming amendments are made to Business of the Court Rule 206 and to Assumpsit Rules 1024(a)and(b),and 1035(a) Explanatory Comment=-2002 and (d), and to Discovery Rules 4006(a)(1} and 4014(b). `. See lanato Comment followin Rule 1023.1. II. Definition of Prothonotary ''�Rtrl Definition.Rule 76 presently contains no definition of the e 1024. Verification word "prothonotary." However, many-6f the Rules of Civil (a} Every pleading containing an averment of fact Procedure confer powers and impose duties upon the office of appearing of record in the action or containing a prothonotary and the termer is used throughout the Rules. - % 97 a"Z- e � y ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK & DEMILLE Attorneys at Law Staff Counsel Office of Selective Insurance Company of America Mark B.Zirulnik A+ Suite 330 Marc Myers 0 Margaret A.Sherlock*A+ William a P.Munyon•+e Louis J.DeMille,Jr.a 309 Fellowship Road Arthur E.Donnelly III A Mount Laurel,New Jersey 08054 Stephen G.Sobocinski e0 A NJ Bar +NY Bar 0 PA Bar John J.Duffy 1110 f CT Bar Telephone: (856)778-3220 Thomas F.Miller AO 'Certified by the Supreme Court of Facsimile: 856 778-3222 Denise L.Werner AO NJ as a Civil Trial Attorney ( ) John D.Kearney 0 "Certified by the Supreme Court of Kevin W.Lynch AO New Jersey Offices also in East Hanover and Hamilton,New Jersey Beth A.Wright A as a Workers'Compensation Attorney April 25, 2013 Cumberland County CCP Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 1:7013 Re: Moll v. Wormleysburg Borough Cumberland CCP,No. 13-271 Claim No.: 21293067 Our File No.: P-4353-EPA-022013 Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed please find an original and two (1) copy of the Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in connection with the above matter. Please file the original with the court and return the time stamped copy in the enclosed, self-addressed stamped envelope. Very truly yours, Jo' D. Kearney JDK/ik Encl. cc: Sterling K. Moll (w/encl.) ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK&DEMILLE NOTICE TO PLEAD By: John D. Kearney, Esquire You are hereby notified to file a written response IDENTIFICATION NO.: 44207 to the enclosed pleading within twenty(20)days 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 from service hereof or a judgment may be entered Mt. Laurel,NJ 08054 against you. 856-778-3220 (phone); 856-778-3222 (fax) Attorney for Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough STERLING K. MOLL : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. NO: 13-271 WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH Defendant. DEFENDANT, WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough, by and through their attorney, John D. Kearney, Esquire, hereby answers Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and,therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. This paragraph requires no response pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Denied. This paragraph requires no response pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof(hereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 7. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2 12. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in 3 this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and,therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and, therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Answering Defendant is without 4 knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and,therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint and,therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 26. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 26. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 27. Denied, After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in 5 1 this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 30. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover,the allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in 6 this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 34. ' After reasonable investigation,Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 37. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 38. Denied After reasonable investigation,Answering Defendant is without 7 knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 39. Denied. After reasonable investigation;Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph"of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 40. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and,therefore,Answering Defendant denies the allegations and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 42. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 43. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading. Strict proof of these averments is demanded at trial. 8 NEW MATTER 1. If it is determined that Answering Defendant is liable on the Plaintiffs cause of action, Answering Defendant avers that Plaintiffs recovery should be eliminated or reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act,42 Pa. C.S.A. § 7102. 2. It is further averred that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as alleged, they were caused solely and primarily by Plaintiffs own carelessness, recklessness and negligence. 3. It is further averred that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as alleged, they were caused solely and primarily by Plaintiffs own carelessness,recklessness and negligence. It is further averred that if the Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as alleged. they were caused solely and primarily by the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of third parties unknown to Answering Defendant and over whom Answering Defendant had no control. 4. It is further averred by Answering Defendants that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as alleged, said Plaintiff by his conduct assumed the risk of those injuries or damages. 5. The situs referred to in Plaintiffs Complaint is owned by parties other than the Answering Defendant and the responsibility for its care,maintenance and supervision rests solely upon said party and/or persons or entities unknown to the Answering Defendant and over which the Answering Defendant has no control, and Answering Defendant is in no way responsible for its condition. 5. It is further averred by Answering Defendant that the Plaintiffs cause of action is barred by the appropriate Statute of Limitations 9 7. The injuries and damages claimed in Plaintiff s Amended Complaint were not caused by the actions or inactions attributed to Answering Defendant. 8. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his injuries and damages claimed in the Amended Complaint. ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK&DeMILLE By: hn D. Kearney, Esquire (J Dated: April 25, 2013 10 ay VERIFICATION 1,JOHN D.KEARNEY,ESQUIRE,hereby state that I am the attorney for the Defendant in the within action and verify that the averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing are true based upon my personal knowledge, information and belief. If the foregoing contains averments which are inconsistent in fact,I have been unable,after reasonable investigation,to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true,but do have knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief that one of them is true. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Y\ JOHMP. KEARNEY,ESQUIRE Dated: April 25, 2013 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John D. Kearney, Esquire hereby certify that on April 25, 2013, 1 forwarded a true and correct copy of Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to all parties listed below via United States First Class Mail,postage prepaid: Sterling K. Moll 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg,PA 17043 Jo . Kearney. Esquire 12 ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK & DEMILLE Attorneys at Law Staff Counsel Office of Selective Insurance Company of America Mark B.Zirulnik e+ Suite 330 Marc Myers 0 Margaret A.Sherlock+A+ William P.Munyon*•A Louis J.DeMille,Jr.A 309 Fellowship Road Arthur E.Donnelly III A Mount Laurel,New Jersey 08054 Stephen G.Sobocinski AO A NJ Bar +NY Bar 0 PA Bar John J.Duffy 1110 L CT liar Telephone: (856)778-3220 Thomas F.Miller AO 'Certified by the Supreme Court of Denise L.Werner AO NJ as a Civil Trial Attorney Facsimile: (856)778-3222 John D.Kearney 0 "Certified by the Supreme Court of Kevin W.Lynch AO New Jersey Offices also in East Hanover and Hamilton,New Jersey Beth A.Wright A as a Workers'Compensation Attorney May 3, 2013 Cumberland County CCP Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary One Courthouse Square Carlisle,PA 17013 Re: Moll v. Wormleysburg Borough Cumberland CCP,No. 13-271 Claim No. 21293067 Our File No. P-4353-EPA-022013 Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed please find an original and one(1) copy of Defendant's Praecipe for Substitution of Verification. Please file the original with the court and return a time stamped copy. lVery yours, earney JDK/ik Encl. cc: Sterling K. Moll (w/encl.) ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK&DEMILLE : esp �Qu y: John D. Kearney, Esquire IDENTIFICATION NO.: 44207 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 3 Mt. Laurel,NJ 08054 856-778-3220 (phone); 856-778-3222 (fax) Attorney for Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough STERLING K. MOLL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. NO: 13-271 WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH Defendant. PRAECIPE FOR SUBSTITUTION OF VERIFICATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the attached Verification for that of counsel with regard to Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough's Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Respectfully submitted, Dated: May 3, 2013 JO Kearney, q e ' f VERIFICATION I,Gary Beresford,hereby state that I am the authorized representative of defendant in the within action and verifies that the statements or denials made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter,are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made therein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. fr b . . GARY B"RE Dated: P-4353 Moll ' � r /gam 66 S t St ol STERLING K. MOLL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • V. • WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH, DEFENDANT : NO. 13-271 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 6th day of June, 2013, upon consideration of Sterling Moll's Pro Se "Praecipe For Penalties Of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 Relating to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities," the Court finding that there is absolutely no basis in law for the granting of such relief; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Plaintiff's Praecipe for Penalties is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice. By the Court, 4\ 1\ M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Sterling K. Moll, Pro Se Plaintiff 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 John Kearney, Esquire 309 Fellowship Road Suite 330 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 bas ., t*C-.4 injU I,LEL 3 r7 ir- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Allison M. Domday, Esquire V, ID No. 307547 r- un s , 4200 Crums Mill Road -4T; Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3538 CD :_ c Our File No. 06001-tba AMD Attorney for Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados -� STERLING K. MOLL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND.COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 13-271 VS. BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG: CIVIL ACTION—LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL REQUESTED vs. RALPH J. GRANADOS Additional Defendant : ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados, in the above-captioned matter. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY,WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN Date: J` ` ` By: , ALLISON M. DOMDAY, ESQUI ID No. 307547 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3538 Attorney for Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served upon all persons listed below a true and correct copy of the Entry of Appearance in the above-captioned matter this date by regular mail. Sterling K. Moll 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Pro Se Plaintiff John D. Kearney,Esquire Zirulnik Sherlock& DeMille 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 Mount Laurel,NJ 08054 Counsel for Defendant Borough of Wormleysburg MARSHALL,DENNEHEY,WARNER, COLEMAN& GOGGIN Date: (S� "l`T"�3 By: ALLISON M. DOMDAY, ESQUIRE ID No. 307547 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3538 Attorney for Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados s MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN °}�t t � { �i, ���r�= �-��. P#�f3 T H 7 N 0 Tai i•4`r By: Allison M. Domday, Esquire ID No. 307547 21313 JUN 17 Fri 3' 20 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 CUMBERLAND ������ 717-651-3538 PENNSYLVANIA Our File No. 06001-tba AMD Attorney for Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados STERLING K. MOLL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 13-271 VS. BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG: CIVIL ACTION—LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL REQUESTED vs. RALPH J. GRANADOS Additional Defendant : ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT'S PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO DEFENDANT BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG TO FILE JOINDER COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Rule directing Defendant, Borough of Wormleysburg, to file a Joinder Complaint in the above-referenced matter within twenty (20) days of service thereof or risk a judgment of non pros. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL,DENNEHEY,WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN Date: 3 By: �- Allison M. Domday, Esquire ID No. 307547 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3538 Attorney for Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados i 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. 06001-tba AMD Attorney for Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados STERLING K. MOLL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 13-271 VS. BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG: CIVIL ACTION—LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL REQUESTED vs. RALPH J. GRANADOS Additional Defendant : RULE AND NOW, this 1 day of �Lklq-Q� , 2013, upon consideration of the foregoing Praecipe for Rule to File a Joinder Complaint by Additional Defendant,Defendant Borough of Wormleysburg is hereby ordered to file a Joinder Complaint within twenty(20) days hereof or suffer judgment non pros. - � s .. BY THE PROTHONOTARY: r f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Sterling K. Moll 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Pro Se Plaintiff John D. Kearney, Esquire Zirulnik Sherlock &DeMille 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 Mount Laurel,NJ 08054 Counsel for Borough of Wormleysburg MARSHALL,DENNEHEY,WARNER, COLEMAN& GOGGIN Date: By: Allison M. Domday, Esquire ID No. 307547 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3538 ' Attorney for Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados t JUL 1, 0 �UVIBERLAND Co"""" Allla 9-� Mo . v e r f If kd-Al A/� /C-a� Al- y Rwbz s f�X v v co 13 ) OA,��-t4 fA ,� c .tea,; �iJV,,dG •I,,n .-mil ,�� d 9 til X�3--�i�.�h✓ x r ,ell � V h f ' � t I . � I3 ; PA 00413 STERLING K. MOLL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH, DEFENDANT NO. 13-271 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT - AND NOW, this 6th day of June, 2013, upon consideration of Sterling Moll's Pro Se "Praecipe For Penalties Of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 Relating to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities," the Court finding that there is absolutely no basis in law for the granting of such relief; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Plaintiffs Praecipe for Penalties is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice. By the Court, `t M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Sterling K. Moll, Pro Se Plaintiff 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 John Kearney, Esquire 309 Fellowship Road Suite 330 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 bas !rl C-- _ guz A t,"tor 1�1 e sr r s Via ; 17 711 o T T w A,nA , / 38o54- PA I �I iZ '�17043 STERLING K. MOLL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. =M C= WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH, r- c DEFENDANT < r'a > V. Cz co RALPH J. GRANADOS, ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT NO. 13-271 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of July, 2013, upon consideration of Sterling Moll's Pro Se "Praecipe Requesting Recusal of Honorable Judge M. L. Ebert, Jr., Judge of Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania" and the Court noting that the Plaintiff has stated no valid grounds to support a request for recusal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Plaintiffs Pro Se "Praecipe Requesting Recusal of Honorable Judge M. L. Ebert, Jr., Judge of Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania" is DENIED. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. /Oterling K. Moll, Pro Se Plaintiff 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 A Vohn Kearney, Esquire 309 Fellowship Road Suite 330 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 0 f A /Allison M..Domday, Esquire 4200 Drums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 bas M., t NOTICE TO PLEAD ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK&DEMILLE You are hereby notified to file a written By: John D. Kearney, Esquire response to the enclosed pleading IDENTIFICATION NO. 44207 within twenty (20) days from service 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 hereof or a judgment may be entered Mt. Laurel,NJ 08054 against you. 856-778-3220 (phone); 856-778-3222 (fax) Attorney for Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough STERLING K. MOLL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. NO: 13-271 WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH C) xc-3 �-_- Defendant _ c—) V. RALPH J. GRANADOS Additional Defendant. JOINDER COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANT,BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG AGAINST ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT,RALPH J. GRANADOS Defendant, Borough of Wormleysburg by and through its attorneys, John D. Kearney, Esquire and Zirulnik Sherlock&DeMille, hereby files the following Joinder Complaint against Ralph J. Granados, as Additional Defendant, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff Sterling K. Moll filed an Amended Complaint against Defendant, Borough of Wormleysburg on or about February 27, 2013, a copy of the Amended Complaint is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and is marked as Exhibit"A." 2. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff avers, inter alia, that on or about January 18, 2011, on the southeast corner of North Second and Walnuts Streets (Routes US 11 and 15), he fell out of a wheeled walker onto the sidewalk. See Exhibit"A." 3. The Complaint sets forth claims for liability and damages against Defendant, Borough of Wormleysburg. See Exhibit"A." 4. Defendant, Borough of Wormleysburg hereby incorporates by reference the factual allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint(without admission), but does not adopt them. 5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Borough of Wormleysburg was a political subdivision where the accident occurred. 6. Additional Defendant, Ralph J. Granados, is an adult individual with an address of 127 N. 2nd Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043. 7. At all times material hereto, Additional Defendant, Ralph J. Granados,by virtue of his status as the owner of the property where the accident is alleged to have occurred, was responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the area of the accident. 8. The injuries and damages described by the Plaintiff in his Amended Complaint were directly and proximately caused by the actions and/or inactions of Additional Defendant, Ralph J. Granados. 9. Additional Defendant, Ralph J. Granados breached his duty of care to the Plaintiff and negligently, carelessly and recklessly maintained the sidewalk where the alleged accident occurred. 10. The negligence, carelessness, recklessness and/or other liability producing conduct of Additional Defendant, Ralph J. Granados consisted of, inter alia,the following: a. failure to properly maintain the sidewalk where the accident occurred; b. failure to exercise due care in the maintenance and upkeep of the sidewalk where the accident occurred; C. failure to inspect the sidewalk where the accident occurred; d. failure to warn the Plaintiff of the condition of the sidewalk at the time of the accident; and e. such other acts of negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness as shall be discovered during the course of discovery under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 11. If Plaintiff incurred injuries and/or damage as set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint, which is denied,the same was caused by the negligence, carelessness, recklessness and/or other liability producing conduct of Additional Defendant, Ralph J. Granados. 12. If Plaintiff incurred injuries and/or damages as set forth in the Plaintiff's Complaint, which is denied, the negligence, carelessness, recklessness and/or other liability producing conduct of Additional Defendant, Ralph J. Granados was the direct and proximate cause of the aforesaid injuries and/or damages allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff. COUNT CLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION AND/OR INDEMNIFICATION 13. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein. 14. To the extent that Plaintiff is entitled to any recovery on his Amended Complaint, which is specifically denied, any such liability is that of Additional Defendant, Ralph J. Granados. 15. Further, if Plaintiff incurred injuries and/or damages as set forth in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which is denied, and it is further determined that any such damages were the result of actions or omissions of Defendant Borough of Wormleysburg, then Additional Defendant, Ralph J. Granados is liable over to Defendant Borough of Wormleysburg, and/or is jointly and severally liable with Borough of Wormleysburg and/or owe indemnification or contribution to Defendant Borough of Wormleysburg, on any cause of action set forth in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendant Borough of Wormleysburg respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all parties, with costs. Further, if it determined that Plaintiff is entitled to recovery, which is specifically denied, then Defendant Borough of Wormleysburg respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a judgment against Additional Defendant, Ralph J. Granados, for joint and several liability, contribution and/or indemnification. Respectfully Submitted, To- ,Vt . Kearney, Esllt ire tome for Defendant, Bor gh of Wormleysburg ��~3�(�5../�.t:i{.�y�4/i^ ".�.,<,ri�2�.�1.f•�'y� ..�.(rL1�Y� �a�a,..�`�� r��'�'g y.//v�ir '�� .. ��,.�/1-.{i�'<'(� �'tr�f�,.� '�til�� '� /4_�•_�et��.°t.�..sl,/o-`L"C e�""$'3,�g-(^j �)V l�^�. n t ,.J � �tom' "� .•'"a.'_`-��' `�"`.JaYli�.{LL':'fi xx L Lk PA V7 DA x'7+ '7) 7C :1 , 4-o EXHIBIT A K NX Pr MI? 08 ta� 3 - ,0' 5 16 'Y `1xl�a y R. . 1 7043. C , Ad ICL 1 41 06 C°,u.�►�.n..� ; ,-t,�..�-chi Q�� �' '�0 �'►�t�t�''.e�' P A I F7 a4- d '�'• ::�.5 �� x�-,�rt.�r,,c�s :tea ,�.+v� EXHIBIT A 'r r pa , )i,c. )? to , (C)(1), IT,�?,O_Jov ol 3 ' �.�09® x '759 h D- EXHIBIT A x Za -Zc ALB <Lf taQ V, noileuo � dE rl d . A Z 59. 3, EXHIBIT A $. �.. .,- ' of t-le7- ��. e X73' �d ..t-cccQrJ '►� ---� a��i s -ct.M yr, , e Tai Pty 4' 1 4 EXHIBIT A V. nojloly-� lcroa 64, 10, td rC�!-yc� .�' �r�. :�'�.�w'r-.�.c� r,9�,�-�'►-� .•�t.'�t,.� +�-fit � O r) - .2 ,. EXHIBIT A :z • 2 .14 0 ly a ita - (7 EXHIBIT A d ,44a 1 . . '3 b. -39 0-4 4 k c •r 7 EXHIBIT A x �} + .+�pt/rYt_.dpq.�2�f 1 �• ! A�A .� iC7iYLpX _ �� �r r EXHIBIT A r -4 fee of 19'7(o AA," J , P 43 Ph- 9 6-T +Q..-z EXHIBIT A (D Chairperson Commissioners STEPHEN A.GLASSMAN ISMAELARCELAY Vice Chaimperson M.JOEL BOLSTEIN RAQUEL 0.YIENGST 3.WHYATT MONDESIRE Secretary S.KWEILIN NASSAR DANIEL D.YUN GERALD S.ROBINSON Assistant Secretary SYLVIA A.WATERS REV.DR.JAMES EARL GARMON,SR. DANIEL L.WOODALL,3R. Executive Dim etor COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOMER C.FLOYD Human Relations Commission 301 Chestnut,Suits 300 Harrisburg,PA 17301-2702 (717)787.4410 voice (737)787.4087 TTY .. www phic-statapa.us December 14,2010 Sterling Moll 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg PA 17043 RE: Sterling K.Moll v Borough of Wormleysburg Case No.200902759 Dear Sterling Moll: It has been one year since you filed your complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.This is to notify you that you now have the right to bring an action in the appropriate Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas based on the alleged violations of the PHR Act contained in your Commission complaint.This right is provided under Section 12(c)of the Human Relations Act,43,P.S.§962(c). PIease be advised that you are not required to fie such an action in the State Court of Common Pleas.The Commission is continuing to process your case,and we will make every effort to resolve it as soon as possible.Uwe are not notified otherwise, we will assume that you want the Commission to continue handling your case. If you do file a complaint in a Court of Common Pleas,the Commission will dismiss yow complaint.This means that you will be unable to have the Commission decide your case even ifyour complaint is dismissed in State Court because ofa procedural error. Procedural errors may include filing the complaint in State Court in the wrong county or filing in State Court after your time to file has expired.For this mason,you should make every effort to assure that any complaint you file in State Court will be properly filed before you file it If you believe you might want to take your case to State Court,we suggest that you consult a private attorney about representing you in that action.This should be done before you file the complaint so that your attorney may advise you on the best course of action for you to take. �yyShould you file a complaint in State Court,you are required by Section 12(c)(2)ofthe Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to serve the Human Relations Commission with a copy of the Court complaint This copy must be served on the Commission at the same time you file it in Court.The copy is to be sent to: Michael Hardiman,Chief Counsel-Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission 301 Chestnut Street-Suite 300 P.O.Box 3145 Harrisburg,PA 17105-3145 If you have any questions concerning this matter,please feel flee to contact the investigator who is handling your case. .+f Very truly yours, 1 Edward Rogers - Director of Compliance , E]R:cmw �:� EXHIBIT A 20 13.JA I i F)I 37 PA 11-0*3 NT AR X01 010 --4r 30o Vf9 14 1 10 --�--A I A. � �-=�-�- ju�� .d�-�..�.-mss � ' ''"yea► SfevII m �(• N��1f1 QVe� EXHIBIT A • r• �' Rsa�iesttor:?I'aPCSats�...: ., Tfn worinlsy.9liarp Bat'of{a}�Coiirigl'IS . ��GUQEt1np:Qn0lndartna PrgpaII014 far d9- :�',T . stt¢��n omf5 1an.vw# ;.- sjttlltiHoW . D�CUrb Ratnpg`af the ln- ;tafs�cttoil,Pt Routaq•'.MS,ono•North' :5edort1d'•54' ?T6ft.IslT�aaO:by . a.CDRG: " -'ii+dgt Cumtiarlbnd Chun- ,y . tY...,F�(}Cllq;'.i6Vbn17�_Ya'1n' _qqS('and :'s�oDgO?t4�Ot1glilittb-,}eyO�tHIeY�4r9:B.Qr- ':au OU,{Ih H411;' iVIO ,$} L Wu'IntOVt. ao •. be re. A • .. .. nom.-•�. .•.Y,'I�E� . = e v. oW pilk Ore C r gtzaj A6. EXHIBIT A I P.H m � •.�� .�§ ..�` °ra���• 5:5 $8 1.3�� es air 4141 uj Ai $ . g .�:. - -� € s . e� •� gym. , IIIJJJ 2^4 ECFFaIN � 3 �: � dill RM m Qi -vs:`, a �, e 8 �'• is �.. i a ° � time - P, .; _ ' win: • ,- - .1 • PENNSTATE HERSHEY Penn State Hershey Tel:(717)531-8055 Milton S. Hershey Medical Center M11t6n S. Hershey Health Information Services, HUM Medical Center 500 University Drive �• P.O. Box 850 Hershey, PA 17033-0850 fr Patient Name: MOLL, STERLING K Visit Number: 15514183 MRN: 0182747 Visit Type: Clinic Date of Birth: 1/2/1932 Patient Location: PC13 Patient Gender. Male Outpatient Note RESULT STATUS: Final DOCUMENT SUBJECT: ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED BY: Gaivan,Dan A(1/28/201105:09 EST). OUTPATIENT NOTE Name: MOLL, STERLINGIC HMC Number: 182747 ; DOB: 01/02/1932 ° Date of Service: 01/24/2gl 1 Established patient clinic visit: Mr. Moll is a.patent well known to me who has a large inclsional hernia which has been repaired multiple times. He also has a fistulous drainage emanating from the left side of the abdomen. It is most likely that he has a-chronic low-grade infection of underlying mesh. Because of his ongoing b"rade infection and the size of his hernia,it will be impossible to fix this abdominal wall hernia, especially in•light of his comorbidities. Thus, I have NOT-recommended that he undergo a hemia repair. Significantly, Mr.Moll had a previous CAT scan in June of last year that demonstrated an asymmetrical marked thickening of the pylorus with narrowing of the lumen as well as a large filling defect within the distended stomach. A neoplasm could not be excluded and according to my recollection,we had set him up for a GI fllowup, but this was never completed. Thus we are going to send him again for referral to the Endoscopy Clinic for upper endoscopy to evaluate for a neoplasm. Followup In the General Surgery clinic will be on a PRN basis. 18742 Electronic Signature on File •" Electronically ReWemd/Signed by: Dan A Gaivarr, MD Author Signature Dtlft 2&01.2011 05:09 AM DAG/CO DD: 0124/11 DT- 01/25/t 102.04 c. DatelTme Printed: 1/11/2013 14:10 EST Page 1 of 3 Printed By: Stevey,Sarah L y'k EXHIBIT A ;.: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Sterling Moll, Complainant V. PHRC Case No. 200902759 Borough o Wormleysburg, Respondent FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS In this two-Count Complaint, Sterling Moll, the Complainant contended that the Borough of Wormleysburg, the Respondent, first, failed to provide a reasonable accommodation at Borough Meetings for his severe loss of hearing: specifically, Complainant * requested that all members of the Borough Council speak clearly into the six microphones on the tables* in front of them, and that an additional microphone be given to all other guest speakers. Secondly, Complainant contended that Respondent failed to. have property owners repair and maintain their sidewalks and curbs so that Complainant could safely walk on the sidewalks. Complainant specifically stated that the sidewalks along North Second Street failed to meet minimum accessibility requirements in that there were uneven pavement, tripping hazards and rises. Adequately maintained sidewalks were necessary because of Complainant's permanent disabilities related to lumbar spinal stenosis, spondylosis, radiculopathy and _degenerative ^disk disease, _which placed _ �mpiainarlt at permanent risk of falls and required him to have use .assistive devices in order to walk. SUMMARY OF RESPONSE Respondent admitted, first, that Complainant had requested all members :of the Borough Council speak clearly into the six microphones placed on the tables in front of them, and that Complainant had requested that an additional microphone .be given to all other Obest speakers. Second, Respondent admitted that it had instructed property owners to repair their sidewalks and curbs, and that it had','-,-taken such action as authorized by the Borough's Code of Ordinancesrand the Pennsylvania Borough Code. EXHIBIT A �! SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS A PHRC investigation involved Face-to-Face meetings among the Investigator, Borough Manager and Complainant, and Complainant and Investigatpr alone, group on-site inspection of Respondent-responsible sidewalk " and intersection properties, and review of relevant documentation and records. t Considering the Reasonable Accommodation-Hearing Loss allegations first. Investigation determined that since at least June 2, 2006, Complainant and Respondent had attempted to resolve Complainant's hearing' accommodation request(s). Respondent purchased an electronic amplification device for Complainant to use at Council meetings.. However, its effectiveness was limited. Thereafter, Respondent installed a public address system with. multiple microphones for use at Borough Council meetings. Subsequently, Respondent purchased and installed an add-on mixer and a microphone to be used. by the public at Borough meetings. At the January 6, 2010, Face-to-Face meeting among the PHRC, Complains{ht and Mr. Berresford, Borough Manager, Respondent agreed th'Pt: it would purchase two additional microphones and an improved bmplifer in time for the next Borough Meeting of February 8, 2010. In iddition, Complainant would have a reserved seat next to the public microphone stand. Mr. Berresford would be seated immediately to Complainant's left, at the Council table, should clarification of Member comments be needed by Complainant. Complainant agreed that if these actions improved his ability to hear the proceedings, he would consider them sufficient to settle the matter of Count 1 of the instant Complaint. On February 12, 2010, Complainant informed the PHRC that he had seen the `new microphone and seating arrangement, and that he ----°-- acceptect-that-arrangement., In his March 1tT 2010,Yte�er- -- - to the PHR:,C, Complainant affirmed that he had attended the March 9, 2010, Reg,,ular Monthly council Meeting. He found a Reserved seat for him in fr�+nt of a "guest" microphone. Importantly, Complainant reported t.0at "for me the hearing problem was much better," and when the Borough officials spoke "directly into the microphones, most times I could clearly understand what was said; the same for the citizen speakers." Lastly, in Complainant's March 18, 2010, letter to Respondent's Borough Officials, he informed that at the March 9, 2010, Regular Monthly Borough Council Meeting, he sat in the assigned/reserved seat, near the recently provided microphone for citizen/guest speakers and "I could hear the borough officials speaking •much better" when they spoke directly into the microphones on the'tables. u EXHIBIT A Thereforer; regarding Count One of this Complaint, the evidence showed that Respondent was responsive to Complainant's requests regarding his hearing impairment. And in as much as the Complainant expressed both to Respondent and the PHRC that the accommodations in place as of March 9, 2010, were satisfactory, Count One of the Complaint was deemed satisfactorily resolved. Regarding Count Two and the maintenance of Borough sidewalks, investigation found that during the calendar year 2009, Respondent issued several hundred violation notices and approximately 17 non- traffic citations for unsafe sidewalks. In addition, on April 14, 2010, a team from the PHRC Harrisburg Regional .Office conducted an on-site sidewalk and intersection inspection of Respondent's property, which involved 'measurements for ADA compliance and photographs of potential "violations of ADA standards. As a result of this on-site inspection,, and Legal guidance which clarified what responsibilities a Borough 'ad regarding ADA compliance questions, it was determined that thee' only sidewalks and curbs directly maintained by Wormleysburg Borough which showed ADA-non-compliance were: the curb cut at Market & South 2nd street which had an excessive slope of 15.2; the curb cut at the southeast corner of North 2nd & Chestnut streets which had a storm/sewer grate as part of the curb cut; and that there were no curb cuts at any of the corners of the intersection of North 2nd and Walnut Streets (Routes 11/15). s The PHRC informed Respondent of its findings. In response, on November 28, 2011, it was confirmed that the curb cut at the southeast corner of North 2nd & Chestnut streets had been corrected and was ADA compliant. On June 25, 2012, it was verified that ADA compliant bcurb cuts had been made at the intersection of Walnut (Routes 1.j/15) & North 2nd Streets. And on July 23, 2012, it was verified th'at the excessive slope(s) of the curb cuts at Market & South 2nd stree0were made ADA compliant. Therefore, as of July 23, 2012, -when it-w4s-c nfrhled'-that al'i Respondent-responsible-properties were - - now ADA 'Compliant, full remedy has been achieved for Count Two of the...instant`Complaint. DETERMINATION The evidence gathered during the investigation proved that Respondent ,-ABIs'`:initially not in compliance with the PHRAct or the ADA. Sub§ quent to the investigation, Respondent has sufficiently aggamodated Complainant at its borough meetings and has made th*-# calks it has responsibility for accessible. C' a� EXHIBIT A O • j 2 0 t l j ,ten .�Et•cc� 1 ahe�-" s K. me IPA 1' 043 � 3 - 4-a 2 Q PBE M y EXHIBIT A •..� ":�,..L.. �1' /u•"'1.� d � ',�!` � ` ,..�f�..�:t_'..a+G•'1�"C•�i1 i.�A:l.�'"s''L'��' �-�'�^ .�iV'r'} /l i�b. 27" tom' -c'"c`d'bY Y�✓� s `�4 J {% ,try F,/ ,��{(}. :J i ' � /� .�• Y (" r'��i[."�' `' .'C•C•••-"Q� •i"1�Y.4:C`Y tj .rt"i.'V',l+ �J �4 K. !1!411} r✓ CL/' 4:H'"IJ�/�'L.L,C] .�/�\'��t l t 1i.�� ../s>�f'11'!l��L2� :��J /'f�_tf'I ti •/{�C�'✓1 ��rs•�✓t��^',1 �-L• ,v `� ..� t. L'-Py'Lc:,�..%�."4.(.C.-i;%r1, 1 �1. �ttv ?� f EXHIBIT A VERIFICATION I, JOHN D. KEARNEY, ESQUIRE, hereby state that I am the attorney for Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough in the within action and verify that the averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing are true based upon my personal knowledge, information and belief. If the foregoing contains averments which are inconsistent in fact,I have been unable,after reasonable investigation,to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true,but do have knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief that one of them is true. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. JO ARNE , E 4Q ��L r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John D. Kearney, Esquire, hereby certify that on July 22, 2013 I forwarded a true and correct copy of a Joinder Complaint on all parties listed below via United States First-Class Mail, postage prepaid: Sterling K. Moll 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Allison M. Domday, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman& Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Jo . Kearney, Esquire ZIRULNIK SHERLOCK& DEMILLE Jahn Q. Kearney, Esquire I1IENTIFICATION NO.: 44207 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 Mt. Laurel,NJ 08054 856-778-3220 (phone); 856-778-3222 (fax) Attorney for Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough STERLING K. MOLL : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. : DOCKET NO: 13-271 WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH • Defendant, • • v. • -a • RALPH J. GRANADOS • Additional Defendant. -T.f ^k PRAECIPE FOR SUBSTITUTION OF VERIFICATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the attached Verification for that of counsel with regard to Defendant, Wormleysburg Borough's Joinder Complaint. Respectfully submitted, Jo Kearney, Esq re Dated: August 5, 2013 6 VERIFICATION I, Gary Beresford, hereby state that I am the Township Manager for Wormleysburg Borough in the within action and verify that the averments of facts contained in the foregoing Joinder Complaint are true based upon my personal knowledge, information and belief If the foregoing contains averments which are inconsistent in fact, I have been unable, after reasonable investigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true, but do have knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief that one of them is true. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. GARY BE S ORD Dated: 3/41510/43 P-4353 Moll • '1 17G U , �4 OZ 2 A Of • _ . v. lt't,o. ; 13- 2 r V ir�4 , tvt �d F M i Of qojllvn. -� ° 8 CL tea den. _ Of ,t y mip VQQ a-Yl , 4. Q, e"/mss 4x vy 4 4� t j4v►�4,isyQ�'} StlJ � �VJ��,✓J +6� .E pxy v4 .r J "zy-- ice,' '�J�/f 7� �� U t _ min v w c o-� CL -f&A Y, Z 5-4 �. cy PH kc ri qf)uP }A-,go 10 k� ' (4-) 4onyl WU°p o AA ����c� � � .�—Y-�t,c `�d ���✓fin � - f , e � � r cl. i I h y Q �P, �. Lo ails 1 -3. ADfAZ14" aA J � ��`��gyp -.,��� , o �--y►�__((�� ct-) ' jo So' , �vrL-cwgr.�Pli V � Y16* CAP- ` -5N tL ? A4 ��-tie ark► "�, --&R V 9. 54 Aa.• v �ew� 3�J� X86 A aid IL opyyy • 09 OlIe cf WRA �ca�e'SI�3�2o13 ni7. � �3• o �z ) FAi ' • MON AD 13, R a 13J � ✓�-fie 000nu�� 1r�� �cvl� • '��v,-off! N a B a5'4� n \!co rn MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Allison M. Domday, Esquire ID No. 307547 " 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 �C� -� 717-651-3538 c� Our File No. 06091-01239 Attorney for Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados STERLING K. MOLL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 13-271 vs. BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG: CIVIL ACTION—LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL REQUESTED VS. RALPH J. GRANADOS Additional Defendant : JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND THE JOINDER COMPLAINT The parties, through undersigned counsel, hereby Stipulate and Agree as follows: 1. On or about July 25, 2013, Defendant Borough of Wormleysburg filed a Joinder Complaint against Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados. 2. The parties, through their undersigned counsel, stipulate to the Amendment of the Joinder Complaint as follows: a. Any and all allegations of recklessness are stricken, particularly those paragraphs on the;Joinder Complaint, 9, 10, 11, 12. b. Paragraph 10(e) of the Joinder Complaint shall be stricken. c. The phrase 'other liability producing conduct" shall also be stricken from the Joinder Complaint at Paragraphs 10, 11, and 12. Page 1 of 3 Respectfully submitted, Zirulnik Sherlock& DeMille By: 1 J0 57i . Kearney, qui 3 wship Road, Suite 0 Mount Laurel,NJ 08054 Attorney for Defendant Borough of Wormleysburg Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin By: ��-- //•" ogc-•--�� Allison M. Domday, Esquire 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados By: Irli Meg Sterling K. Moll ro Se 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Plaintiff Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 21, 2013, I have served upon all persons listed below a true and correct copy of the within document in the above-captioned matter this date by regular mail. Sterling K. Moll 518 North Second Street Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Pro Se Plaintiff John D. Kearney, Esquire Zirulnik Sherlock & DeMille 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 Mount Laurel,NJ 08054 Counsel for Defendant Borough of Wormleysburg MARSHALL, DENNEHEY,WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN Date: 0 -��- 3 By: ALLISON M. DOMDAY, ES IRE ID No. 307547 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3538 Attorney for Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados THE PRO I IHU'3*I,i? ZDI3Noy --8 iiHII: L5 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. 06091-01239 Attorney for Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados STERLING K. MOLL • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS •• CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff •• No. 13-271 vs. • BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG: CIVIL ACTION—LAW Defendant • JURY TRIAL REQUESTED • vs. • RALPH J. GRANADOS Additional Defendant : PRAECIPE FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS To the Prothonotary: Kindly note the change of address of counsel for Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados, 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, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: % / Allison M. omday, 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. 06091-01239 Attorney for Additional Defendant Ralph J. Granados STERLING K. MOLL • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS • CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • Plaintiff . No. 13-271 vs. BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG: CIVIL ACTION—LAW Defendant • JURY TRIAL REQUESTED • • vs. • RALPH J. GRANADOS Additional Defendant : 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 Additional Defendant Granados' Praecipe for Change of Address via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Sterling K. Moll John D. Kearney, Esquire 518 North Second Street Zirulnik Sherlock & DeMille Wormleysburg, PA 17043 309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330 Pro Se Plaintiff Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Counsel for Defendant Borough of Wormleysburg Allison M. Domday