Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-4881 Supreme Co ., 01 ennsylvania Cone , a -IhIn leas For Prothonotary Use Only: . \1 1 C�ver�S�heet Docket No: CurrafierlandT County 3 C. The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. This form. does not supplement or replace the filing and set7)ice ofpleadings or other papers as required bylaw or rules of court. Commencement of Action: S tx Complaint J Writ of Summons i Petition 0❑ Transfer from Another Jurisdiction 0 Declaration of Taking E C Lead Plaintiff's Name: Lead Defendant's Name: Kelli Pines and Sean Pines Tiffanie T. Gorman T Dollar Amount Requested: ©within arbitration limits I Are money damages requested? ER Yes 0 No (check one) 0 outside arbitration limits O N Is this a Class Action Suit? Yes ',x No Is this an MDJAppeal? 0 Yes kX-i No A Name of Plaintiff /Appellant's Attorney: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Check here if you have no attorney (are a Self- Represented [Pro Se] Litigant) Nature of the Case Place an "X" to the left of the ONE case category that most accurately describes your PRIMARY CASE. If you are making more than one type of claim, check the one that you consider most important. TORT (do not include Mass Tort) CONTRACT (do not inchide Judgments) CIVIL APPEALS ❑❑ Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies Q Malicious Prosecution it Debt Collection: Credit Card 17 Board of Assessment fJ Motor Vehicle -1 Debt Collection: Other ® Board of Elections 0 Nuisance J Dept. of Transportation ❑ Premises Liability Fj Statutory Appeal: Other S I3 Product Liability (does not include mass tort) Q Employment Dispute: E k_J Slander /Libel/ Defamation Discrimination C El Other: Employment Dispute: Other 0 Zoning Board T Negligence - Other: I 0 Other: O MASS TORT E Asbestos N 0 Tobacco Toxic Tort - DES IJ Toxic Tort - Implant REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS J Toxic Waste Common Law /Statutory Arbitration B � Other: [I Ejectment E _i 0 Eminent Domain /Condemnation E] Declaratory Judgment i✓" Ground Rent [3 Mandamus 0 Landlord/Tenant Dispute [1 Non- Domestic Relations 0 Mortgage Foreclosure: Residential Restraining Order PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY 0 Mortgage Foreclosure: Commercial 0 Quo Warranto ❑ Dental E Partition 0 Replevin 0 Legal [J Quiet Title >J Other: 0 Medical Other: is Other Professional: Update Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Associates PA Attorney License No. 81924 6 N 1 155 South Hannover Street ; i G, 1 -:' R L A k' D `0 Carlisle, PA 17013 Ci'elSYLVA119 (717) 241 -6070 Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KELLI PINES, and SEAN PINES (Husband and Wife) Plaintiffs DOCKET NO.: 13- V. : TIFFANIE T. GORMAN CIVIL ACTION — LAW Defendant NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORAMTION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street 10 Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 249 - 3166 75���� (800) 990 -9108 ?�� AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 a GT'V3 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the Court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the Court. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Associates PA Attorney License No. 81924 155 South Hannover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241 -6070 Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KELLI PINES, and SEAN PINES (Husband and Wife) : Plaintiffs DOCKET NO.: V. TIFFANIE T. GORMAN CIVIL ACTION — LAW Defendant : COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiffs, Kelli Pines, and Sean Pines by and through their counsel, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, and submits the following: 1. Kelli Pines, (hereinafter Plaintiff) is an adult individual residing at 6230 Peregrine Way, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 in Cumberland County. 2. Sean Pines, (hereinafter Plaintiff Sean) is an adult individual residing at 6230 Peregrine Way, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 in Cumberland County. 3. Tiffanie T. Gorman (hereinafter Defendant) is an adult individual believed to be residing at 39 Sagamore Bend Plaza, Spring, TX 77382. 4. On or about September 22, 2011 Plaintiff at the request of a friend proceeded to Shaull Elementary School to drop off her elementary aged daughter at soccer practice. 5. Upon arrival to Shaull Elementary School a Defendant approached Plaintiff with the full intent of verbally confronting Plaintiff. 6. While in the presence of Plaintiff's two preschool children, Defendant negligently lost emotional control of herself and suddenly without any provocation from the Plaintiff, violently physically assaulted the Plaintiff. COUNT I — NEGLIGENT SELF DEFENSE ASSAULT AND BATTERY- PLAINTIFF 7. The previous paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully set at length. 8. Defendant negligently employed physical force to defend herself during the verbal confrontation with the Plaintiff, where there was no non - negligent basis to believe bodily harm was eminent, and thereafter intentionally did cause a Plaintiff to have a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact, and did in fact have such contact. 9. Defendant's negligence of not refraining from physical contact during what began as a non- physical verbal confrontation with the Plaintiff resulted in Defendant negligently causing harmful, including unneeded offensive, and physical contact with the Plaintiff. 10. Defendant did negligently cause serious injuries to the Plaintiff's facial bones, eye sockets, and eyes resulting in Plaintiff having to seek medical and neurological care as well as an seeing an Ophthalmologist. Plaintiff underwent surgical procedures for the orbital fracture whereas Plaintiff has a permanent synthetic device inserted in her eye socket to properly hold her eye ball in place. Moreover, Plaintiff has the potential of sustained retina detachment resulting in blurred vision. 11. Defendant did thus negligently cause multiple fractures to Plaintiff's face to include but not limited to a broken nose resulting in Plaintiff suffering from ongoing pain, and discomfort, and Plaintiff undergoing reconstructive surgery. 12. Defendant's negligence caused such serve injuries to Plaintiff that she will need to seek ongoing medical care for the numbness in her face, permanent double vision, and severe debilitating headaches. WHEREFORE Plaintiff requests Honorable Court award her compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $50,000.00. COUNT II. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS UPON PLAINTFF 13. Paragraphs 1 -12 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully included therein. 13. Defendant's negligent lack of restraint and subsequent extreme outrageous conduct did show a reckless disregard for the Plaintiff's physical well being which resulted in Plaintiff suffering severe emotional distress. 14. Defendant's negligent lack of restraint and subsequent outrageous conduct went beyond the "bounds of decency" and is regarded by any reasonable person in likeness to the Plaintiff, to be atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 15. Defendant's negligent lack of restraint and subsequent violent conduct did cause Plaintiff severe mental distress with ongoing sleep loss with the discomfort and pain. 16. Defendant's negligence caused Plaintiff such a severe amount of emotional distress that Plaintiff was unable to be alone for an extended time and her spouse had to take time off of work to be with her. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court award her compensatory damages and costs in excess of $50,000.00. COUNT III ASSAULT AND BATTERY- PLAINTIFF 17. The previous paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully set at length. 18. This Count is offered in the alternative to the negligence theory. 19. Defendant employed physical force and thereafter intentionally did cause a Plaintiff to have a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact, and did in fact have such contact. 20. Defendant's physical contact during what began as a non = physical verbal confrontation with the Plaintiff resulted in Defendant intentionally having physical contact with the Plaintiff. 21. Defendant did cause serious injuries to the Plaintiff's facial bones, eye sockets, and eyes resulting in Plaintiff having to seek medical and neurological care as well as an seeing an Ophthalmologist. Plaintiff underwent surgical procedures to repair damage to her optic nerve. 22. Defendant did thus cause multiple fractures to Plaintiff's face to include but not limited to a broken nose resulting in Plaintiff suffering from ongoing pain, and discomfort, and Plaintiff undergoing reconstructive surgery. 23. Defendant's assault caused such serve injuries to Plaintiff that she will need to seek ongoing medical care for the numbness in her face, permanent double vision, and severe debilitating headaches. 24. The Conduct was so outrageous and being intentional does warrant punitive damages. WHEREFORE Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court award her compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $50,000.00. COUNT IV. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM AND ECONOMIC LOSS FOR PLAINTIFF SEAN PINES 17. Paragraphs 1 -16 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully included therein. 18. Plaintiff Sean Pines and Plaintiff Kelli Pines are lawfully joined in the bonds of marriage and enjoy a loving, nurturing, and healthy marriage. 19. Defendant's negligent lack of restraint and aforesaid conduct toward Plaintiff Kelli Pines resulted in the loss of companionship, comfort, and intimacy for both the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff Sean. 20. Defendant's conduct toward Plaintiff Kelli Pines resulted in the economic wage loss to Plaintiff Sean due to having to take off of work to accompany the Plaintiff during her initial recovery from the serious injuries she sustained from the Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court. award compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $50,000.00. Respectfully Submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Date: Q Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 241 -6070 Supreme Court ID #81924 Attorney for Plaintiff Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Associates PA Attorney License No. 81924 155 South Hannover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241 -6070 Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KELLI PINES, and SEAN PINES (Husband and Wife) Plaintiffs DOCKET NO.: V. TIFFANIE T. GORMAN CIVIL ACTION — LAW Defendant VERIFICATION We verify that we are the Plaintiffs and that the statements made in the foregoing Petition are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: e in Date: Sean Ines FILED-OFFICE, ICE OF TI-It PROTHONOTAR f `Y 2013 SEP -9 PM 2. 41 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KELLI PINES and SEAN PINES (Husband CIVIL DIVISION and Wife), Plaintiffs, NO. 2013-4881 V. PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, (Jury Trial Demanded) .Defendant. Filed on Behalf of the Defendant Counsel of Record for This.Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 #20127 L� IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KELLI PINES and SEAN PINES (Husband CIVIL DIVISION and Wife), Plaintiffs, NO. 2013-4881 V. (Jury Trial Demanded) TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, Defendant. PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE TO: THE..PROTHONOTARY Kindly enter the Appearance of the undersigned, Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, of the law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C., on behalf of the Defendant, Tiffanie T. Gorman, in the above case. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED r Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRI15 & $KEEL, P.C. By: h�, squire tovu'nsei for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this Stn day of September, 2013. Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) SUMMERS, McDONNIELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. By: ' vi a ch, Esquire unsei for Defendant 130;T -3 i II: t, , LA tip PEPNNS yLDvANOUNT r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KELLI PINES and SEAN PINES (Husband CIVIL DIVISION and Wife), Plaintiffs, NO. 2013-4881 v. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, (Jury Trial Demanded) Defendant. Filed on Behalf of the Defendant Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 #20127 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KELLI PINES and SEAN PINES (Husband CIVIL DIVISION and Wife), Plaintiffs, NO. 2013-4881 v. (Jury Trial Demanded) TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, Defendant. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND NOW, come the Defendant, Tiffanie T. Gorman, by and through her counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and files the following Preliminary Objections: I. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. According to the Plaintiffs' Complaint this action stems from an incident that occurred on or about September 22, 2011, at Shaull Elementary School. 2. The remainder of the alleged facts are unclear. 3. The Plaintiffs' Complaint contains counts for Negligent Self Defense, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Assault and Battery, and Loss of Consortium and Economic Loss. 4. The Defendant now files these Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiffs' Complaint. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) 5. Preliminary Objections may be filed by any party to any pleading for failure of a pleading to conform to law or an inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter. Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). 6. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1022 requires the Complaint to be divided into paragraphs that are numbered consecutively. 7. The Plaintiffs' Complaint contains duplicate paragraphs numbered 13, 17, 18, 19, and 20. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court require the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint which conforms to Pa.R.C.P. 1022. III. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) 8. Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require that the material facts upon which a cause of action is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1019(a). 9. Preliminary Objections may be filed where a pleading contains insufficient specificity. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3). 10. As noted above, the Plaintiffs allege that their claims stem from an incident that occurred on or about September 22, 2011 at Shaull Elementary School. 11. The Plaintiffs also allege: a. "a Defendant approached Plaintiff with the full intent of verbally confronting Plaintiff;" (Paragraph 5) b. that the Plaintiff did not provoke the Defendant; (Paragraph 6) c. that the Plaintiff did provoke the Defendant as she needed to defend herself from a verbal confrontation with the Plaintiff; (Paragraph 8) d. that the Defendant negligently employed physical force and intentionally caused Plaintiff to have a reasonable apprehension of immediate harm; (Paragraph 8) and e. that the employed physical force was intentional (Paragraph 19). 12. While it is permissible for the Plaintiffs to plead in the alternative, their averment still must give the Defendant notice of the nature of their claims and the grounds upon which they rest, as well as identify the issues essential to his or her claims by stating those essential facts which support their allegations. 13. Absent a clear and concise pleading of the specific and relevant facts upon which Plaintiffs assert their claims against the Defendant, the Defendant cannot provide a knowing and intelligent response to the Complaint and are prejudiced thereby. 14. Based on the above-cited portions of the Complaint the Defendant cannot knowingly ascertain the Plaintiff's position as it is inherently contradictory and vague. 15. Plaintiffs' failure to specifically and concisely set forth all material facts upon which they asserts their claims, substantially limits and may preclude the Defendant from preparing an effective defense thereto. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court require the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint which conforms to Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). IV. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) 16. Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that Preliminary Objection in the nature of a dumurrer may be filed if a pleading lacks legal sufficiency. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4). 17. In this matter, the Defendant avers that the Plaintiffs' claims for negligent self defense, negligent infliction of emotion distress, and punitive damages lack legal sufficiency. a. Negligent Self Defense 18. Count I of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is a claim for negligent self defense. 19. The Defendant has found no case law to support an argument that this type of claim is recognized in Pennsylvania. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court strike Count I of the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. b. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 20. Count II of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. 21. The claim is actually pled consistent with the elements required to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotion distress. 22. While it is admitted that the Plaintiffs' consistently aver in that count that the Defendant's alleged lack of restraint was negligent, the Plaintiffs also incorporate the other paragraphs of their Complaint where intentional conduct is alleged. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court strike Count II of the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. c. Punitive Damages 23. Included in the Plaintiffs' Complaint is a prayer for punitive damages. (See Wherefore clauses following Counts I, III, and IV). 24. In order to be entitled to punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct was outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or her reckless indifference to the rights of others. Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383 (1984); Restatement Second Torts § 908(2). 25. Reckless indifference to the interests of others occurs when "the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character, in disregard of a risk known to him or so obvious that he must be taken to have been aware of it, and so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow." Gollick v. Amsley, 40 Pa. D. & C.3d 284, 285 (1984) (citing Evans v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 418 Pa. 567 (1965). 26. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to aver facts that establish that the Defendant acted with reckless indifference as there are no allegations of evil motive or intent, a pre-requisite for a recovery of punitive damages. 27. Instead the Plaintiffs' claim at least in part that the Defendant acted in self defense, which on its face fails to have an evil motive or intent. 28. Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant her Preliminary Objections and strike all prayers for punitive damages with prejudice. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Tiffanie T. Gorman, respectfully request that this Honorable Court strike Counts I and II of Plaintiffs' Complaint as well as all prayers for punitive damages. Additionally, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court require the Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint which states their claim within the requisite degree of specificity such as to comport with the requirements of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a). Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. By: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 2nd day of October, 2013. Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. By: I Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendant PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) C' '°'' Kelli Pines and Sean Pines t r r , vs. cnr— Tiffanie T. Gorman No. 4881 2013 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrerto complaint, etc.): Defendant's Preliminary Objections 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Karl E. Romminger, Esquire (Name and Address) 155 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 (b) for defendants: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire (Name and Address) 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: December 20,2013 •.na re ,NeAl C124 Print your name Defendant Date: 11/26/13 Attorney for INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2.The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument. 3.The responding party shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT p9 'r ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. a14.4 acil kdt- Ars8cte3 KELLI PINES and SEAN PINES : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (Husband and Wife), : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PLAINTIFFS : PENNSYLVANIA V. TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, _c- m o 3'3. a- r,-; -0 �x ; _ _.: DEFENDANT : 13 -4881 CIVIL TERM x' . �r-.: c"_ a= IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE GUIDO, J., MASLAND, J., AND PECK, J ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of April, 2014, upon consideration of Defendant's Preliminary Objections, the responses filed thereto, and after oral argument, the following is entered: 1. Defendant's Preliminary Objection as to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) is SUSTAINED. Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to cure deficiencies in the Complaint to comply with Pa.R.C.P. 1022. 2. Defendant's Preliminary Objection as to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) is OVERRULED. 3. Defendant's Preliminary Objection as to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) with regards to the claim of Negligent Self Defense is SUSTAINED. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend not inconsistent with the above opinion. 4. Defendant's Preliminary Objection as to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) with regards to the claim of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress is OVERRULED. 13 -4881 CIVIL TERM 5. Defendant's Preliminary Objection as to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) with regards to the claim of punitive damages as to Count III, assault and battery, the Preliminary Objection is OVERRULED. 6. As to Count IV, loss of consortium, Defendant's Preliminary Objection is OVERRULED. Plaintiffs shall have twenty (20) days to file an amended complaint. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. E. Rominger, Esquire For Plaintiffs evin D. Rauch, Esquire For Defendant elli Pines and Sean Pines 6230 Peregrine Way Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 ties 4/IA0y KELLI PINES and SEAN PINES : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (Husband and Wife), : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PLAINTIFFS : PENNSYLVANIA V. TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, DEFENDANT : 13 -4881 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE GUIDO, J., MASLAND, J., AND PECK, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J. April 3, 2014:- - Before this Court are Defendant Tiffanie Gorman's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Kelli and Sean Pines' claims of Negligent Self- Defense, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Assault and Battery, and Loss of Consortium. On September 22, 2011, Plaintiff Kelli Pines and Defendant were both at Shaull Elementary School. An altercation ensued, during which Ms. Pines suffered numerous injuries to her face including fractures to her eye socket and nose. Ultimately, Ms. Pines required surgery as a result of the injuries, which required Mr. Pines to take time off of work to care for her. Defendant's first Preliminary Objection for failure of a pleading to conform to law under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) will be sustained. Plaintiffs have failed to properly and sequentially number the paragraphs in their Complaint, leading to ambiguity and frustrating Defendant's ability to accurately answer Plaintiffs' allegations. Plaintiffs will be ordered to amend the Complaint to properly comply with Pa.R.C.P. 1022 regarding numbered paragraphs. 13 -4881 CIVIL TERM Defendant's second Preliminary Objection is for insufficient specificity of the factual pleadings under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). In determining a Preliminary Objection under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3), Pennsylvania courts have held: [t]he pertinent question under Rule 1028(a)(3) is whether the complaint is sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to prepare his defense, or whether the plaintiffs complaint informs the defendant with accuracy and completeness of the specific basis on which recovery is sought so that he may know without question upon what grounds to make his defense. Rambo v. Greene, 906 A.2d 1232, 1236 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). Despite the paucity of detail in the complaint, Defendant appears to be aware of the event from which this complaint arises. Preliminary Objections, 111, 3 October 2013. It is unlikely that there were multiple instances involving an altercation between these parties on September 22, 2011 at Shaull Elementary School. Further, it is evident from Plaintiffs averments which factual allegations support which claims. The facts alleged are therefore sufficient for Plaintiffs' claims and Plaintiffs have adequately provided the grounds upon which Defendant must prepare a defense. See Rambo v. Greene, 906 A.2d 1232 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (holding plaintiffs averments in the complaint, which required the defendant to infer the grounds upon which to base a defense rather than being directly stated, were sufficiently specific). Defendant's Preliminary Objection as to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) for a lack of specificity in the pleadings will be overruled. Defendant next objects to Plaintiffs' cause of action styled as a claim for negligent self- defense. A preliminary objection which seeks the dismissal of a cause of action "should be sustained only in cases in which it is clear and free from doubt that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish the right to relief." -2- 13 -4881 CIVIL TERM Albert v. Erie Ins. Exch., 65 A.3d 923, 927 -28 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing Feingold v. Hendrzak, 15 A.3d 937, 941 (Pa. Super. 2012)). Further, "[e]ven where a trial court sustains preliminary objections on their merits, it is generally an abuse of discretion to dismiss a complaint without leave to amend." Harley Davidson Motor Co., Inc. v. Hartman, 442 A.2d 284, 286 (Pa. Super. 1982). There is no statutory or common law negligent self- defense cause of action. At best, Plaintiffs are alleging that Defendant exceeded the reasonable use of force in self - defense. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 63 (1965) Comment j; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 65 (1965); 1 Summ. Pa. Jur. 2d Torts § 11:14 (2d ed.). However, any assertion of excessive self- defense would come in response to the use of the privilege of self- defense by the defender. Therefore, such a claim for 'excessive' self - defense would manifest itself not as a separate claim, as Plaintiffs have pled, but instead as an alternative to the intentional tort of battery in anticipation of the Defendant's use of the self- defense privilege. As such, Defendant's Preliminary Objection for legal insufficiency under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) with regards to the stand- alone claim of Negligent Self Defense will be sustained for lack of an available remedy at law. However, Plaintiffs will be granted leave to amend the Complaint to consolidate any facts or pleadings into Count III as necessary to support an anticipatory pleading that Defendant exceeded the use of reasonable force through self- defense. Defendant's next Preliminary Objection for legal insufficiency under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) with regards to the claim of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress will be overruled. Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled facts that could, when assumed to be true, entitle Plaintiffs to relief. Albert, 65 A.3d 927 -28. -3- 13-4881 CIVIL TERM Defendant's final Preliminary Objection for legal insufficiency under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) with regards to the claim of punitive damages will be overruled. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has adopted § 908(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which states: Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others. In assessing punitive damages, the trier of fact can properly consider the character of the defendant's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant. Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc., 555 A.2d 800, 803 (Pa. 1989) (Citing Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383, 485 A.2d 742 (Pa. 1984)). Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant's actions caused a non-physical confrontation to escalate into a physical altercation which resulted in Defendant intentionally harming Plaintiff Kelli Pines. Complaint, 1119-20, 16 August 2013. This action caused facial factures and optical nerve damage to the extent of requiring surgery. Complaint, 1121-22, 16 August 2013. Believing those averments to be true, Plaintiffs could be entitled to punitive relief due to Defendant's alleged reckless indifference to Plaintiff Kelli Pines. Renk v. City of Pittsburgh, 641 A.2d 289, 294 (Pa. 1994) (holding that conduct need not rise to the level of willful misconduct but that reckless conduct is sufficient for the awarding of punitive damages). Therefore, as to Count III, assault and battery, the Preliminary Objection will be overruled and punitive damages will remain. As to Count IV, loss of consortium, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled facts that could, when assumed to be true, entitle Plaintiffs to relief. Albert, 65 A.3d 927-28. -4- 13 -4881 CIVIL TERM Plaintiffs have alleged that the same actions which constituted battery were also responsible for the loss of consortium, and therefore are sufficient for the establishment of a claim for punitive damages by Defendant's reckless indifference. Renk, 641 A.2d 294. As such, Defendant's Preliminary Objection will be overruled as to the loss of consortium claim. Since the Preliminary Objection to Count I, negligent self- defense, was sustained and the count was ordered consolidated, no determination need be made as to whether punitive damages are proper for that claim. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this .lam day of April, 2014, upon consideration of Defendant's Preliminary Objections, the responses filed thereto, and after oral argument, the following is entered: 1. Defendant's Preliminary Objection as to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) is SUSTAINED. Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to cure deficiencies in the Complaint to comply with Pa.R.C.P. 1022. 2. Defendant's Preliminary Objection as to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) is OVERRULED. 3. Defendant's Preliminary Objection as to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) with regards to the claim of Negligent Self Defense is SUSTAINED. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend not inconsistent with the above opinion. 4. Defendant's Preliminary Objection as to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) with regards to the claim of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress is OVERRULED. 13 -4881 CIVIL TERM 5. Defendant's Preliminary Objection as to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) with regards to the claim of punitive damages as to Count III, assault and battery, the Preliminary Objection is OVERRULED. 6. As to Count IV, loss of consortium, Defendant's Preliminary Objection is OVERRULED. Plaintiffs shall have twenty (20) days to file an amended complaint. By the Court, 11°VArlie Al • - rt Masland, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire For Plaintiffs Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire For Defendant KeIIi Pines and Sean Pines 6230 Peregrine Way Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 KELLI PINES, and SEAN PINES Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : 2013-4881— CIVIL TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, Defendant PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Kelli and Sean Pines, in the above captioned case. Date:7 Z L( Respectfully submitted, Vincent M. Monfredo, Esquire 3300 Trindle Rd. Camp Hill, PA 17011 717.585.2064 (phone) 888.959.1331 (fax) Supreme Court ID # 206671 c 2. KELLI PINES, and SEAN PINES Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : 2013-4881— CIVIL TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Vincent M. Monfredo, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the Entry of Appearance upon the following by first class mail, addressed as follows: Date: ZZ % Y Kevin D. Rauch, Esq. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Respectfully submitted, Vincent M. Monfredo, Esquire 3300 Trindle Rd. Camp Hill, PA 17011 717.585.2064 (phone) 888.959.1331 (fax) Supreme Court ID # 206671 FiLEO-OFFICt OF THE PROTHONO7Ai, MI/SEP -9 PN 2: 3 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNS YL. VA NIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KELLI PINES and SEAN PINES (Husband CIVIL DIVISION and Wife), Plaintiffs, NO. 2013-4881 v. MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY RESPONSES TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendant Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & GUTHRIE P.C. Firm #911 945 East Park Drive, Suite 201 Mechanicsburg, PA 17111 (717) 901-5916 #20127 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KELLI PINES and SEAN PINES (Husband CIVIL DIVISION and Wife), Plaintiffs, NO. 2013-4881 v. (Jury Trial Demanded) TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, Defendant. MOTION TO COMPEL AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Tiffanie T. Gorman, by and through her counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock & Guthrie, RC., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and files the following Motion to Compel, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. On February 25, 2014, the Defendant served the Plaintiff with Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents relative to the above - referenced matter. (A true and correct copy of correspondence directed to Plaintiff's counsel dated February 25, 2014 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). 2. According to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4009, the Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's Discovery Requests should have been received by March 27, 2014. 3. To date, Defendant has not received any response from Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel regarding Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's Discovery requests. 5. It is necessary for the proper defense of this lawsuit that the Plaintiff file full and complete responses to Defendant's discovery requests. 6. Accordingly, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure (4019) Defendant respectfully requests the Court enter an Order directing Plaintiff to provide Defendant with full and complete Answers and Responses to Defendant's Discovery Requests within twenty (20) days or suffer additional sanctions. 7. Counsel for Defendant certifies that he has attempted contact with Plaintiff's counsel in an effort to resolve this discovery dispute as set forth above. Despite such attempts by Defendant's counsel, however, Plaintiff's discovery responses have not been received by Defendant's counsel. 8. The Honorable Albert H. Judge Masland has previously ruled on the Defendant's Preliminary Objections. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Tiffanie T. Gorman, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide Defendant with full and complete Answers to Defendant's Discovery Requests. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, cDONNELL, HU CK, & GUT. E -.C.1 evin D auch, Esquire ounsel or Defendant, By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION TO COMPEL has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre -paid, this 8th day of September, 2014. Vincent Monfredo, Esquire 3300 Trindle Rd, Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Attorney for Plaintiff) SUMMERS, McDONNEL HUDOCK & GUTHRIE P.C. KevinB D. auc , squire ounsel for Defendant, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KELLI PINES and SEAN PINES (Husband CIVIL DIVISION and Wife), Plaintiffs, NO. 2013-4881 v. (Jury Trial Demanded) TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, Defendant. ORDER AND NOW, TO WIT, this 7/ day o N) , 2014, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff, KeIIi Pines, provide Defendant, Tiffanie T. Gorman, with full and complete Answers to Defendant's interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. By the Court: Distribution to: t7revin D. Rauch, Esquire; Summers, McDonnell, Hudock & Guthrie, P.C.; 945 East Park Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17111 ...'cent Monfredo, Esquire, Monfredo and Mandarino, 3300 Trindle Rd,Camp Hill, PA 17011 inzAtt.L ••=•/07] KELLI PINES and SEAN PINES, (husband and wife) PLAINTIFFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVI'TI&,,, • rn V.� : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED c" TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, < DEFENDANT : NO. 2013-4881 C) NOTICE TO DEFEND ry —' u1 You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORAMTION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. . Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the Court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the Court. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. KELLI PINES and SEAN PINES, (husband and wife) PLAINTIFFS V. TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, DEFENDANT : NO. 2013-4881 : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : • CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiffs, Kelli Pines and Sean Pines by and through their counsel, Vincent M. Monfredo, Esquire, and submits the following: PARTIES 1. Kelli Pines, is an adult individual residing at 6230 Peregrine Way, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 in Cumberland County. 2. Sean Pines, is an adult individual residing at 6230 Peregrine Way, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 in Cumberland County. 3. Tiffanie T. Gorman (hereinafter Defendant) is an adult individual believed to be residing at 39 Sagamore Bend Plaza, Spring, TX 77382. FACTS 4. Previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 5. On or about September 22, 2011, Plaintiff Kelli Pines, at the request of a friend; proceeded to Shaull Elementary School to drop off her elementary grade child at soccer practice. 6: Upon arrival to Shaull; the Defendant approached Plaintiff Kelli Pines with the full intent of verbally confronting Plaintiff. 7. While in the presence of Plaintiffs' two preschool children, Defendant negligently lost emotional control of herself and suddenly without any provocation from the Plaintiff, violently assaulted the Plaintiff Kelli Pines. COUNTI NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 8. Previous paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 9. The Defendant's negligent lack of restraint and subsequent extreme outrageous conduct did show a reckless disregard for the Plaintiff Kelli Pines' physical well-being which resulted in Plaintiff suffering severe emotional distress. 10. Defendant's negligent lack of restraint and subsequent outrageous conduct went beyond the "bounds of decency" and is regarded by any reasonable person in likeness to the Plaintiff, to be atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 11. Defendant's negligent lack of restraint and subsequent violent conduct did cause Plaintiff severe mental distress with ongoing sleep loss with the discomfort and pain. 12. Defendant's negligence caused Plaintiff such a severe amount of emotional distress that Plaintiff was unable to. be alone for an extended time and her spouse had to take time off of work to be with her. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court award her compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $50,000.00. COUNT II ASSAULT AND BATTERY 13. Previous paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 14. This Count is offered in the alternative to Count I. 15. Defendant employed physical force and thereafter intentionally did cause the Plaintiff to have a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact and did in fact have such contact. 16. Defendant's physical contact during what began as a non-physical verbal confrontation with the Plaintiff resulted in Defendant intentionally having physical contact with the Plaintiff. 17. Defendant did cause serious injuries to the Plaintiff's facial bones, eye sockets, and eyes resulting in Plaintiff having to seek medical and neurological care as well as seeing an Ophthalmologist. 18. Plaintiff underwent surgical procedures to repair damage to her optic nerve. 19. Defendant did thus cause multiple fractures to Plaintiff's face, including but not limited to, a broken nose resulting in Plaintiff's suffering from ongoing pain and discomfort, and Plaintiff undergoing reconstructive surgery. 20. Defendant's assault caused such severe injuries to Plaintiff that she will need to seek ongoing medical care for the numbness in her face, permanent double vision, and severedebilitating headaches. 21. Alternatively, should the Defendant claim self defense as her reason for inflicting physical force upon the Plaintiff then such force and such acts of self defense were negligent. 22. If the Defendant was acting in self defense, then her negligent actions did cause Plaintiff to have a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact, and did in fact have such contact as mentioned previously. 23. If the Defendant was acting in self defense, then her negligent acts of self defense did cause the Plaintiff's injuries described within this complaint. 24. The conduct of Defendant was so outrageous that it warrants punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court award her compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $50,000.00. COUNT III LOSS OF CONSORTIUM AND ECONOMIC LOSS FOR PLAINTIFF SEAN PINES 25. Previous paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 26. The Plaintiffs Sean and Kelli pines are lawfully joined in the bonds of a marriage and enjoy a loving, nurturing and healthy marriage 27. Defendant's aforesaid conduct toward Plaintiff Kelli Pines resulted in the loss of companionship, comfort, and intimacy for both the Plaintiffs. 28. Defendant's conduct toward Plaintiff Kelli Pines resulted in the economic wage loss to Plaintiff Sean Pines due to having to take off of work to accompany the Plaintiff during her initial recovery from the serious injuries she sustained from the Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court award her compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $50,000.00. Date: t — Respectfully submitted, Monfredo & Mandarino Law Vincent M. Monfredo, Esquire 3300 Trindle Rd. Second Floor Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 635-8747 Supreme Court ID # 20664 Attorney for Petitioner VERIFICATION Vincent M. Monfredo, Esquire, states that he is the attorney for the Plaintiffs, in this action; that he makes this affidavit as attorney because he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and because he was unable to reach the Plaintiffs on this day and have them sign a verification; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: rfr Respectfully submitted, Vincent M. Monfredo, Esquire 3300 Trindle Rd. Second Floor Camp Hill, PA 17011 717.635.8747 Supreme Court ID # 206671 Attorney for Plaintiffs KELLI PINES and SEAN PINES, (husband and wife) PLAINTIFFS V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, DEFENDANT : NO. 2013-4881 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Vincent M. Monfredo, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint upon the following by first class mail, addressed as follows: Kevin D. Rauch, Esq. 945 East Park Drive Harrisburg, PA 17111 Date: "���'t 1 Respectfully submitted, Vincent M. Monfredo, Esquire 3300 Trindle Rd. Second Floor Camp Hill, PA 17011 717.635.8747 Supreme Court ID # 206671 Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KELLI PINES and SEAN PINES (Husband CIVIL DIVISION and Wife) Plaintiffs, NO. 2013-4881 V. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, Defendant, (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendant TO: Plaintiffs Counsel of Record for This Party: You are hereby notified to file a written Response to the enclosed Answer and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire New Matter within twenty (20) days Pa. I.D. #83058 From service hereof or a judgment May bg ent d a ainst you. SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & GUTHRIE, P.C. Firm #911 945 East Park Drive, Suite 201 S mers, McDonnell, Hudock, Harrisburg, PA 17111 & uthrie, P.C. (717) 901-5916 #20127 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KELLI PINES and SEAN PINES (Husband CIVIL DIVISION and Wife) Plaintiffs, NO. 2013-4881 V. (Jury Trial Demanded) TIFFANIE T. GORMAN, Defendant, ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Tiffanie T. Gorman, by and through her counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock & Guthrie, P.C., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. The Defendant hereby reiterates and repeats all of her responses in paragraph 1 through 3 as if fully set fourth at length herein. 5. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). By way of further response, Defendant had no intent of confronting the Plaintiff. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that an altercation broke-out between the Plaintiff and Defendant in front of the Plaintiff's two preschool children. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph 7 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that response seem necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (d) (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I — NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 8. Defendant hereby reiterates and repeats all of her responses in paragraphs 1 through 7 as if fully set forth at length herein. 9. Paragraph 9 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Paragraph 10 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Paragraph 11 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Paragraph 12 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Tiffanie T. Gorman, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiffs with costs and prejudice imposed. COUNT II — ASSAULT AND BETTERY 13. In response to paragraph 13, the Defendant reiterates and repeats all her responses in paragraphs 1 through 12 as if fully set forth at length herein. 14. Paragraph 14 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Paragraph 15 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Paragraph 16 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Paragraph 17 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Paragraph 19 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Paragraph 20 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. Paragraph 21 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Paragraph 22 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Paragraph 23 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Paragraph 24 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Tiffanie T. Gorman, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiffs with costs and prejudice imposed. COUNT III — LOSS OF CONSORTIUM — SEAN PINES 25. In response to paragraph 25, the Defendant reiterates and repeats all her responses in paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth at length herein. 26. Paragraph 26 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 27. Paragraph 27 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 28. Paragraph 28 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Tiffanie T. Gorman, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiffs with costs and prejudice imposed. NEW MATTER 29. The Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action recoverable in Pennsylvania. 30. The Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts giving rise to punitive damages. 31. The Plaintiff's claims are barred by her assumption of this risk and/or her contributory negligence. 32. The Plaintiff intentionally provoked the Defendant. 33. The Defendant was justified in her actions and pleads justification as an affirmative defense. 34. Plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages have been satisfied by restitution paid by Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Tiffanie T. Gorman, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiffs with costs and prejudice imposed. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK & GUTHRI , P.C. By: 4 evin D. Rauch, Esquire ounsel for Defendant 2014-12-18 18:26 Bausch&LvmblGus G 7177631976>> 17179209129 P111 VERIFICATION Defendant verifies that she is the Defendant in the foregoing action; that the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT is based upon Wonnabon which she has furnished to her counsel and information which has been gathered by her oourmel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT is that of counsel and not of the Defendant. Defendant has read the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT and to the extent that the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT is based upon information which she has given to her counsel, it is true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT is that of counsel, she has relied upon counsel in making this Affidavit. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ` TIV N GQRMAN i #24127 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Amended Complaint has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 6th day of January, 2015. Vincent M. Monfredo, Esquire 3300 Trindle Rd. Second Floor Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, & GUTHRIE, C. By: K vin . Rauch, Esquire unsel for Defendant