Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-2041 0 Supreme Co ; ennsylvania Cour> f,,Cdhiino leas For Prothonotary Use Only: C� i1�; h over t .4 Docket No: ` 6hd' Count 1�� r �C c�,� ,/ Cu rland Y The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. This form does not supplement or replace the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required bylaw or rules of court. Commencement of Action: S EM Complaint 0 Writ of Summons 0 Petition 0 Transfer from Another Jurisdiction 0 Declaration of Taking E C Lead Plaintiff's Name: Lead Defendant's Name: T Kristin A. Gally Francis J. Gally, III Dollar Amount Requested: [3 within arbitration limits I Are money damages requested? (� Yes No O (check one) Ox outside arbitration limits N Is this a Class Action Suit? 0 Yes El No Is this an MDJAppeal? 0 Yes 10 No A Name of Plaintiff /Appellant's Attorney: David Joseph Chapman, Schmidt Kramer PC 0 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 include Judgments CIVIL APPEALS 0 Intentional 0 Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies 0 Malicious Prosecution 0 Debt Collection: Credit Card 0 Board of Assessment ®x Motor Vehicle 0 Debt Collection: Other 0 Board of Elections 0 Nuisance _ Dept. of Transportation Premises Liability Statutory Appeal: Other ►S 0 Product Liability (does not include E mass tort) � Employment Dispute: Slander/Libel/ Defamation Discrimination 0 0 C 0 Other: Employment Dispute: Other 0 Zoning Board T 0 Other: I 0 Other: O MASS TORT 0 Asbestos N 0 Tobacco 0 Toxic Tort - DES 0 Toxic Tort - Implant REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS Toxic Waste 0 Other: 0 Ejectment ©Common Law /Statutory Arbitration B 0 Eminent Domain /Condemnation 0 Declaratory Judgment 0 Ground Rent Mandamus 0 Landlord/Tenant Dispute Non - Domestic Relations ® Mortgage Foreclosure: Residential Restraining Order PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY 0 Mortgage Foreclosure: Commercial ❑ Quo Warranto 0 Dental 0 Partition ❑ Replevin Legal 0 Quiet Title Q Other: Medical Other: Other Professional: Updated 1/1/2011 a NU SCHMIDT KRAMER PC X11 tl AR r 3 PM 36 BY: David Joseph Chapman, Esquire I.D. #209519 P�:��P�SYL�r,A�#lt� 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232 -6300 j chap man u,schmidtkrarner.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN A. GALLY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. No. 1 q q I FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association t/03,75 34 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717 -249 -3166 3 1- 800 - 990 -9108 w AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO /A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 34 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717 - 249 -3166 1- 800 - 990 -9108 r SCHMIDT KRAMER PC BY: David Joseph Chapman, Esquire I.D. #209519 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232 -6300 jchapman(c Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN A. GALLY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. No. FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Kristin Gally, by and through her attorneys, Schmidt Kramer PC, and avers the following: 1. Plaintiff, Kristin A. Gally, is an adult individual residing at 35 Stoney Creek Court, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. Defendant, Francis J. Gally, III, is an adult individual residing at 35 Stoney Creek Court, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. The incident giving rise to Plaintiff's cause of action occurred on North West Street in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on July 14, 2012. 4. On that day, and at that place, Plaintiff was the passenger in the front seat of her husband, Francis Gally's, vehicle when he lost control and drove into a vehicle and boat trailer legally parked to the side of the street. 5. As a result of the collision Plaintiff sustained serious injuries. NEGLIGENCE 6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are incorporated herein and set forth in full. 7. Defendant's negligence consisted of the following: a. Failing to keep his vehicle on the travel lane of the roadway, a violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 3309, which is negligence per se; b. Failing to avoid a parked vehicle alongside the roadway; C. Failing to see a vehicle parked alongside the roadway; d. Failing to keep his vehicle under control to avoid a collision. 8. As a sole result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered injuries, some of which are severe and permanent, including: a. Neck pain; b. Head injury; C. Loss of consciousness; d. Pain in her chest; e. Low back pain; f. Impaired cognition; g. Blurry vision; h. Muscle spasms; i. Concussion; j. Headache; k. Lightheadedness; 1. Pain radiating down right arm; M. Phonophobia; n. Photophobia; o. Post traumatic headaches; and P. Intractable chronic migraines. 9. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has incurred medical bills and will incur medical bills in the future in excess of any applicable first party medical benefit coverage. 10. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has undergone and will continue to undergo pain and suffering. 11. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has sustained a permanent loss of life's pleasures. 12. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings and impairment to her earning capacity. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit of Cumberland County. Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT KRAMER PC B -L& s19 David Joseph Cha man, Esq ' Attorney I.D. #209519 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232 -6300 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: -AP OV- 3, 201 ti VERIFICATION BASED UPON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGEAND INFORMATION OBTAINED THROUGH COUNSEL I, Kristin A. Gally, verify that I am the Plaintiff in the foregoing action and that the attached Complaint is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the Complaint to the extent that it is based upon information that I have given to my counsel is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Complaint are that of counsel, I relied upon counsel making this Verification. I understand that intentional false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Date: Z<s I h-�- Kristin A. Gally SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY- FFIC,_,, Ronny R Anderson OF THE i:;ROTHONOlki.;1 Sheriff Jody S Smith et,7.9,)- NIL% APR 21 PM 3; 63 Chief Deputy r , , „ ,, CUMBERLAND COUNTY Richard W Stewart PENNSYLVANIA , Solicitor O'F THE TOIERIFF Kristin Gaily vs. Francis J Gaily Case Number 2014-2041 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 04/14/2014 07:16 PM - Deputy Dawn Kell, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Kristin Gaily, wife, who accepted as "Adult Person in Charge" for Francis J Gaily at 35 Stoney Creek Court, North Middleton, Carlisle, PA 17013. Vat_ DAWN KELL, DEPUTY SHERIFF COST: $35.27 SO ANSWERS, April 15, 2014 RONNY R ANDERSON, SHERIFF (c) CoentySei:e Shenff, 'Te!nosoft, ne GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #83351 FORRY ULLMAN 540 Court Street P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 610.777.5700 / FAX 610.777-2499 Attorneys for Defendant E PROD -ION NNW( -9 NI 2: p3 CUMBERLAND TNVANA KRISTIN A. GALLY, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 14-2041 FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Francis J. Gally, III, in the above - captioned matter, and designate 540 Court Street, P. O. Box 542, Reading, Pennsylvania 19603, as the place where papers and notices may be served. FORRY ULLMAN Dated: 05/08/14 By:��-��� G�EILD NI E M. LINN, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #83351 Attorneys for Defendant FORRY ULLMAN 540 Court Street P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 610.777.5700 / FAX 610.777-2499 KRISTIN A. GALLY, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 14-2041 FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE, the undersigned, hereby certify that on May 8, 2014, a copy of my Entry of Appearance on behalf of Defendant Francis J. Gaily, III, was served upon the Plaintiff, by mailing the same to Plaintiffs counsel of record, via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David Joseph Chapman, Esquire Schmidt Kramer, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. FORRY UL�_. Dated: 05/08/14 By: E1ALDINE M INT', ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant SCHMIDT KRAMER PC By: Scott B. Cooper, Esq. I.D. #70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 scooper@a schmidtkramer. corn Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN A. GALLY, Plaintiff v. FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : No. 14-2041 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Scott B. Cooper, Esquire of SCHMIDT KRAMER PC as attorney of record for the Plaintiff in the above -captioned action. Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT KRAMER PC Date: 6 By: Scott B. Cooper, Esq. Attorney I.D. #70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorneys for Plaintiff 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 6 V` day of June, 2014, I, Scott B. Cooper, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of a Praecipe for Entry of Appearance by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Geraldine M. Linn, Esq. Forry Ullman 540 Court Street PO Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT KRAMER PC By: /V' Scott B. Cooper, Esquire I.D. No. 70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorney for Plaintiffs GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #83351 FORRY ULLMAN 540 Court Street P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 610.777.5700 / FAX 610.777-2499 Attorneys for Defendant F1LED-OFFiCE OF THE: .PROTHONOTAk ZOVI JUL - 1 If: 25 CMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA KRISTIN A. GALLY, PLAINTIFF v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 14-2041 — CIVIL ACTION FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Kristin A. Gaily c/o David Joseph Chapman, Esquire Schmidt Kramer, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AND REQUIRED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE WITHIN ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE . Attorney for Defendant 1 GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant Attorney ID #83351 FORRY ULLMAN 540 Court Street P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 610.777.5700 / FAX 610.777-2499 KRISTIN A. GALLY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 14-2041 — CIVIL ACTION FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER 1. Admitted, upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. The Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 and as such, the allegations are denied. 4. Denied. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3. As such, said allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 4. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 4 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 4 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 5. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 5 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 5 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. NEGLIGENCE 6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 7. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 7, including subparagraphs (a) through (d), state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 7, including subparagraphs (a) through (d) are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 8. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 8, including subparagraphs (a) through (p), state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 8, including subparagraphs (a) through (p) are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 9. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 9 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 9 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 10. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 10 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 10 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 11 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 11 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 12. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 12 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 12 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff. NEW MATTER 13. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 14 as though fully set forth herein at length. 14. Plaintiff's cause of action is or may be barred or otherwise limited by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1701, et seq., as amended. 15. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1701 et seq., as amended, Plaintiff is precluded from pleading, introducing into evidence, providing or recovering the amount of benefits paid or payable under said Act up to and including the limit of required benefits under said Act. Defendant hereby asserts all the defenses, limitations, and immunities available to them under said Act. 16. To the extent that Plaintiff has elected the limited tort alternative, and the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries are not serious as defined by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, Plaintiff is precluded from recovering damages for non -economic loss by the applicable provisions of that Law. 17. Plaintiff is or may be the owners of a currently registered motor vehicle and do not or may not have financial responsibility as defined by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. Further, Plaintiff's alleged injuries are or may not be serious as defined by that Law; consequently, Plaintiff is or may be precluded from recovering damages for non -economic loss by the applicable provisions of that Law. 19. Plaintiff's cause of action is or may be barred or otherwise limited by the doctrine of comparative negligence. 20. Any and all direct claims against Defendant are or may be barred or otherwise limited by the applicable statute of limitations or statute of repose. 21. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were caused by the negligence of others over whom the Defendants had no control or whose conduct they had no reason to anticipate. 22. Plaintiff's cause of action may be barred or otherwise limited by the doctrine of superseding and/ or intervening cause. 23. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 24. Any acts or omissions of Defendants were not substantial causes of and did not result in the injuries or losses alleged by Plaintiff. 25. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are barred or otherwise limited pursuant to a release. 26. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are barred or otherwise limited pursuant to accord and satisfaction. Date4/—Z7'/V Respectfully submitted, FORRY ULLMAN, P.C. Geraldine M. Linn, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant VERIFICATION I, Francis J. Gally, III, being duly sworn according to law, depose and state that I am the Defendant in this matter, and that the facts set forth in the Answer and New Matter of Defendant are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 6A2 (//1 GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #83351 Attorneys for Defendant FORRY ULLMAN 540 Court Street P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 610.777.5700 / FAX 610.777-2499 KRISTIN A. GALLY, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 14-2041 FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE, the undersigned, hereby certify that on June 30, 2014, a copy of Defendant Francis J. Gaily, III's Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint was served upon the Plaintiff, by mailing the same to Plaintiff's counsel of record, via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David Joseph Chapman, Esquire Schmidt Kramer, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. FORRY ULLMAN Dated: 06/30/14 By: GE ' TINE . LINN, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant SCHMIDT KRAMER PC By: Scott B. Cooper, Esq. I.D. #70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 scooper@schmidtkramer. corn OF ?gilt JULr, !G IC: SO PENNSYLVANIA S LV COUNTY Attorneys for Plaintiff KRISTIN A. GALLY, Plaintiff v. FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : No. 14-2041 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER Plaintiff, Kristin A. Gaily, ("Mrs. Gaily"), by and through her attorneys, Scott B. Cooper, Esquire, and SCHMIDT KRAMER, PC, files Preliminary Objections to Defendant Francis J. Gally, III's ("Mr. Gaily"), New Matter as follows: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) and Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) 1. Any party may file preliminary objections to any pleading where the pleading fails to conform to rule of law or rule of court or because of scandalous or impertinent matter. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(2). 2. Any party may file preliminary objections to any pleading because of insufficient specificity in a pleading. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3). 3. Facts that are immaterial and inappropriate to a cause of action constitute impertinent and scandalous matter. Common Cause/Pa. v. Commonw., 710 A.2d 108, 115 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998) (striking petitioner's six page introductory statement as impertinent and scandalous where the statement included an immaterial history of law making in Pennsylvania and the statement cast a derogatory light on the legislative and executive branch leadership in the Pennsylvania legislature). See also, Colosi v. Bucher, 10 Pa. D. 86 C. 5th 166 (Lancaster Cnty. 2009) (sustaining preliminary objections and striking tangential statements that cast a derogatory light on the East Petersburg Borough Council). 4. An averment will be deemed impertinent if it is irrelevant to any material issue in the case. Gula v. Golden Hill Nursing Home, Inc., 24 Pa. D. 8v C.5th 300, 311 (Lawrence Cnty. 2011) (citing Schwingen v. Piekarski, 13 Pa. D. 86 C.2d 617 (Luzerne Cnty. 1957). 5. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 allege affirmative defenses and limitations to the claims 2 asserted in Mrs. Gally's Complaint, but Mr. Gaily fails to assert any factual allegations that would support the defenses raised in these paragraphs. Specifically, Mr. Gaily has failed to provide any facts in support of Defendant's affirmative defenses of res judicata, unconstitutionality, MVFRL, statute of limitations, waiver and/or estoppel, unjust enrichment, release, that Mrs. Gaily may breach contractual obligations or duties, and that Mrs. Gaily failed to mitigate her damages. 6. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1019(a) requires that Mr. Gaily plead the specific and material facts upon which their defenses are based. Furthermore, Pa.R.C.P.1028(a)(2) permits impertinent matter to be stricken from a pleading. 7. Mr. Gaily has merely provided a boilerplate list of affirmative defenses set forth in Pa. R.C.P. No. 1030 as well as other defenses, without consideration to the applicability of the defense and without pleading supporting facts. 8. In Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, 501 Pa. 306, 461 A.2d 600 (1983), the Supreme Court opined that a general allegation in a pleading is properly addressed through preliminary objections in the nature of a more specific pleading or by moving to strike the offending portion of the pleading, and failing to pursue said objections, would preclude a party from obtaining a compulsory nonsuit. Id. at 311 n.3, 461 A.2d at 603 n.3. 9. Conner has been used by Pennsylvania lower courts to preclude general allegations in a complaint. Liguori v. Wind Gap Chiropractic Center, 75 Pa. D.B&C. 4th 106 (Northampton Cty. 2005) (relying 3 on Conner and holding that a defendant has an obligation to file preliminary objections to general allegations in a complaint to avoid shotgun theories of a plaintiff s case); Clarkson v. Geisinger Medical Center, 46 Pa. D.&C. 4th 431 (Montour Cty. 2000) (relying on Connor and lower court decisions to strike general allegations of negligence without reference to sufficient material facts); Mitchell v. Remsky, 39 Pa. D.&C. 4th 122 (Lackawanna Cty. 1998) (relying on Connor to strike a general allegation of negligence in plaintiff's complaint that the court held was an improper attempt by the plaintiff to preserve all unpleaded theories of liability against the moving defendants). 10. Although no appellate court decision exists on the issue, lower courts have also applied Conner to preclude factually deficient, general allegations of affirmative defenses. See Lee v. Denner, 76 Pa. D.&C. 4th 181 (Monroe Cty. 2005) (applying Connor to strike defendant's general allegation of superseding intervening acts of third persons contained in defendant's new matter); Allen v. Lipson, 8 Pa. D.B&C. 4th 390 (Lycoming Cty. 1990)(holding that plaintiffs, like the defendants in Connor, should have the choice to file preliminary objections to factually unsupported allegations in new matter.) 11. Pursuant to Pa.R.CP. No. 1028(a)(2), and Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), any party may file preliminary objections to any pleading where the pleading fails to conform to rule of law or rule of court, contains impertinent matter, or because of insufficient specificity in a pleading. 12. Paragraphs 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Mr. Gally's New Matter fail to conform to Rule 1019(a) and the Connor decision 4 and should be stricken from the Complaint under Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(2) and Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3). This court has made a decision on a similar issue date March 21, 2014. (See, Golden v. Grange Ins. Co., 63 Cumb. 95 (2014), opinion attached hereto as Exhibit A). 13. Furthermore, without the requisite supporting facts, most of the defenses in these paragraphs are irrelevant to the instant matter and should be stricken as impertinent under Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(2). Specifically, Mr. Gally has failed to plead any facts that make the defenses of res judicata, unconstitutionality, statute of limitations, waiver and/or estoppel, or unjust enrichment relevant to Mrs. Gally's claims. 14. An averment will be deemed impertinent if it is irrelevant to any material issue in the case. Gula v. Golden Hill Nursing Home, Inc., 24 Pa. D. 86 C.5th 300, 311 (Lawrence Cnty. 2011) (citing Schwingen v. Piekarski, 13 Pa. D. 86 C.2d 617 (Luzerne Cnty. 1957). 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kristen A. Gally, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an order pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) and Pa. R.C.P 1028(a)(3) striking Paragraphs 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 from Defendant's New Matter. Date: -til %a,1y Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT KRAMER PC By: 6 Scott B. Cooper, Esquire 1.D. No. 70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, Pa 17101 (717) 232-6300 (717) 232-6467 Fax scooper@schmidtkramer. com Attorney for Plaintiff r 8 EXHIBIT LCL -PA Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers of Pennsylvania, Inc. has a free confi- dential helpline accessible 24 hours, 7 days a week, including holidays: 1-888-999-1941 Helpline services include assistance with: • stress, • anxiety, ■ burnout, • career or job dissatisfaction, ■ marital or health problems, • alcohol and drug use, • gambling, ■ depression, and • other emotional or mental health problems. 4 GOLDEN v. GRANGE INS. CO. Cite as 63 Cumb. 95 (2014) 95 ALICE GOLDEN v. GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY, CUMBERLAND CO., COMMON PLEAS, No. 13-6350 CIVIL TERM. Civil Law—Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections to Defendant's New Matter—Underinsured Claim for Motor Vehicle Injury—Breach of Contract—New Matter—Worth by Worth v. City of Philadelphia, 136 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 629, 584 A.2d 403 (1990)—Pa R.C.P.1030-Coldren v. Peterman, 763 A.2d.905 (Pa Super. 2000)— Affirmative Defenses—Iorfida v. Mary Robert Realty Company, Inc., 372 Pa. Superior Ct. 170, 539 A.2d 383 (1988)—Fact Pleading—CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Cutillo, 723 A.2d 1053 (Pa. Super. 1999)—Pa R.C.P. 1019—Preliminary Objections Sustained and Paragraphs Stricken From Answer With.New Matter—Defendant Granted 20 Days to Amend Pleadings. 1. Because Pennsylvania is a fact -pleading jurisdiction, a pleading must not only apprise the opposing, party of the asserted claim, it must also formulate the issues ('summarizing those facts essential to support the claim. 2. "New Matter" ignores what the adverse party has averred and adds new facts to the legal dispute on the theory that such new facts dispose of any claim or claims which the adverse party had asserted in his pleading. 3. Generally, affirmative defenses not raised in new matter in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1030 are waived. 4. Pa. R.C.P. 1019 is dear that material facts which are the basis fora defense shall he stated in a concise and summary form; however, while the rule does not require great detail be provided, it seems obvious that one must do more than list possible defenses by name. 5. Defendants must plead the material facts upon which their affirmative defense is based. 6. Where Defendant failed to provide a single fact that It the basis for any df the supposed defenses raised in new matter, the new matter asserted in various paragraphs will be stricken and Plaintiff's preliminary objections are sustained. DAVID H. ROSENBURG, ESQUIRE, Attorney for Plaintiff. THOMAS S. LEE, ESQUIRE, Attorney for Defendant. IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER Before HESS, P.J., MASLAND and PLACEY, JJ. OPINION AND ORDER HESS, P.J., March 21, 2014:— Before 014:Before the Court are the preliminary objections of the Plaintiff, Alice Golden (hereinafter "Golden"), in response to affirmative defenses that the Defendant, Grange Insurance Company (hereinafter "Grange"), raised in the Defendant' .s Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Com- plaint. (Pl.'s Prelim. Objections to Def.'s New Matter, filed Dec. 16, 2013.) Plaintiff's Complaint contains a single count for breach of con- tract. (Compl. Submitted by Pl., filed Oct. 29, 2013.) In response, the Defendant has raised numerous affirmative defenses. (Def.'s Answer with 5 96 GOLDEN v. GRANGE INS. CO. Cite as 63 Cumb. 95 (2014) New Matter to Pl.'s Compl., filed Feb. 20, 2014.) Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has not asserted any factual allegations supporting those defenses and, therefore, preliminarily objects pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) and Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). (Pl.'s Prelim. Objections to Def.'s New Matter, filed Dec. 16, 2013.) A brief summary of the underlying facts is as follows: Golden is an adult individual residing at 15 Briar Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. (Compl. Submitted by Pl., ¶1.) Grange is foreign corporation, with an address of P.O. Box 18229, Columbus, Ohio, that regularly writes and sells automobile insurance policies in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. (Compl. Submitted by Pl., ¶2.) On June 1, 2011, Golden was involved in an automobile accident on the Carlisle Pike in Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsyl- vania. (Compl. Submitted by Pl., ¶6.) At the time of the accident, Golden was a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by her husband. (Comp]. Submitted by Pl., ¶3.) Golden's vehicle was the penultimate vehicle in a sequence of five. (Comp]. Submitted by Pl., ¶7.) The first vehicle began to slow; the second vehicle did not react in time and struck the first vehicle from behind. (Compl. Submitted by Pl., ¶8.) The third vehicle was able to stop but was struck from behind by Golden's vehicle. (Compl. Submitted by Pl., ¶8.) It is averred that the fifth vehicle, which Golden has identified as the tortfeasor, hit Golden's vehicle with enough force that Golden's vehicle was thrust into the third vehicle, causing the third vehicle to hit the back of the second vehicle. (Comp]. Submittal by Pl., ¶9.) It is averred that Golden sustained multiple injuries as a direct and proximate cause of this incident. (Comp]. Submitted by Pl., ¶10.) At the time of the collision, the tortfeasor was insured with a policy that provided bodily injury liability protection up to $50,000. (Compl. Submitted by P1., ¶3.) Golden avers that the $50,000 limit is inadequate to compensate her for the damages she sustained as a result of the col- lision. (Compl. Submitted by P1., ¶17.) Additionally, Golden had an insurance policy with Grange that provided for underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $50,000. (Comps. Submitted by Pl., ¶¶18,19.) Golden and Grange have not been able to come to an agreement as to the amount of benefits due under the underinsured motorist policy. The instant action has resulted, with the Golden filing a sole count for breach of contract. (Compl. Submitted by Pl., ¶25.) In response, Grange has filed new matter raising numerous affirmative defenses and theories as to why Golden's claim should be limited, including res judicata, statute 6 GOLDEN v. GRANGE INS. CO. 97 Cite as 63 Cumb. 95 (2014) of limitations, estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Before the Court now are Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) and Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). (Pl.'s Prelim. Objections to Def.'s New Matter, filed Dec, 16, 2013.) Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1.028(a), pre- liminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading on several grounds, including the "(2) failure of a pleading to conform to law or rule of court or inclusion of scandalous and impertinent matter; (3) insufficient specificity in a pleading ...." Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2), (3). In considering preliminary objections, "all well -pleaded allegations and material facts averred ... , as well as all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, must be accepted as true." Wurth by Wurth v. City of Philadelphia, 136 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 629, 638, 584 A.2d 403, 407 (1990). However, the trial court "need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences from fact, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opin- ion." Penn Title Insurance Company v. Deshler, 661 A.2d 481, 483 (Pa. Commw. 1995). An appellate court will only reverse a trial court's ruling on a preliminary objection when "there has been an error of law or abuse of discretion." Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Company of Pennsylvania, 936 A.2d 111,113 (Pa. Super. 2007). With these principles in mind, we first consider Golden's assertion that para- graphs 39, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51, 57, and 59 of Grange's New Matter should be stricken for failure to aver any supporting factual allegations.' ' The subject paragraphs read as fellows: 38. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to meet the required specificity in pleading by citing a particular statutory section that Defendant is alleged to have violated, 39. Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 41. Plaintiff is under a common law and contractual duty to net in good faith with respect to the underinsured motorist benefits claim and in meeting contractual obligations under the applicable Policy, and any breach of that duty, including non- cooperation and delays in providing information, may restrict or eliminate Plaintiffs [sic] rights to recover damages as alleged 43. Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent that they are unconstitutional and/ or violates the due process protection codified in either the Pennsylvania or United States Constitutions, pnrticularly In view of: a) the absence of any standards for those person [sic] or entities purportedly subject to it; h) the absence of any standards for trial or appellate courts to exercise judicial review of awards entered pursuant it; c) insofar as Plaintiff' [sic] claims for damages there under [sic] is based upon al- leged acts and/ or omissions which invoke non-parties to this action and/ or which have no nexus to the insurance claim involved herein; 7 98 GOLDEN v. GRANGE INS. CO. Cite as 63 Cumb. 95 (2014) "Pennsylvania is a fact -pleading [jurisdiction.]" Foster v. UPMC South Side Hospital, 2 A.3d 655, 666 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quoting Lern- er v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1235 (Pa. Super. 2008)). "The material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a) (emphasis added). "[A] pleading must not only apprise the opposing party of the asserted claim, 'it must also formulate the issues by summarizing those facts essential to support the claim.'" CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Cutillo, 723 A.2d 1053, 1057 (Pa. Super. 1999) (quoting Sevin v. Kelshaw, 417 Pa. Superior Ct. 1, 611 A.2d 1232, 1235 (1992)). Our Supreme Court has held that "the lower court has broad discretion in determining the amount of detail that must be averred since the standard of pleading set forth in Rule 1019(a) is incapable of precise measurement." United Refrigerator Coritpany v. Appplebaum, 410 Pa. 210, 213, 189 A.2d 253, 255 (1963). Relating to defenses as have been raised in this case: The term 'New Matter' (under which heading Rule 1030 requires affirmative defenses to be pled) embraces matters of con- fession and avoidance as understood at common law, and has been defined as matter which, taking all the allegations of the complaint d) insofar as any award of extra -contractual and/or damages is based upon alleged act and/ or omission which involved non-parties to this action and/or which have not [sic] nexus to the insurance claim involved herein; and/ or e) insofar as any award of extracontractual and/or damages is excessive and violative of the United States and/ or Pennsylvania constitutions. t — 44. Plaintiff's claims maybe barred and/or limited by the applicableprdvisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law 75 Pa.C. S. A. § 1701, et seq. and any amendments thereto ('MVFRL'). 47. Plaintiff's claims may be barred and/or limited by the applicable statute of limitations. 49. Plaintiff's claims maybe barred and/or limited by the doctrines of waiver and/ or estoppel. 50. Plaintiff's claims may be barred and/or limited by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 51. Plaintiff's claims may be barred and/or limited by virtue of the terms of any release entered into by Plaintiff. 57. To the extent that discovery reveals that Plaintiff has failed to obtain suit- able employment within her physical limitations and/or to follow medical advice, and/or fail to heed follow-up medical advice on care, and/or to attend recommended follow-up treatment care, Grange Insurance company [sic] asserts that Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages and that Plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages is a complete or partial bar to Plaintiff 's claim for damages. 59. Grange Insurance Company claims all benefits, protections, thresholds, requirements and immunities afforded by the MVFRL, 75 Pa. C. S. A. § 1701 et seq. any and all amendments thereto. (Del.'s Answer with New Matter to Pl.'s Compl., 1138, 39, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51, 57, 59.) 8 [ I GOLDEN v. GRANGE INS. CO. 99 Cite as 63 Cumb. A5 (2014) to be true, is nevertheless a defense to the action. ... New matter ignores what the adverse party has averred and adds new facts to the legal dispute on the theory that such new facts dispose of any claim or claims which the adverse party had asserted in his pleading. Coldren v. Peterman, 763 A.2d 905, 908 (Pa. Super. 2000) (quotations and citations omitted). In Coldren, the Superior Court further provided, "(a)n affirmative defense is distinguished from a denial of facts which make up the plaintiff's cause of action in that a defense will require the averment of facts extrinsic to the plaintiff's claim for relief." Id. As a final point, we note that, except for assumption of the risk, comparative negligence and contributory negligence, affirmative defenses not raised in new matter in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1030 are waived pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1032. Iorfida v. Mary Robert Realty Company, Inc., 372 Pa. Superior Ct. 170, 176, 539 A.2d 383, 386 (1988). Here, mindful of the potential for waiver, Grange sought to preserve several possible defenses by raising them in the new matter. However, Grange has not elaborated on how or why those defenses may be ap- plicable. We are considerate of the tension created between the limited amount of time defendants have to respond to a complaint and the risk of waiving affirmative defenses that are not raised. However, given the broad 'discretion that trial courts are given in determining the required amount of detail for an averment under Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a), courts are able to contend with such concerns—as many trial courts already have. In Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, 501 Pa. 306, 461 A.2d 600 (1983), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court allowed a complaint to be modified after the statute bf limitations had run since, instead of changing the original cause of action, the amendment amplified it. Id. at 309-10, 461 A.2d at 602. In an often cited footnote, the Supreme Court quoted the original paragraph of the complaint that was allowed to be elaborated upon and stated that the defendant "could have filed a prelimi- nary objection in the nature of a request for a more specific pleading or it could have moved to strike that portion of appellants' complaint." Id. at 311 n.3, 461 A.2d at 602 n.3. Since the suggestion that vague allega- tions should be met with a preliminary objection, several common pleas cases have cited Connor in ultimately deciding that defendants must plead the material facts upon which their affirsnative defense is based. See Donegal Mutual Insurance Company v. Stroker, 15 D. & C.Sth 245 (2010), Lee v. Denner, 76 D. & C.4th 181 (2005), Fitzgerald v. Kaguyutan, 18 D. & C.4th 1(1993), Allen v. Lipson, 8 D.45r C.4th 390 (1990), Rivera v. Arbor Place Inc., 4 D. & C.4th 44 (1989). We are in agreement with those courts. 9 100 GOLDEN v. GRANGE INS. CO. Cite as 63 Comb. 95 (2014) The language of Pa. R.C.P. 1019 is clear that material facts which are the basis for a defense shall be stated in a concise and summary form. While the rule does not require great detail be provided, it seems obvious that one must do more than list possible defenses by name. Moreover, requiring that defendants aver the material facts that give rise to an affir- mative defense is consistent with the Superior Court's position in Coldren that an affirmative defense "adds new facts ..." and "will require the aver- ment of facts extrinsic to the plaintiff's claim for relief " Coldren, supra at 908. Here, Grange has not provided a single fact that is the basis for any of the supposed defenses. Accordingly, paragraphs 39, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51, 57, and 59 of Grange's New Matter will be stricken. However, because there may be a factual basis for one or more affirmative defenses, we will grant leave to amend. See Harley Davidson Motor Co., Inc. v. Hartman, 296 Pa. Superior Ct. 37, 442 A.2d 284 (1982). Golden also argues that paragraphs 38, 39, 43, 47, 49, and 50 should be stricken as impertinent, In light of the foregoing, only the challenge to paragraph 38 remains relevant. If a plaintiff files a preliminary objection in the nature of a motion to strike the new matter for impertinence the lower court must "determine whether the facts averred in the new matter [are] legally relevant to [the plaintiffs] [sic] cause or whether they could have any influence in leading to the result." Jeffries v. Hoffman, 417 Pa. 1, 3, 207 A.2d 774, 775 (1965). Here, paragraph 38 states, "Plaintiff's Complaint fails to meet, the required specificity in pleadings by citing a particular statutory section that the Defendant is alleged to have violated." (Def.'s Answer with New Matter to Pl.'s Compl., ¶38.) Aside from the irony of raising a specificity argument, paragraph 38 is irrelevant since the Plaintiff seeks no statutory cause of action, only one for breach of contract. Therefore, paragraph 38 is stricken as impertinent. ORDER AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections to Defendant's New Matter, and after oral argument, heard February 14, 2014,.the prelintinary objections of Plaintiff are SUSTAINED. For reasons contained in the opinion filed of even date herewith, Paragraphs 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51, 57, and 59 of Defendant's Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint are stricken. The Defendant is given 20 days to file an amended pleading, if so desired, to plead any applicable defenses consistent with the accompanying opinion. 10 LxIII 16 CUMBERLAND LAW JOU AL 04/18/14 ESTATE AND TRUST NOTICES Notice is hereby given that, in the estates of the decedents set forth be- low, the Register of Wills has granted letters testamentary or of administra- tion to the persons named. Notice is also hereby given of the existence of the trusts of the deceased settlors set forth below for whom no personal representatives have been appointed within 90 days of death. All persons having claims or demands against said estates or trusts are requested to make known the same, and all persons indebted to said estates or trusts are requested to make pay- ment, without delay, to the executors or administrators or trustees or to their attorneys named below. FIRST PUBLICATION Brown, Mary Jeannette, dec'd. Late of Shippensburg Township. Executor: John Franklin Brown c/oThomas P. Gleason, Esquire, 49 West Orange Street, Suite 3, Shippensburg, PA 17257. Attorney: Thomas P. Gleason,. Esquire, 49 West Orange Street, Suite 3, Shippensburg, PA 17257, (717) 532-3270. Goldberg, Mordecai I., decd. Late of Shippensburg Township. Co -Executors: Marisa A. Tuhy and James R. Tuhy c/o Jerry A. Wei- gle, Esquire, Weigle & Associates, P.C., 126 East King Street, Ship- pensburg, PA 17257. Attorneys: Jerry A. Weigle, Es- quire, Weigle & Associates, P.C., 126 East King Street, Shippens- burg, PA 17257. Kapp, Elverta M., dec'd. Late of the Borough of Mechanics- burg. Executor: Jack L. Kapp, 613 Charles Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 11 Attorneys: Samuel J. Trueblood, Esquire, Morrow, Tompkins, Trueblood & Lefevre, LLC, P.O. Box 987, Valley Forge, PA 19482, (610) 935-2780. geese, Stanley A., Sr., deed. Late of Camp Hill Borough. Executrix: Donna S. Lindquist. Attorneys: Mary A. Etter Dis- singer, Esquire, Dissinger & Dis- singer, 400 South State Road, Marysville, PA 17053, (717) 957- 3474. Shoemaker, Robert J., dec'd. Late of Shippensburg Township. Executors: Russell W. Brookens, Jr., 239 SME, Shippensburg, PA 17257 and Richard A. Shoemaker, 1385 2nd Avenue, Chambers- burg, PA 17202. Attorneys: Joel R. Zullinger, Es- quire, Zullinger-Davis, P.C., 14 North Main Street, Suite 200„ Chambersburg, PA 17201, Soto, Marcello H., dec'd. Late of Lemoyne Borough. Executrix: Angela M. Soto -Hamlin c/o Richard W. Stewart, Esquire, Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weid- ner, 301 Market Street, P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043. Attorneys: Richard W. Stewart, Esquire, Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street, P,O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043 Updegrove, Doris J., deed. Late of Silver Spring Township. Executrix: Pamela K. Lauder- milch, 31) Mel Ron Court, Carlisle, PA 17015. Attorney: Wayne F. Shade, Es- quire, 53 West Pomfret Street, Carlisle, PA 17013. Updyke, Arleen E., deed. late of 320 Lisburn Rd., Upper Allen Township. GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #83351 FORRY ULLMAN 540 Court Street P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 610.777.5700 / FAX 610.777-2499 Attorneys for Defendant KRISTIN A. GALLY, PLAINTIFF v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 14-2041 — CIVIL ACTION FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Kristin A. Gaily c/o David Joseph Chapman, Esquire Schmidt Kramer, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AND REQUIRED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE WITHIN ANSWER AND AMENDED NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Attorney for Defendant GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant Attorney ID #83351 FORRY ULLMAN 540 Court Street P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 610.777.5700 / FAX 610.777-2499 KRISTIN A. GALLY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 14-2041 — CIVIL ACTION FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER 1. Admitted, upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. The Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 and as such, the allegations are denied. 4. Denied. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3. As such, said allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 4. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 4 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 4 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 5. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 5 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 5 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. NEGLIGENCE 6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 7. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 7, including subparagraphs (a) through (d), state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 7, including subparagraphs (a) through (d) are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 8. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 8, including subparagraphs (a) through (p), state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 8, including subparagraphs (a) through (p) are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 9. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 9 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 9 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 10. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 10 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 10 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 11 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 11 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 12. Denied. The allegations in paragraph 12 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations in paragraph 12 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff. NEW MATTER 13. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 14 as though fully set forth herein at length. 14. Plaintiff's cause of action is or may be barred or otherwise limited by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1701, et seq., as amended, including, but not limited to, the fact that Defendant is a resident relative in the Plaintiff's home. 15. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1701 et seq., as amended, Plaintiff is precluded from pleading, introducing into evidence, providing or recovering the amount of benefits paid or payable under said Act up to and including the limit of required benefits under said Act. Defendant hereby asserts all the defenses, limitations, and immunities available to them under said Act. 16. Plaintiff's cause of action is or may be barred or otherwise limited by the doctrine of comparative negligence. 17. Any acts or omissions of Defendants were not substantial causes of and did not result in the injuries or losses alleged by Plaintiff. Date: 6((/(Y BY: Respectfully submitted, FORRY ULLMAN, P.C. eraaldine M. Linn, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant VERIFICATION I, Francis J. Gally, III, being duly sworn according to law, depose and state that I am the Defendant in this matter, and that the facts set forth in the Amended Answer and New Matter of Defendant are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 7/a9/oZO/7` GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #83351 Attorneys for Defendant FORRY ULLMAN 540 Court Street P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 610.777.5700 / FAX 610.777-2499 KRISTIN A. GALLY, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 14-2041 FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE, the undersigned, hereby certify that on August 1, 2014, a copy of Defendant Francis J. Gaily, III's Amended Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff s Complaint was served upon the Plaintiff, by mailing the same to Plaintiffs counsel of record, via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David Joseph Chapman, Esquire Schmidt Kramer, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Attorneys for Defendant SCHMIDT KRAMER PC By: Scott B. Cooper, Esq. I.D. #70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 scooper@schmidtkramer. corn ri1_E0-01.-1.! ; !:,+r'= THE r ROTHONO TAA 2014AUG -6 Pik f:42 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Attorneys for Plaintiff KRISTIN A. GALLY, Plaintiff v. FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : No. 14-2041 • : CIVIL ACTION - LAW • : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER 13. Paragraph 13 is not directed towards answering Plaintiff and, therefore, no responsive pleading is required. 14. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 14 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations in Paragraph 14 are denied and strict proof is demanded thereof at trial. 15. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 15 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations in Paragraph 15 are denied and strict proof is demanded thereof at trial. 16. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 16 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations in Paragraph 16 are denied and strict proof is demanded thereof at trial. 17. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 17 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations in Paragraph 17 are denied and strict proof is demanded thereof at trial. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this honorable Court grant judgment in her favor and against the Defendant as requested in her Complaint. Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT KRAMER P By: 2 Scott B. Cooper, Esquire I.D. No. 70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, Pa 17101 (717) 232-6300 (717) 232-6467 Fax scooperaa schmidtkramer. corn Attorney for Plaintiff ATTORNEY VERIFICATION I, Scott B. Cooper, Esquire, verify .that I am attorney of record for the Plaintiff. I verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Date: Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT KRAMER PC By. Scott B. Cooper, Esquire I.D. No. 70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, Pa 17101 (717) 232-6300 (717) 232-6467 Fax scooperrschmidtkramer. corn Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day August,er, of 2014, I, Scott B. Coo p Esquire, hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of a Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Amended Answer to Complaint with New Matter by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Geraldine M. Linn, Esq. Forry Ullman 540 Court Street PO Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT KRAMER PC By: Scott B. Cooper, Esquire I.D. No. 70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorney for Plaintiffs FORRY ULLMAN By: GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE Attorney ID No. 83351 540 Court Street, P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 610-777-5700 / FAX 610-777-2499 FIL ED- OFFICE OF NE Pix.01.1iONOTAR'i 20/4 "ai b (ori I1: 52 CUMBERL, ND C 'NS YL.VAI�IA TY Attorneys for Defendant KRISTIN A. GALLY, PLAINTIFF v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 14-2041 FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, DEFENDANT : JURY TRIAL OF 12 JURORS DEMANDED MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS 1. This matter involves claims of Plaintiff that she suffered injuries and losses as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on July 14, 2012. 2. Defendant's counsel submitted written discovery, in the form of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, to Plaintiff's counsel on our about August 8, 2014. A true and correct copy of August 8, 2014 letter is attached hereto and made a part hereof and marked Exhibit "A". 3. Because Plaintiff had not submitted her discovery responses to Defendant, Defendant's counsel sent a letter in follow up on or about October 8, 2014 to again request responses to their discovery requests. A true and correct copy of October 8, 2014 letter is attached hereto and made a part hereof and marked Exhibit "B". 4. To date, Defendant's counsel has not yet received Plaintiff's responses to their Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. 5. Defendant will be prejudiced in preparing his defense if Plaintiff's discovery responses are not received promptly, and cannot proceed with additional discovery, including the recording of Plaintiff's deposition, until these responses and documents are received. 6. Defendant's counsel has conferred with all interested parties in an attempt to resolve the matter without Court action and have been unable to reach a satisfactory resolution of the issues presented. All the details of the efforts made to resolve this matter are outlined in Defendant's Motion to Compel, Pursuant to Pennsylvania R.C.P. 4019. 7. A Judge has not previously ruled upon any other issue relative to this action. Wherefore, Defendant respectfully requests that this honorable Court grant his request and compel Plaintiff to provide complete and verified discovery responses, without objections, as detailed in the attached Order. Date: November 5, 2014 BY: Respectfully submitted, FORRY ULLMA GLIA' [DINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant FORRY ULLMAN By: GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE Attorney ID No. 83351 540 Court Street, P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 610-777-5700 / FAX 610-777-2499 Attorneys for Defendant KRISTIN A. GALLY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 14-2041 FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, Defendant : JURY TRIAL OF 12 JURORS DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE, and FORRY ULLMAN, attorneys for Defendant, Francis J. Gaily, III, certify that Defendant's Motion to Compel was served, this date, by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Scott B. Cooper, Esquire Schmidt Kramer, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Date: November 5, 2014 BY: FORRY ULLMAN-am GE . INN, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant MPS,' aav ar Forry ► Ullman Attorneys at Law August 8, 2014 David Joseph Chapman, Esquire Schmidt Kramer, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Re: Gally v. Gally Cumberland County C.C.P. No. 14-2041 Our File No. 602555 Dear Mr. Chapman: 540 Court Street P.O. Box 542 Reading PA 19603 PH 610.777.5700 rx 610.777.2499 GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE DIRECT DIAL 610.568.1431- E -MAIL: glinn@forryullman.com Enclosed please find Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed to Plaintiff Please respond in the manner and within the time provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure. GML/lmd Enclosures Philadelphia King of Prussia Reading - Bethlehem www.forryullman.com Exhibit B ,Ittgt*Srigo,6A-Ntore' Forry Ullman Attorneys at Law October 8, 2014 David Joseph Chapman, Esquire Schmidt Kramer, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Re: Gaily v. Gaily Cumberland County C.C.P. No. 14-2041 Our File No. 602555 Dear Mr. Chapman: 540 Court Street I P.O. Box 542 I Reading PA 19603 PH 610.777.5700 FX 610.777.2499 GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE DIRECT DIAL: 610-568-1431 E-MAIL: glinn@forryullman.com Our Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed to Plaintiff in the above matter were sent to you on or about August 8, 2014. To date, we have not received your client's responses to these requests. Please provide your client's responses to our discovery requests within ten (10) days, so as to obviate the need for motions practice. GML/ Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, (44LL:0,, gt/t//5 k,', Geraldine M. Linn, Esquire Phhaoelphia Kinc of Prussia Reaciint: Bethlehem KRISTIN A. GALLY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 14-2041 — CIVIL ACTION FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, DEFENDANT : JURY TRIAL OF 12 JURORS DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this 17TH day of NOVEMBER, 2014, a Rule is issued upon Plaintiff to Show Cause why the Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery should not be granted. Rule returnable twenty (20) days after service. Edward E. Guido, J. ✓Scott B. Cooper, Esquire " Geraldine M. Linn, Esquire q re / ' b t LEGE //y GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #83351 FORRY ULLMAN 540 Court Street P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 610.777.5700 / FAX 610.777-2499 Attorneys for Defendant KRISTIN A. GALLY, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 14-2041 FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO COMPEL TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Kindly withdraw Defendant's Motion to Compel filed in the above -captioned matter on November 17, 2014. Dated: 11/19/14 By: FORRY ULLMAN GELDINE Attorneys for Defendant GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE Attorney ID #83351 Attorneys for Defendant FORRY ULLMAN 540 Court Street P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 610.777.5700 / FAX 610.777-2499 KRISTIN A. GALLY, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 14-2041 FRANCIS J. GALLY, III, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, GERALDINE M. LINN, ESQUIRE, the undersigned, hereby certify that on November 19, 2014, a copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Withdraw Motion to Compel was served upon the Plaintiff, by mailing the same to Plaintiff's counsel of record, via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David Joseph Chapman, Esquire Schmidt Kramer, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. FORRY ULLMAN Dated: 11/19/14 By: RALD M. -INN, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant