Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-5700 8/28/2014 Dauphin County User: LGARCIA Time: 03:12 PM Complete Case History ` Page 1 of 3 Case: 2013-CV-10493-CV /q C xvj June I Washington vs. Becker Associates Filed: 12/2/2013 Subtype: Civil Physical File: Y Appealed: N Comment: Status History Pending 12/2/2013 . Closed 8/26/2014 Judge History Date Judge Reason for Removal 12/2/2013 No Judge, Current Payments Receipt Date Type Amount Washington, June I (plaintiff) 306973 12/2/2013 Civil Filing 162.00 Total 162.00 Plaintiff Name: Washington, June I SSN: Address: DOB: Sex: Phone: Home: Work: Employer: Send notices: Y Litigant Type: Comment: Attorneys M M rr Walwyn, Melville GM Send NoticesCD Sloan, Doreena L (Primary attorney) Send NoticesCD ice- —_��'• Defendant _ Name: Becker Associates SSN: Address: DOB: ; C0 Sex: Phone: Home: Work: Employer: Send notices: Y Litigant Type: Comment: Attorneys Snyder, Steven D (Primary attorney) Send Notices Register of Actions 12/2/2013 New Civil Case Filed This Date. No Judge, Filing: Writ of Summons Paid by: No Judge, Washington, June I (plaintiff) Receipt number: 0306973 Dated: 12/2/2013 Amount: $162.00 (Cash) For: Washington, June I (plaintiff) Plaintiff: Washington, June I Attorney of No Judge, Record: Melville GM Walwyn �� 311S.7e1. 8/28/2014 Dauphin County User: LGARCIA —Time: 03:12 PM Complete Case History Page 2 of 3 Case: 2013-CV-10493-CV June I Washington vs. Becker Associates Register of Actions 12/2/2013 Premises Liability Tort Praecipe for Writ of No Judge, Summons, filed. Writ of Summons Issued. AOPC MONTHLY CIVIL COURT STATISTICAL REPORT DATA 12/12/2013 Writ of Summons: Sheriff of Dauphin No Judge, County returns Not Found as to Defendant(s). So Answers, J.R. Lotwick, Sheriff. to Becker Associates on 12/12/2013; Assigned to Dauphin Co Sheriffs Office. Service Fee of$50.00. Montgomery County Sheriffs Costs;$33.00 2/19/2014 Writ of Summons Re-Issued. See No Judge, Praecipe, filed. 3/4/2014 Reissued Writ of Summons: Sheriffs No Judge, Return filed stating service was completed. So answers J.R. Lotwick, Sheriff. to Becker Associates on 3/4/2014; Assigned to Dauphin Co Sheriffs Office. Service Fee of $50.00. Montgomery County Sheriffs Costs; $33.00. 4/1/2014 Cipriani &Werner by Steven D Snyder, No Judge, Esq enters appearance on behalf of Defendant: Becker Associates Rule is issued upon Plaintiff to file a No Judge, Complaint within 20 days of service or suffer entry of Judgment of Non Pros. See PRAECIPE, filed. 4/4/2014 Certificate of Service of the Rule to File No Judge, Complaint issued on April 1, 2014. See Praecipe, filed. 5/7/2014 Certificate of Service. See PRAECIPE, No Judge, filed. 5/28/2014 Complaint filed. No Judge, 7/15/2014 Preliminary objections of defendant, No Judge, Becker Associates, to plaintiffs complaint, filed. 8/19/2014 Doreena L Sloan, Esq enters appearance No Judge, as co-counsel on behalf of Plaintiff: Washington, June I Motion to transfer action to Cumberland No Judge, County, filed. 8/22/2014 Brief of Defendant, Becker Associates, In No Judge, Support of Its Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint, filed. 8/26/2014 Upon Review and consideration of Bratton, Bruce F. Defendant's Preliminary Objections and the Plaintiffs Motion to Transfer Action to Cumberland Count, it is hereby ORDERE DAN DDECREED that this entire action is directed to be transferred to Cumberland County for all further proceedings. See COMPLETE ORDER filed. Copies dist by Crt Admin on 8/27/14. Date: 8/28/2014 Dauphin County User: LGARCIA Time: 03:12 PM Complete Case History Page 3 of 3 Case: 2013-CV-10493-CV June I Washington vs. Becker Associates Register of Actions 8/26/2014 Transferred/Withdrawn ( Civil Action ) No Judge, See PRAECIPE, filed. AOPC MONTHLY CIVIL COURT STATISTICAL REPORT DATA ****NO MORE ENTRIES CASE No Judge, TRANSFERRED**** TO THE COURT OF COMMON AUG 2 LEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY I hereby certify that the r oing:nailed. true and correct copy of he rigi Pr5i O ./ • d r E tt,.4 IGINAL k . Q1� 1 . JUNE L.WASHINGTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA V. No.: 2013 CV 10493 CV BECKER ASSOCIATES .:. ,; CIVIL ACTION—AT LAW Defendant ORDER AND NOWthis Z� day of f Y ,2014,upon review , and consideration of Defendant's Preliminary Objections and the Plaintiff s Motion to Transfer Action to Cumberland County,it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that this entire action is directed to be transferred to Cumberland County for all further proceedings. The Dauphin County Prothonotary is hereby ORDERED to effectuate the transfer. The costs and fees for transfer and removal of the record shall be paid by the Plaintiff after notification by the Prothonotary. Notification shall be done as soon as reasonably possible,but in no event shall it be longer than thirty (30)days from the date of this Order. J. Distribution: Melville G. M.Walwyn,Esquire, 4088 Broadmoor Circle,Naperville,Illinois 60564 1 Mumma Road, Suite 201,Lemoyne,PSA 145 Steven D. Snyder,Esquire, 101 1145 c AUG 2 8 20M O cggiy inat me foregoing is aco _ trud`and correct copy of the origirmg - Bled. in -t- Prothm, tery Supreme Cour•6f ennsylvania 1"-71 ,z Courf:6f-.Comlmon`Pleas G� . . For Prot conotar se 1 �? CiyilCover=�lieet L:.1 Docket N`o:0 �v'P `,' County0101 l (3q 9,3 CV :" �, The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration pia poses. This fi�1-n7 dory not su,pplen7ent or replace the filing and-service ofpleadings or other papers as required by Imv or rules of court. Commencement of Action: ❑ Complaint Writ of Summons ❑ Petition Transfer from Anothe urisdiction ❑ Declaration of Taking C. Lead Plaintiff's Name: Lead Defendant's Name: kl G��� \ Cc 1�-t r s qac Are money damages requested? ❑ es ❑ No Dollar Amount Requested: ❑within arbitration limits (check one) ❑outside arbitration limits N Is this a Class Action Suit.? [I Yes 3;'No Is this an MDJAppeal? ❑ Yes - o t9 1 A Name of Plaintiff/Appellant's Attorney: l�/j k1fa - ❑ Clieck here if you have no attorney.(are a Self-Represented [Pro Sef Litigant) Nature of the Case: Place an"X"to theleft of the ONE case category that most accurately describes your PR1111ARY CASE. If you are making more than one type of claim, check the one thaf you consider most.important. TORT(do not include Mass Tat) rNTRACT(do not include Judgments) CIVIL APPEALS Intentional Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies ❑ Malicious Prosecution Debt Collection: Credit Card ❑( Board of Assessment Motor Vehicle Debt Collection: Other ❑ Nuisance ❑ Board of Elections Premises Liability Dept.of Transportation '. Product Liability(does not include Statutory Appeal:.Other mass tort) ❑ Employment Dispute: { Discrimination -•=: �] Slander/LibeV Defamation Other: ❑ Employment Dispute: Other El Zoning Board El Other: ' ❑ Other: MASS TORT El Asbestos .:N,- ❑ Tobacco Toxic Tort-DES © Toxic Tort-Implant REAL PROPERTY r Toxic Waste MISCELLANEOUS Other: ❑ Ejectment ❑ Common Law/Statutory Arbitration :. ElEminent Domain/Condemnation ❑ Declaratory Judgment Ground Rent ❑ Mandamus Landlord/Tenant Dispute ❑ Noo-Domestic Relations PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY ❑ Mortgage Foreclosure:Residential Restraining Order ❑ Mortgage Foreclosure:Commercial ❑Quo Warranto ❑ Dental © Legal ❑ Partition ❑Replevin © Quiet Title ❑Other: \4edical ❑ Other: ❑-Other Professional: Updated 1/1/2011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUNE I WASHINGTON 1108 Hamilton Circle Harrisburg, PA 17111 Plaintiff BECKER ASSOCIATES NO.. a 3 v 093 111 Presidential Boulevard Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Defendant PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons in the above captioned action. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to [ ] Attorney [XX] Sheriff MEMILLE G. M. LWYN, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID # 18060 4088 Broadmoor Circle Naperville, Illinois 60564 1(Q�.C) (717) 877-7765 Date: 3 C; M c DO A'q T WRIT OF SUMMONS ' TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS CO CED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. A Protha tary Date: DEC 0 2 2013 J f Deputy ci) f fr ED Shelley Ruhl Jack Dui nan Real Estale Deputy Chief Depguty Matthew L. Owens Michael W. Rinehart Solicitor Assistant Chief Deputy Dauphin County 101 Market Street Harrisburg,Pennsylvania 17101-2079 ph:(717)780-6590 fax:(717)255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania JUNE WASHINGTON County of Dauphin VS BECKER ASSOCIATES Sheriff s Return No. 2013-CV-10493-CV 1, Jack Lotwick, Sheriff of the County of Dauphin, State of Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and return, that I made diligent search and inquiry for BECKER ASSOCIATES the DEFENDANT named in the within WRIT OF SUMMONS and that I am unable to find him/her in the County of Dauphin, and therefore return same NOT FOUND, DECEMBER 12, 2013. PER MONTGOMERY CO, ADDRESS: 111 PRESIDENTIAL BLVD, BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004 IS VACANT., DEFT MOVED. So Answers, N Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pa. > c.. C= Deputy: COUNTY OTHER C:)FiE' z Plaintiff: JUNE WASHINGTON Sheriffs Costs: $50 12/2/2013 C-- 21- Out Out Of County Cost: $33.00 -� I MAG ED, v� °s�` In the Court of COMMON PLEAS of 1 l U8 I-'1am��fir\ Circ L't. Dauphin County VS. Gcc Ker 0-3- acs �cs No. Cy /0 `l q 3 C(/ 6C ImQ l t �,rL SUt-k so3 66J a De 1C YX rT t�•tC �-e ..�3lI�. �J('�� d � �alY� maw S �vVY\yv'\'�� t N 7 f zz .r.r. TO: Stephen E. Farina, Prothonotary Attorney for Plaintiff Proth. - 3 hVIAGED Shelley Ruhl Jack Duignan Real EstaTe Deputy 1% + Chief Deputy Matthew L. Owens Michael W. Rinehart Solicitor Assistant Chief Deputy Dauphin County 101 Market Street Harrisburg,Pennsylvania 17101-2079 ph:(717)780-6590 fax:(717)255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania JUNE WASHINGTON VS County of Dauphin BECKER ASSOCIATES Sheriff s Return No. 2013-CV-10493-CV 1 And now: MARCH 4, 2014 at 11:15:00 AM served the within REISSUED WRIT OF SUMMONS upon BECKER ASSOCIATES by personally handing to KAREN LALLI 1 true attested copy of the original REISSUED WRIT OF SUMMONS and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 1 BELMONT AVENUE, SUITE 503 (MONTGOMERY CO) BALA CYNWYD PA 19004 PERSON IN CHARGE WHO ACCEPTED FOR DEFENDANT AT TIME OF SERVICE. So Answers, X- -0rn ...- i ^iC 1 q'1 Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pa. =cT�ram r�c Deputy: COUNTY OTHER Plaintiff. JUNE WASHINGTON Sheriffs Costs: $50 2/21/2014 Out Of County Cost: $33.00 IMAGED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NUMBER: 2013-CV-10493-CV JUNE L WASHINGTON, Plaintiff ISSUE NUMBER: V. PLEADING: BECKER ASSOCIATES, PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE Defendant CODE AND CLASSIFICATION: FILED ON BEHALF OF: BECKER ASSOCIATES,Defendant. COUNSEL OF RECORD: STEVEN D. SNYDER, ESQUIRE Pa. ID# 34344 CIPRIANI &WERNER,P.C. 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne,PA 17043 (717) 975-9600 �.. 1 c:) CD CV IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION JUNE I. WASHINGTON, ) CASE NO: 2013-CV-10493-CV Plaintiff rte ?c'� V. =_� ...-r:a CD —sn- BECKER ASSOCIATES, Defendant ) w PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE TO: PROTHONOTARY OF DAUPHIN COUNTY Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, BECKER ASSOCIATES, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: STEVEN D. S YDER SQUIRE Counsel for the Defendant, A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED BECKER ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendant, BECKER ASSOCIATES, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE has been served on all counsel of record, by first class mail, postage pre-paid, according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the day of �� , 2014. Melville G.M. Walwyn, Esquire P.O. Box 1083 -ra Harrisburg, PA 17108 r (Counsel for the Plaintiff -yc N Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: JP4�"1 'STEVEN D. SNYDE , ESQUIRE Counsel for the Defendant, BECKER ASSOCIATES AAG c Lj IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION JUNE I. WASHINGTON, CASE NUMBER: 2013-CV-10493-CV ISSUE NUMBER: Plaintiff ' ' M ��` = V. PLEADING: z ; ei :z' 5 cD BECKER ASSOCIATES, o PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE A Defendant COMPLAINT CODE AND CLASSIFICATION: FILED ON BEHALF OF: BECKER ASSOCIATES,Defendant. COUNSEL OF RECORD: STEVEN D. SNYDER, ESQUIRE Pa. ID# 34344 CIPRIANI &WERNER,P.C. 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne,PA 17043 (717) 975-9600 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION JUNE I. WASHINGTON, ) CASE NO: 2013-CV-10493-CV > Plaintiff ) V. �J r . BECKER ASSOCIATES, ) Defendant ) PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT TO: PROTHONOTARY OF DAUPHIN COUNTY Kindly issue a Rule upon the Plaintiff, June I. Washington, directing Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of the service of the Rule or suffer the entry of a judgment of non pros. CIPRIANI &WERNER, P.C. BY: TEVEN D. SNYDER, QUIRE Counsel for the Defendant, A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED BECKER ASSOCIATES RULE TO THE PLAINTIFF: You are hereby ordered arid'directed to file your Complaint nst the Defendant in the above-captioned matter within twenty,,(20) days.of service of this u against you or suffer judgment non pros. F AJ Dated: SPR 0 1 2014 ; Prothonotary L CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendant, BECKER ASSOCIATES, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT has been served on all counsel of record, by first class mail, postage pre-paid according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the day of , 2014. Melville G.M. Walwyn, Esquire P.O. Box 1083 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for the Plaintiff) Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: STEVEN D. SNYDE , ESQUIRE Counsel for the Defendant, BECKER ASSOCIATES t � IMAGED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION JUNE I. WASHINGTON, CASE NUMBER: 2013-CV-10493-CV Plaintiff ISSUE NUMBER: V. PLEADING: BECKER ASSOCIATES, Defendant PRAECIPE TO FILE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE TO PROTHONOTARY'S RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT G� "rJ ^f' CODE AND CLASSIFICATION: pr° V FILED ON BEHALF OF: BECKER ASSOCIATES,Defendant. COUNSEL OF RECORD: STEVEN D. SNYDER, ESQUIRE Pa. ID# 34344 CIPRIANI &WERNER,P.C. 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne,PA 17043 (717) 975-9600 c • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION JUNE I. WASHINGTON, ) CASE NO: 2013-CV-10493-CV Plaintiff ) V. ) BECKER ASSOCIATES, Defendant c) PRAECIPE TO FILE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE TO `� t PROTHONOTARY'S RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO: PROTHONOTARY OF DAUPHIN COUNTY Kindly file the attached Certificate of Service evidencing that the Prothonotary's Rule to File Complaint issued on April 1, 2014 has been served upon counsel for the Plaintiff on the date indicated therein. CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: -09 A STEVEN D. §NYDER, ES RE Counsel for the Defendant, A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED BECKER ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served the Prothonotary's Rule to File Complaint, issued on April 1, 2014, upon counsel for the Plaintiff on the 2nd day of April, via certified mail at the following address: Melville G.M. Walwyn, Esquire P.O. Box 1083 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: S VEN D. SN DER, ES RE Counsel for the Defendant, A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED BECKER ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendant, BECKER ASSOCIATES, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its PRAECIPE TO FILE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE TO PROTHONOTARY'S RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT has been served on all counsel of record, by first class mail, postage re-paid according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the day of , 2014. Melville G.M. Walwyn, Esquire P.O. Box 1083 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for the Plaintif Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: STE EN D. SNY ER, ES IRE Counsel for the Defendant, BECKER ASSOCIATES IMAGED r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION CA JUNE I. WASHINGTON, CASE NUMBER: 2013-CV-10493-11 ISSUE NUMBER: Plaintiff , V. PLEADING: BECKER ASSOCIATES, - + ::tet Defendant PRAECIPE TO FILE CERTIFICATE-OF SERVICE TO PROTHONOTARY'S RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT CODE AND CLASSIFICATION: FILED ON BEHALF OF: BECKER ASSOCIATES,Defendant. COUNSEL OF RECORD: STEVEN D. SNYDER, ESQUIRE Pa. ID# 34344 CIPRIANI &WERNER,P.C. 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne,PA 17043 (717) 975-9600 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION NNE I. WASHINGTON, ) CASE NO: 2013-CV-10493-CV Plaintiff V. BECKER ASSOCIATES, .4. -40 Defendant ) PRAECIPE TO FILE CERTIFICATE COMPLAINT PROT[IONOTARY'S RULE TO FILE TO: PROTHONOTARY OF DAUPHIN COUNTY Kindly file the attached Certificate of Service evidencing that the Prothonotary's Rule to File Complaint issued on April 1, 2014 has been served upon counsel for the Plaintiff on the date indicated therein. CIPRIANI &WERNER,P.C. BY: C� STEVEN D. SNYDER,ES IRE Counsel for the Defendant, A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED BECKER ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served the Prothonotary's Rule to File Complaint, issued on April 1, 2014, upon counsel for the Plaintiff on the 5h day of May, via certified mail at the following address: Melville G.M. Walwyn,Esquire 4088 Broadmoor Circle Naperville,IL 60564 Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER,P.C. BY: 4VEN SNYDER, ES IRE Counsel for the Defendant, A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED BECKER ASSOCIATES CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendant, BECKER ASSOCIATES, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its PRAECIPE TO FILE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE TO PROTHONOTARY'S RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT has been served on all counsel of record, by first class mail, postage pre-paid, according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the day of , 2014. Melville G.M. Walwyn, Esquire 4088 Broadmoor Circle Naperville, IL 60564 (Counsel for the Plaintiff) Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI &WERNER,P.C. BY: v STEVEN D. SNYDER, ES IRE Counsel for the Defendant, BECKER ASSOCIATES IMAGED s JUNE L.WASHINGTON : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA V. : No. 2013-CV-10493-CV - ' BECKER ASSOCIATESr Defendant : CIVIL ACTION-LAW -a -� N JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CP A-) 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. DAUPHIN COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 213 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 232--7536 JUNE L. WASHINGTON : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . V. : No. 2013-CV-10493-CV �. . BECKER ASSOCIATES Defendant : CIVIL ACTION—LAWCD :. . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff is June L. Washington, an adult individual, sui juris, and lives at 1108 Hamilton Circle, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17111. 2. Defendant is Becker Associates, a Pennsylvania Partnership, whose business address is 1 Belmont Avenue, Suite 503, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004. 3. Becker Associates, is the owner of the Shopping Center and building situated at 99 Gateway Square, 1 Gateway Drive,Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055, and which store front, on December 6, 2011, was partially or wholly occupied by TJ Maxx, a Department Store. 4. On December 6, 2011 plaintiff visited the said TJ Maxx Store at approximately 5:00 P.M. to do some shopping. 5. Upon leaving the said store, and immediately in front of the main door, plaintiff stepped into a hole in the roadway (there was no sidewalk), which hole was estimated to be approximately 3 to 4 inches deep. 6. As plaintiff stepped into the hole she twisted her left ankle and fell to the ground on her left side, causing several bruises and bleeding to her legs and severe soreness to her left ankle, her left knee, her hands and shoulders. 7. At all times pertinent hereto, the macadam in front of defendant's said building was in disrepair, and contained several holes of various sizes and depths. 8. Plaintiff reported the incident to the Store Manager, Audrey Leen, who denied liability on the part of TJ Maxx, but advised plaintiff that the care and maintenance of the said shopping center, and roadway in front of the store was, and is, the sole responsibility of the owner, Becker Associates, defendant herein. 9. As a direct and proximate result of the fall and of defendant's negligence, plaintiff was forced to be treated by various medical professionals, which eventually led to her undergoing Reconstructive Joint Surgery of the tendons in her left ankle. 10. At the time of the incident defendant was negligent per se, in that it failed to care and maintain the roadway in front of its building in a safe manner, and failed to use due care for the use and safety of its invitees (the public) to its place of business. 11. Defendant owed plaintiff and other invitees to its place,of business a high standard of care. 12. The acts or failure to act on the part of defendant set forth above were not ones that happen in the ordinary course of events, and if defendant had maintained the roadway in front of its building in a safe manner, and had exercised the due care required by law, towards persons in the class of plaintiff, plaintiff's trip and fall, together with the resulting damages, would not have occurred in the absence of an explanation that the disrepair of the roadway arose from a lack of ordinary care upon the defendant's part. 13. Defendant acted herein as aforesaid for the purpose of causing such injury, or with knowledge that such injury was substantially certain to follow. 14. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing negligent acts of the defendant, plaintiff has suffered serious, severe injury to her left knee, left leg, hip, back, shoulders and left ankle. 15. After several months of unsuccessful treatment said injuries required follow-up treatment in the form of Reconstruction of the tendons of her left ankle, physical therapy and prescription medication. Plaintiff's long-term post incident physical condition has been at times debilitating. She suffered, and continues to suffer from a swollen and painful left ankle. None of those symptoms were present prior to the incident. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing negligent acts of defendant, the plaintiff suffered and experienced emotional distress and mental anguish, all to her detriment and the diminution of the quality and enjoyment of her life. Plaintiff is entitled to monetary compensation for the said emotional distress and mental anguish. 17. By reason of the injuries suffered by plaintiff, the plaintiff has suffered medical expenses in excess of Eleven Thousand ($11,000.00) Dollars. 18. The injuries suffered by plaintiff are serious and permanent. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, June L. Washington, demands monetary compensation from defendant, Becker Associates, for bodily injuries suffered, medical expenses incurred, emotional distress and mental anguish experienced, damages and compensation to be a sum in excess of the amount set as the limit for compulsory arbitration, together with attorney's fees and costs of suit. lil4leu' submitted, G. M. Walwyn, # 18060 4088 Broadmoor Circle Naperville, Illinois 60564 (717) 877-7765 Date: May 28, 2014 Attorney for plaintiff JUNE L. WASHINGTON : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA -v- : No. 2013-CV-10493-CV BECKER ASSOCIATES Defendant : CIVIL ACTION—LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I, June L. Washington, hereby certify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. e L. Washington JUNE L. WASHINGTON Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA -V : No. 2013-CV-10493-CV BECKER ASSOCIATES Defendant : CIVIL ACTION—LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 28th day of May, 2014, served a copy of the within Complaint upon Steven D. Snyder, Esquire, Counsel for the defendant, at his Office at: Cipriani & Werner 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-1145. Me Walwyn Attorney for Plaintiff Date: May 28, 2014 i M IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY PE 14 IA CIVIL DIVISION JUNE L WASHINGTON, ) CASE NO: 2013-CV-10493-CV Plaintiff V. ) BECKER ASSOCIATES, Defendant PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT, BECKER ASSOCIATES, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Defendant, Becker Associates, by and through its attorneys, Cipriani & Werner, PC, preliminary object to the Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a praecipe for writ of summons in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania on December 2, 2013. 2. The original writ of summons was never served on Defendant and on February 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a praecipe to have the writ of summons reissued. 3. The reissued writ of summons was subsequently served on Defendant on March 4, 2014 4. On May 28, 2014, in response to a rule to file a complaint, Plaintiff filed her complaint, alleging that she tripped and fell, suffering various personal injuries as a result of the Defendant's negligence in failing to maintain premises owned by it. A copy of Plaintiffs complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit"A". Lack of Proper Venue 5. As alleged in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff's complaint, the business address of Becker Associates is 1 Belmont Avenue, Suite 503, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004. 6. As alleged in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Plaintiff's Complaint, the Plaintiff's alleged fall occurred on property owned by Becker Associates located at 99 Gateway Square, 1 Gateway Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 7. Plaintiff's cause of action arose on premises located at 1 Gateway Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 8. Defendant, Becker Associates, does not have a registered office or principle place of business in Dauphin County, does not conduct any business in Dauphin County, and does not own any real estate in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 9. Plaintiff's cause of action did not arise in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 10. Plaintiffs cause of action did not arise out of an occurrence or transaction that took place in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 11. Rule 2179 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, which sets forth proper venue for a personal action against a corporation, provides in pertinent part as follows: [A] personal action against a corporation or similar entity may be brought in and only in: (1) The county where it's registered office or principle place of business is located; (2) A county where it regularly conducts business; (3) A county where the cause of action arose; (4) A county where a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose, or (5) A county where the property or a part of the property which is the subject matter of the action is located provided that equitable relief is sought with respect to the property. Pa.R.C.P. 2179(a). 12. Proper venue for Plaintiff's action does not exist in Dauphin County as none of the requirements of Rule 2179(a) is met. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Becker Associates, requests that its preliminary objection to venue be sustained and that this action be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, where Plaintiff's cause of action arose and proper venue exists. Motion to Strike 13. In paragraph 10 of the complaint, the Plaintiff purports to allege negligence on the part of Becker Associates. 14. Paragraph 10 provides as follows: At the time of the incident, defendant was negligent per se, in that it failed to care and maintain the roadway in front of its building in a safe manner, and failed to use due care for the use and safety of its invitees (the public) to its place of business. 15. Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's complaint provides as follows: The acts or failure to act on the part of defendant set forth above were not ones that happen in the ordinary course of events, and if defendant had maintained the roadway in front of its building in a safe manner, and had exercised the due care required by law, towards persons in the class of plaintiff, plaintiff's trip and fall, together with the resulting damages, would not have occurred in the absence of an explanation that the disrepair of the roadway arose from a lack of ordinary care upon the defendant's part. 16. Paragraphs 10 and 12 of Plaintiff's complaint, in particular the alleged failure to "use due care for the use and safety of its invitees" (paragraph 10) and exercise "the due care required by law" (paragraph 12), fail to set forth with particularity and specificity the factual basis for the allegations contained therein, and therefore, fail to comply with law and the rules of court. 17. In addition, the averments set forth in paragraph 12 are vague, confusing, unclear, and incomprehensible, and therefore fail to set forth with particularity and specificity the factual basis for the allegations contained therein and fail to comply with law and the rules of court. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Becker Associates, requests that the phrase "and fail to use due care for the use and safety of its invitees (the public)to its place of business" in paragraph 10 and paragraph 1.2 in its entirety be stricken from the complaint. Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. A ;;� BY: P&A,4,� , TEVEN D. NYDER, DIRE Counsel for the Defendant, A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED BECKER ASSOCIATES 100%Recycled 30%PCW NNE L.WASHINGTON :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA i w• :No. 2013-CV-10493-CV d BECKER ASSOCIATES y Defendant :CIVIL ACTION—LAW :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ` s r } N.C. �D 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 PIaintiff. 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. DAUPHIN COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 213 North Front Street Harrisburg,Pennsylvania 17141 (717)232--7536 i JUNE L.WASHINGTON :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA 0 V. : No. 2013-CV-10493-CV p BECKER ASSOCIATES Defendant : CIVIL ACTION—LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED r r N COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff is June L.Washington,an adult individual,sui juris,and lives at 1108 Hamilton Circle,Harrisburg,Dauphin County,Pennsylvania 17111. 2. Defendant is Becher Associates,a Pennsylvania Partnership,whose business address is I Belmont Avenue,Suite 503,Bala Cynwyd,Peansylvania 19004. 3. Becker Associates,is the owner of the Shopping Center and building situated at 99 Gateway Square, l Gateway Drive,Mechanicsburg,Pennsylvania 17055,and which store front,on December 6,2011,was partially or wholly occupied by TJ Maxx,a Department Store. 4. On December 6,2011 plaintiff visited the said TJ Maxx Store at approximately 5:00 P.M.to do some shopping. 5. Upon leaving the said store,and immediately in front of the main door,plaintiff stepped into a hole in the roadway(there was no sidewalk),which hole was estimated to be approximately 3 to 4 inches deep. 6. As plaintiff stepped into the hole she twisted her left ankle and fell to the ground on her left side,causing several bruises and bleeding to her legs and severe soreness to her left ankle,her left knee,her hands and shoulders. J 7. At all times pertinent hereto,the macadam in front of defendant's said building was in disrepair,and contained several holes of various sizes and depths. 8. Plaintiff reported the incident to the Store Manager,Audrey Leen,who denied liability on the part of TJ Maxx,but advised plaintiff that the care and maintenance of the said shopping center,and roadway in front of the store was,and is,the sole responsibility of the owner,Becker Associates,defendant herein. 9. As a direct and proximate result of the fall and of defendant's negligence,plaintiff was forced to be treated by various medical professionals,which eventually led to her undergoing Reconstructive Joint Surgery of the tendons in her left ankle. 10. At the time of the incident defendant was negligent per se,in that it failed to care and maintain the roadway in front of its building in a safe manner,and failed to use due care for the use and safety of its invitees(the public)to its place of business. 11. Defendant owed plaintiff and other invitees to its place of business a high standard of care. 12. The acts or failure to act on the part of defendant set forth above were not ones that happen in the ordinary course of events;and if defendant had maintained the roadway in front of its building in a safe manner,and had exercised the due care required by law,towards persons in the class of plaintiff,plaintiff's trip and fall,together with the resulting damages, would not have occurred in the absence of an explanation that the disrepair of the roadway arose from a lack of ordinary care upon the defendant's part. 13. Defendant acted herein as aforesaid for the purpose of causing such injury,or with knowledge that such injury was substantially certain to follow. r i 14. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing negligent acts of the defendant, plaintiff has suffered serious,severe injury to her left knee,left leg,hip,back,shoulders and left ankle. 15. After several months of unsuccessful treatment said injuries required follow-up treatment in the form of Reconstruction of the tendons of her left ankle,physical therapy and prescription medication.Plaintiff's long-term post incident physical condition has been at times debilitating.She suffered,and continues to suffer from a swollen and painful left ankle.None of those symptoms were present prior to the incident. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing negligent acts of defendant, the plaintiff suffered and experienced emotional distress and mental anguish,all to her detriment and the diminution of the quality and enjoyment of her life.Plaintiff is entitled to monetary compensation for the said emotional distress and mental anguish. 17. By reason of the injuries suffered by plaintiff,the plaintiff has suffered medical expenses in excess of Eleven Thousand($11,000.00)Dollars. 18. The injuries suffered by plaintiff are serious and permanent. WHEREFORE,plaintiff,June L.Washington,demands monetary compensation from defendant,Becker Associates,for bodily injuries suffered,medical expenses incurred,emotional distress and mental anguish experienced,damages and compensation to be a sum in excess of the amount set as the limit for compulsory arbitration,together with attorney's fees and costs of suit. RW11 submitted, le G.M.Walwyn,# 18060 4088 Broadmoor Circle Naperville,Illinois 60564 (717)877-7765 Date:May 28,2014 Attorney for plaintiff i JUNE L.WASHINGTON :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA -v- :No. 2013-CV-10493-CV BECKER ASSOCIATES ; Defendant :CIVIL ACTION—LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION 1, June L. Washington, hereby certify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. � l r e e L.'Washington i JUNE L.WASHINGTON :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA -v- :No. 2013-CV-10493-CV BECKER ASSOCIATES Defendant :CIVIL ACTION—LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 28th day of May,2014,served a copy of the within Complaint upon Steven D.Snyder,Esquire,Counsel for the defendant,at his Office at: Cipriani&Werner 101 1 Mumma Road,Suite 201 Lemoyne,Pennsylvania 17043-1145. Me Walwyn Attorney for Plaintiff Date:May 28,2014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendant, BECKER ASSOCIATES, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT, BECKER ASSOCIATES, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT has been served on all counsel of record, by first class mail, postage re-paid, according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the day of , 2014. Melville G.M. Walwyn, Esquire 4088 Broadmoor Circle Naperville, IL 60564 (Counsel for the Plaintifj) Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: STEVEN D. SNYDER, E UIRE Counsel for the Defendant, BECKER ASSOCIATES . z t� IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION JUNE I. WASHINGTON, CASE NUMBER: 2013-CV-10493-CV Plaintiff ISSUE NUMBER: y - " V. PLEADING: ` BECKER ASSOCIATES, ��fn,, `1' Defendant PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT, BECKER ASSOCIATES, ;TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT CODE AND CLASSIFICATION: FILED ON BEHALF OF: BECKER ASSOCIATES, Defendant. COUNSEL OF RECORD: STEVEN D. SNYDER, ESQUIRE Pa. ID# 34344 CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 975-9600 JUNE L. WASHINGTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. No.: 2013 CV 10493 CV BECKER ASSOCIATES CIVIL ACTION—AT LAW Defendant PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance as an addition to the Defendant's Attorney currently of record, Melville G.M.Walwyn. Thank you. Doreena L. Sloan, Esquire P.O. Box 3401 Harrisburg, PA 17105 (717) 232-0577 (717) 232-3991 (fax) ) �•f Doreena L. Sloan, Es uir PA Supreme Court ID 44880 P.O. Box 3401 Harrisburg, PA 17105 (717) 232-0577 (717) 232-3991 (fax) Co-Attorney for Plaintiff > M .� r Z:m C3 b 2 �t v JUNE L. WASHINGTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA V. No.: 2013 CV 10493 CV BECKER ASSOCIATES CIVIL ACTION—AT LAW Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day of q ,2014, served a copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance upon the following individual by depositing it in the U.S. mails, first class, postage prepaid: Cipriani& Werner, P.C. ATTN: Steven D. Snyder, Esquire 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043-1145 oreena L. Sloan, Esquire P.O. Box 3401 Harrisburg, PA 17105 (717)232-0577 (717) 232-3991 (fax) 1�- 'AAGED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN.COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION JUNE I. WASHINGTON, CASE NUMBER: 2013-CV-10493-CV Plaintiff ISSUE NUMBER: V. PLEADING: BECKER ASSOCIATES, BRIEF OF DEFENDANT, BECKER Defendant ASSOCIATES, IN SUPPORT OF ITS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT CODE AND CLASSIFICATION: FILED ON BEHALF OF: BECKER ASSOCIATES, Defendant. COUNSEL OF RECORD: STEVEN D. SNYDER, ESQUIRE Pa. ID# 34344 CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 975-9600 s IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION JUNE 1. WASHINGTON, ) CASE NO: 2013-CV-10493-CV Plaintiff ) -z� V. ) � N CD Z.- r; BECKER ASSOCIATES, Defendant ) N cn BRIEF OF DEFENDANT,BECKER ASSOCIATES,IN SUPPORT OF ITS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff, June Washington, commenced this action by filing a praecipe for writ of summons in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County on December 2, 2013. The original writ was never served and on February 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a praecipe to have the writ of summons reissued. The reissued writ of summons was subsequently served on Defendant on March 4, 2014. The Plaintiff filed her complaint on May 28, 2014, in response to a rule to file a complaint. On July 15, 2014, Defendant filed preliminary objections to the plaintiff's complaint, challenging venue in Dauphin County and also requesting a more specific pleading. The Defendant's preliminary objections are presently before the court for disposition. According to the allegations in the complaint, on December 6, 2011, the Plaintiff tripped and fell on premises owned by the Defendant located at 99 Gateway Square, 1 Gateway Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. In general, Plaintiff alleges that the 1 Defendant negligently maintained the premises, which caused the Plaintiff to fall and suffer personal injuries. II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED A. IS VENUE IMPROPER IN DAUPHIN COUNTY BECAUSE THIS MATTER FAILS TO MEET ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPER VENUE SET FORTH IN RULE 2179 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE? Suggested Answer: Yes B. ARE THE ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS TEN AND TWELVE OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IN VIOLATION OF RULE 1019 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC? Suggested Answer: Yes III. ARGUMENT A. Venue in Dauphin County is improper because this matter fails to meet any of the requirements for proper venue set forth in Rule 2179 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 2179 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the basis for proper venue for a personal action against a corporation, such as the Defendant. Rule 2179 provides impertinent part as follows: A personal action against a corporation or similar entity may be brought in and only in: (1) the county where its registered office or principal place of business located; (2) a county where it regularly conducts business; (3) a county where the cause of action arose; (4) a county where a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose; or (5) a county where the property or a part of the property which is the subject matter of the action is located provided that equitable relief as sought with respect to the property. Pa.R.C.P. 2179 (a)'. 2 As alleged in the complaint, the Defendant's business address is 1 Belmont Avenue, Suite 503, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, 19004. Plaintiff allegedly fell on property owned by the Defendant in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Therefore, Plaintiff's cause of action arose in Cumberland County, not Dauphin County. The complaint does not allege that the Defendant conducts any business or owns any real estate in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. It could not because the Defendant does not conduct any business in Dauphin County and does not own any real estate in Dauphin County. In addition, based upon the allegations in the complaint, the Plaintiff's cause of action did not arise out of an occurrence or transaction that took place in Dauphin County. Thus, based upon the allegations in the complaint, the Plaintiff fails to meet any of the requirements of Rule 2179 for there to be proper venue in Dauphin County. Accordingly, venue in Dauphin County is improper and this matter should be transferred to Cumberland County, where Plaintiff's cause of action arose and therefore venue is proper. B. The averments of negligence set forth in paragraph ten and paragraph twelve of the Complaint are not sufficiently specific as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1019 and are severely prejudicial to the Defendant because it does not enable it to properly prepare a defense to the cause of action alleged. In Plaintiff's complaint,paragraphs ten and twelve, the Plaintiff pleads as follows: (10) At the time of the incident, Defendant was negligent per se in that it failed to care and maintain the roadway in front of its building in a safe manner and failed to use due care for the use and safety of its invitees (the public)to its place of business. (12) The act or failure to act on the part of Defendant set forth above were not ones that happen in the ordinary course of events, and if Defendant had maintained the roadway in front of its building in a 3 safe manor, and had exercised the due care required by law, towards persons in the class of Plaintiff, Plaintiff's trip and fall, together with the resulting damages, would not have occurred in the absence of an explanation that the disrepair of the roadway arose from a lack of ordinary care upon the Defendant's part. Plaintiff s Complaint,paragraphs 10 and 12. Pennsylvania is a fact pleading state. Miketic v. Baron, 450 Pa. Super. 91, 104, 675 A.2d 324, 330 (1996) (citations omitted). Under Pennsylvania law, "[t]he material facts on which a cause of action ... is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). In order to adequately plead a cause of action, "the pleader must define the issues; every act or performance essential to that end must be set forth in the complaint." Id The courts have further elaborated on this provision of Pa.R.C.P. 1019, noting that it is designed to define the issues clearly and to apprise the opposing party of precisely what the pleading party intends to establish at trial. See, Laursen v. General Hospital of Monroe County, 259 Pa. Super. 150, 393 A.2d 761 (1981), reversed on other grounds, 491 Pa. 244, 431 A.2d 240 (1981). Specifically, "[p]leadings serve a function of defining issues and giving notice to the opposing parties of what the pleader intends to prove at trial so that the opposition may, in turn, prepare to meet such proof with its own evidence." Id At 160, 393 A.2d at 766 (citations omitted). More non-specific allegations of negligence, like the one referred to above, have been increasingly scrutinized since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision in Conner v. Allegheny General Hospital, 501 Pa. 306, 461 A.2d 600 (1983). In Conner, the trial court allowed the plaintiff, shortly before trial, to allege a new theory of negligence by amending his complaint, in which plaintiff had alleged that the defendant "otherwise failed to use due care and 4 • caution." In response to the defendant's argument that the late amendment was beyond the statute of limitations,the Supreme Court stated: if[defendant] did not know how it "otherwise fail[ed] to use due care and caution under the circumstances" it could have filed a preliminary objection in the nature of a request for a more specific pleading or it could have moved to strike that portion of appellant's complaint. Conner v. Allegheny General Hospital, 501 Pa. 306, 313, n.3, 461 A.2d 600, 604, n.3 (1983). Conner, therefore, establishes that where preliminary objections are not filed, a party is deemed to know what the plaintiff has alleged. Id Accordingly, trial courts have held that in order to survive preliminary objections, a pleading must be specific enough to allow the opposing party to properly meet each allegation: It is our feeling that the only principal which offers any meaningful guidance to perspective pleaders is to require specificity in all allegations of negligence. Thus, we will no longer countenance general averments of negligence. Should discovery disclose the existence of other acts of negligence, it should be noted that the Rules of Civil Procedure provide for liberality in permitting amendments ... . It is, of course, the rule that an amendment will not be permitted after the statute of limitation has run if it introduces a new cause of action. (citations omitted.) Starr v. Myers, 109 Dauphin 147, 155-56 (1988) (emphasis added). The Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County has similarly stricken non-specific, boiler plate allegations of negligence: This Court has ruled upon this precise issue in Brown v. Matthews, No. 1991 of 1984 (Lancaster Co., 1985) and Doutt v. Argires, No. 197-1984 (Lancaster Co., 1984). In Glassman v. Kim, No. 112, January Term, 1983 (Lancaster Co., 194), Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter of this Court also ruled on the same issue. In Brown, Supra., relying upon Conner v. Allegheny General Hospital, Supra., we held that general allegations of negligence do not conform with Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). We sustained the defendant's motion to strike off the paragraphs of plaintiff's complaint which contained general allegations of negligence. In Doutt, Supra., we relied upon Conner v. Allegheny General Hospital, Supra., and held the general allegations of negligence in a medical malpractice case are insufficient to apprise the defendant of the claim asserted against him. We granted the defendant's motion for a more specific pleading. In Glassman, Supra., Judge 5 i Buckwalter relied upon Conner v. Allegheny General Hospital, Supra., and granted the defendant's motion to strike off the paragraphs of the plaintiff's complaint which contained general allegations of negligence. The defendant's motion for a more specific pleading with respect to general allegations of negligence was also sustained. Trent v. Lancaster General Hospital, No. 2114 of 1984, slip op. at 3-4 (Lanc. 1985) (a copy of this case is attached hereto as Exhibit"A"). In Trent; the following allegations of negligence were stricken as being impermissibly broad and non-specific: (a) In rendering care and treatment to the Plaintiff in such a fashion as to allow post-operative infection of his left eye; (e) Failing to follow proper techniques and procedures; (f) Failing to use proper equipment and instruments; (g) Failing to provide qualified, competent medical personnel to diagnose, treat and care for the Plaintiff; (h) Committing negligence at law; (i) Committing medical malpractice. In the instant case, both paragraph 10 and paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's complaint allege in part a failure to "use due care for the use and safety of its invitees" and exercise "the due care required by law". These averments merely allege that the Defendant failed to use due care. This amounts to nothing more than stating a legal conclusion that the Defendant was negligent. The averments do not inform the Defendant of anything, as they are nothing more than general 6 • averments of negligence, which have been routinely found to be insufficient and subject to a motion to strike. No factual support for the allegations is included in the paragraphs. Allegations such as the one referred to above, if permitted to remain in a complaint, have the practical effect of forever tolling the statute of limitations. This, in essence, is what happened in Conner. As noted by the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County, "[o]ne should not be permitted to discover their way through the law suit." Cook v. Gettysburg Borough, 39 Pa D&C 4th 342, 351 (1997). In light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Conner, as well as countless trial court decisions, it is clear paragraphs 10 and 12 are not in accordance with Pennsylvania's fact pleading requirements. In fact, both paragraphs, in addition to being over broad and merely averring the Defendant was negligent in general, are vague, unclear, and incomprehensible. Consequently,the paragraphs should be stricken from the complaint. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendant, Becker Associates, requests that its preliminary objection to venue be sustained and that an order be entered transferring this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, where venue is proper. In addition, Becker Associates requests that its motion to strike be granted and that an order be entered striking paragraphs 10 and 12 from Plaintiff's complaint. Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER,P.C. BY: T VEN D. SNYDER, QUIRE Counsel for the Defendant, A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED BECKER ASSOCIATES 7 J� COPY TO CHRIjTOPi':ZR C. MATTSb1if ESQUIRE IN THE COURT OF CO'MMON- PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW PRESTON W. TRENT vs• . No. 2114 of 1985 THE LANCASTER GINZERAL HOSPITAL OP IN IO •N BY ECKMAN, S. Presently before the Court are the Preliminary Objections in the nature of a Motion to Strike filed by Defendant, Lancaster General Hospital, to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff, Preston W.. Trent. Plaintiff instituted this medical malpractice action by filing a Complaint against Defendant on July 3 , 1 1985. Defendant. filed the instant Preliminary Objections on July 29, 1985. Briefs having been submitted by- the parties, the matter is ready fo= disposition. A motion to strike off a pleading will be sustained if the pleading fails to conform to law or rule of court or if it contains scandalous or impertinent matter., Pa. R.C.P . No. 1017 (b) (2) . Defendant maintains that Paragraph 7, subparagraphs (a) , (e) , (f) , (g) , (h) ' and (i) should be stricken because they violate the mandate of Pae R.C.P. No. 1019 (a) requiring t-he pleader . to concisely state the material facts .upon which the cause of action is based_- These portions of the Complaint state: . . (7) The Defendant was careless, reckiess •and negligent in the care and, treatment rendered to the Plaintiff by the Defendant, its agents, servants or employees in one or more of the . following particulars: (a) in rendering care and treatment to the Plaintiff in such a fashion as to allow' post-operative infection of his left eye. . . . (e) Failing to follow proper techniques and procedures. a (f) Failing to use proper equipment and 'instruments . (g) Failing to Provide Qualified, •competent medical personnel to diagnose, treat and care for the Plaintiff. (h) Committing negligence at law. (i) Committing medical malpractice. Defendant alleges that these general allegations of negligence are vague conclusions and not material facts as required by Pa. R.C.P." Pio. 1019 (a) . Therefore, Defendant claims that 'it is unable to answer these allegations with specificity. Defendant further maintains that these allegations are prejudicial to it because they are sufficient to toll the statute of limitations and allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint at any time to include new theories of recovery, See Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, 501 Pa. 306, 461 A. 2d 600 (1983) . • I in Connor v. -Alleghenv General Hospital, supra, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that since the Plaintiff° s Complaint contained a general allegation of negligence the Plaintiff ' s pro posed amendment did not change the theory of his cause of action_ _Consequently, the Plaintiff was pe=itted to amend his complaint to add a new allegation of negligence despite the fact that the statute of limitations had expired. In Footnote 3, the Pennsylvania suoreme court admonished the. defendant that: [il'f [it] did not know how it ' otherwise fail(edl to use due care and caution under the circum- stances, ' it could have tiled a preliminary ob- jection in the nature of a request fora more specific pleading or it could have moved to strike s• that portion of (plaintiff' s] complaint. Conn v. Alleghenv General Hospital, supra, 501 Pa'. fn. 3 at p. 311. _ This Court has ruled upon this precise issue in Brown v. Mathews, No. 1991 of 1984 (Lancaster County, 1985) and Doutt v. Ar ig res, No. 197-1984. (Lancaster County, 1984) . in Glassman v. Kim, No. 112, January Term, 1983 (Lancaster County, : 1984) , Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter of this Court also ruled on the same issue. In Brown, supra, relying upon Connor V. Allegheny General Hospital, supra, we held that general .allegations of negligence do not conform with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1019 (a) . We sustained the defen- dant' s motion to strike off the paragraphs of plaintiff' s -complaint which contained general allegations of negligence. In Dow ut t, supra, we relied upon Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, supra, and held that general allegations of negligence in a medical malpractice case are insufficient to apprise the defendant of the claim asserted. against him. We granted the defendant's motion A . 1 for a more specific pleading. In Glassman, supra, Judge Bu ekwalter relied upon Connor V. Allechenv General Hospital, supra, and granted the defendant' s motion to strike . off the paragraphs of the plaintiff ' s conplaint which contained general allegations of neglige'n' ce ° The defendant ' s motion for a more specific pleading with respect to the general allegations of negligence was also sustained. Instantly, we agree with Defendant that Paragraph 7, submaragraphs. (a) ,, ' (e) , (f) , (g) , (h) and (i) do not comply with- Pa. R.C.P. No. 1019 (a) because they contain mere conclusory, statements and not material facts. In light of Connor. v. Alleahenv -General Hospital, supra., these allegations must be stzickeri_ Parenthetically, we understand that, given the complex and technical nature of 'the medicalfield," it is often difficult for a plaintiff to know and understand the details involved in a medical malpractice action. However, we find that it would not be unduly burdensome for Plaintiff to present his allegations of. negligence in a concise "and detailed fashion. -To hold otherwise would be grossly unfair. to Defendant under the Supreme Court 11 .S decision in Connor •v. Allegheny General Hospital, supra. Accordingly; we enter the following I i 0 R b E R AND NOW, September 6 , 1985, the Preliminary Objections r by Plaintiff, Lancaster General Hospital, in the nature of a notion to Strike Paragraph 7, subparagraphs (a) , (e) , (f) + (h) and (i) , of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff, Preston Wa Trent, ! are hereby sustained .and Paragraph 7, subparagraphs (a) , (e) , f) P i (g) , (h) and (i) ,are hereby stricken from the Complaint. Plaintiff -is granted twenty (20) days from the. date of this Order to file an Amended Complaint in accordance with this O inion, if he so desires. BY TIM: COURT: 4 D. RICHARD ECKMAN JUDGM Copy to: Joseph A. McIntyre, Esquire .Christopher W. Mattson, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendant, BECKER ASSOCIATES, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its BRIEF OF DEFENDANT, BECKER ASSOCIATES, IN SUPPORT OF ITS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT has been served on all counsel of record, by first class mail, postage pre-paid, according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the dna day of 4&,V� , 2014. Melville G.M. Walwyn, Esquire 4088 Broadmoor Circle Naperville, IL 60564 (Counsel for the Plaintifj) Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: STEVEN D. SNYDER, QUIRE Counsel for the Defenda , BECKER ASSOCIATES 8