Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-5711 Supreme Co>l 'of Pennsylvania Cour o Con1mo leas For Prothonotary Use Only: t Docket No: County Cur -7 5 The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. This form does not supplement or replace the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law or rules of court. Commencement of Action: S 01 Complaint E3Writ of Summons 0 Petition [3 Transfer from Another Jurisdiction [3 Declaration of Taking 1E C Lead Plaintiffs Name: Lead Defendant's Name: T Dzhamoliddin Rakhimov SKC Transportation, LLC Dollar Amount Requested: ®within arbitration limits Are money damages requested? ER Yes 0 No (check one) Imoutside arbitration limits 0 1 N Is this a Class Action Suit? 0 Yes ED No Is this an MDJAppeal? Yes [X, No A Name of Plaintiff/Appellant's Attorney: Steven Laynas, Esquire E3 Check here if you have-no attorney(are a Self-Represented 1Pro Sel 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 M Malicious Prosecution 0 Debt Collection: Credit Card 0 Board of Assessment [M�J< Motor Vehicle 0 Debt Collection:Other [3 Board of Elections [3 Nuisance [3 Dept. of Transportation [] Premises Liability Statutory Appeal:Other S 13 Product Liability(does not include 0 Employment Dispute: E mass tort) Discrimination 0 Slander/Libel/Defamation C 0 Other: 0-i Employment Dispute:Other Zoning Board T E3 Other: 1 0 Other: O MASS TORT 0 Asbestos N n-i Tobacco [3 Toxic Tort-DES [I Toxic Tort-Implant REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS 0 Toxic Waste 0 Ejectment 0 Common Law/Statutory Arbitration B ©C Other; 0 Eminent Domain/Condemnation E3 Declaratory Judgment 0 Ground Rent Mandamus E3 Landlord/Tenant Dispute Non-Domestic Relations 0 Mortgage Foreclosure:Residential Restraining Order PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY Mi Mortgage Foreclosure:Commercial QJ Quo Warranto 0 Dental 0 Partition Replevin 0 Legal n Quiet Title Other: E] Medical [3 Other: r[J Other Professional: Updated 11112011 STEVEN LAYNAS, Esquire Identification No.: 33906 Attorney for Plaintiff Suite 3620 1818 Market Street JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Philadelphia,PA 19103 (215) 851-8700 DZHAMOLIDDIN RAKHIMOV COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 1142S. 22 nd Street Cumberland County Philadelphia, PA 19146 Plaintiff : V. c ' SKC TRANSPORTATION, LLCM � , 566 Platt Street ` Sterling,NY 13156 r- -- AndCD _c��, BARRY J. KEVILLE =C 566 Platt Street = Sterling,NY 13156 And J.H. VERBRIDGE & SONS, INC. 6700 Lake Avenue Williamson,NY 14589 No. CIVIL ACTION—COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff is an individual who resides at 1142 S. 22nd Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19142. 2. Defendant SKC Transportation, LLC, is a corporation who it is believed, and therefore, averred,to be lawfully authorized to transact business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with offices located at 566 Platt Street, Sterling,NY 13156. 3. Defendant Raymond Tate is an individual who it is believed and,therefore, averred,to reside at 566 Platt Street, Sterling,NY 13156. OL M4 4. Defendant J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., is a corporation who it is believed, and therefore, averred,to be lawfully authorized to transact business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,with offices located at 6700 Lake Avenue, Williamson,NY 14589. 5. At all times relevant hereto, defendant Barry Keville was the agent, servant, workman and/or employee of defendant SKC Transportation, LLC, and was acting within the course and scope of his employment. 6. At all times relevant hereto, defendant Barry Keville was the agent, servants, workman and/or employee of defendant J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., and was acting within the course and scope of his employment. 7. On or about October 6, 2012, at or about 10:17 a.m.,plaintiff was the operator of an automobile proceeding in a northbound direction on Route 81, a public thoroughfare in the Township of East Pennsboro, County of Cumberland, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 8. On or about October 6, 2012, at or about 10:17 a.m., defendant, Barry Keville, was the operator of a tractor trailer, as the agent, servant, workman and/or employee, owned by defendants SKC Transportation, LLC and J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., which was proceeding in a northbound direction on Route 81, a public thoroughfare in the Township of East Pennsboro, County of Cumberland, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 9. As the vehicles were proceeding as aforesaid, the defendant, Barry Keville, caused his vehicle to violently collide with the rear of plaintiff s vehicle, with the result that plaintiff suffered severe and serious injuries and damages as are hereinafter set forth. COUNT Dzhamoliddin Rakhimov v SKC Transportation,LLC 10. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 2 1-9 hereof as though they were set forth more fully at length herein. 11. This collision was caused by defendant SKC Transportation, LLC's negligence through its agent, servant, workmen and/or employee, Barry Keville, in any or all of the following respects: (a) In operating a motor vehicle at a high, dangerous and reckless rate of speed under the circumstances; (b) In failing to have his motor vehicle under proper control under the circumstances; (c) In that the driver was inattentive and failed to maintain a sharp lookout of the road and surrounding traffic conditions; (d) In failing to maintain the vehicle in a proper mechanical condition; (e) In failing to operate the brakes in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to stop in time to avoid the collision; (f) In failing to observe that care and caution required under the circumstances; (g) In violating the various statutes and municipal ordinances pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares under the circumstances; (h) In failing to maintain a reasonable lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles on the roadway. 12. Solely as a result of the negligence of defendant SKC Transportation, LLC, through its agent, servant, workman and/or employee,Barry Keville, as aforesaid, plaintiff has sustained the following injuries, all of which are or may be of a serious and permanent nature, 3 including cervical sprain and strain; cervical myositis; cervical somatic dysfunction; enthesopathy of cervical spine; lumbosacral sprain and strain; lumbar myositis; somatic dysfunction lumbar spine; contusion left wrist; posttraumatic ganglion cyst left wrist; temporomandibular joint syndrome right jaw; and other severe and serious injuries,the full extent of which are not known at present, including possible aggravation and activation of pre- existing injuries. 13. As a result of the injuries as aforesaid, plaintiff has sustained the following damages: (a) Said plaintiff has been and will be required to in the future expend large sums of money for surgical and medical attention, hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical appliances, medicines and attendant services; (b) Said plaintiff has been injured; (c) Said plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great pain, suffering, inconvenience, embarrassment and mental anguish; (d) Said plaintiff has been deprived of earnings; (e) Said plaintiff has been disfigured; (f) Said plaintiffs general health, strength and vitality have been impaired; and (g) Said plaintiff has suffered a loss of the enjoyment of life. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands damages of the defendants,jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), together with costs of suit, interest and attorneys fees. 4 COUNT II Whamoliddin Rakhimov v. J. H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc. 14. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-13 hereof as though they were set forth more fully at length herein. 15. This collision was caused by defendant J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc.'s negligence through its agent, servant, workmen and/or employee, Barry Keville, in any or all of the following respects: (a) In operating a motor vehicle at a high, dangerous and reckless rate of speed under the circumstances; (b) In failing to have his motor vehicle under proper control under the circumstances; (c) In that the driver was inattentive and failed to maintain a sharp lookout of the road and surrounding traffic conditions; (d) In failing to maintain the vehicle in a proper mechanical condition; (e) In failing to operate the brakes in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to stop in time to avoid the collision; (f) In failing to observe that care and caution required under the circumstances; (g) In violating the various statutes and municipal ordinances pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares under the circumstances; (h) In failing to maintain a reasonable lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles on the roadway. 16. Solely as a result of the negligence of defendant J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., 5 through its agent, servant, workman and/or employee, Barry Keville, as aforesaid, plaintiff has sustained the following injuries, all of which are or may be of a serious and permanent nature, including cervical sprain and strain; cervical myositis; cervical somatic dysfunction; enthesopathy of cervical spine; lumbosacral sprain and strain; lumbar myositis; somatic dysfunction lumbar spine; contusion left wrist; posttraumatic ganglion cyst left wrist; temporomandibular joint syndrome right jaw; and other severe and serious injuries, the full extent of which are not known at present, including possible aggravation and activation of pre- existing injuries. 17. As a result of the injuries as aforesaid, plaintiff has sustained the following damages: (a) Said plaintiff has been and will be required to in the future expend large sums of money for surgical and medical attention, hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical appliances, medicines and attendant services; (b) Said plaintiff has been injured; (c) Said plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great pain, suffering, inconvenience, embarrassment and mental anguish; (d) Said plaintiff has been deprived of earnings; (e) Said plaintiff has been disfigured; (f) Said plaintiffs general health, strength and vitality have been impaired; and (g) Said plaintiff has suffered a loss of the enjoyment of life. 6 WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands damages of the defendants,jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), together with costs of suit, interest and attorneys fees. COUNT III 44.. Dzhamoliddin Rakhimov v. Barry Keville 18. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-17 hereof as though they were set forth more fully at length herein. 19. This collision was caused by defendant Barry Keville's negligence in any or all of the following respects: (a) In operating a motor vehicle at a high, dangerous and reckless rate of speed under the circumstances; (b) In failing to have his motor vehicle under proper control under the circumstances; (c) In that the driver was inattentive and failed to maintain a sharp lookout of the road and surrounding traffic conditions; (d) In failing to maintain the vehicle in a proper mechanical condition; (e) In failing to operate the brakes in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to stop in time to avoid the collision; (f) In failing to observe that care and caution required under the circumstances; (g) In violating the various statutes and municipal ordinances pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares under the circumstances; (h) In failing to maintain a reasonable lookout for the presence of other motor 7 vehicles on the roadway. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands damages of the defendants,jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), together with costs of suit, interest and attorneys fees. By: �^ ATEVEN LAYNAS, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 8 r VERIFICATION I, DZHAMOLIDDIN RAKHIMOV, plaintiff in the above matter, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 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. DZHAMOLI DI RAKHIMOV b. STEVEN LAYNAS, Esquire Identification No.: 33906 Suite 3620 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 851-8700 DZHAMOLIDDIN RAKHIMOV Plaintiff v. SKC TRANSPORTATION, LLC, et al. Defendants Attorney for Plaintiff PILEO-OFFICc-', OF THE PROTHONO-TARIL 21114 OCT ID FM 12: 18 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cumberland County No. 14-5711 Civil AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Steven Laynas, Esquire, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that Plaintiffs Complaint was served upon Defendant, J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., by United States mail, certified, first class, postage prepaid, on October 6, 2Oj. A copy of the return receipt is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." By: N LAYNAS, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff .ry SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front If space permits. Article Addressed to: J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc. 6700 Lake Avenue Williamson, NY 14589 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY Sign ire tgAgent Addressee C. De6of elivery VI❑`%Js t� I� No D. Is delivery address different from item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below: Service Type ❑ Certified Mall 0 Registered ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label 70102.78009017471443 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Retum Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 EXHIBIT "A" t STEVEN LAYNAS, Esquire Identification No.: 33906 Suite 3620 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 851-8700 DZHAMOLIDDIN RAKHIMOV Plaintiff v. SKC TRANSPORTATION, LLC, et al. Defendants Attorney for Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cumberland County No. 14-5711 Civil AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Patricia Hayes, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that Plaintiffs Complaint was served upon Defendant, SKC Transportation, LLC, by United States mail, certified, first class, postage prepaid, on October 2, 2014. A copy of the return receipt is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." By: Patricia Hayes Secretary to Steven Laynas, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. S' ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee 9. e of Delivery • D. Is delivery address diffet!elit'from item 1? ■ e 1. Article Addressed to: If YES, enter delivery / ddress below: 0 No ' SKC Transportation, LLC OCT 1 6 2014 566 Platt Street Sterling, NY 13156 i.. US1'� 3. Service Type ❑ Certified Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Nun berj i► j► I N I( i{ 10:47616 7800001834'74!4671 i (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt EXHIBIT "A" 102595-02-M-1540 STEVEN LAYNAS, Esquire Identification No.: 33906 Suite 3620 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 851-8700 DZHAMOLIDDIN RAKHIMOV Plaintiff v. SKC TRANSPORTATION, LLC, et al. Defendants Attorney for Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cumberland County No. 14-5711 Civil AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE P^ 1: 2 `?J COU,Ir IA,!"j1i`1. I, Patricia Hayes, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that Plaintiffs Complaint was served upon Defendant, Barry J. Keville, by United States mail, certified, first class, postage prepaid, on October 2, 2014. A copy of the return receipt is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." By: Patricia Hayes Secretary to Steven Laynas, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Mr. Barry J. Keville 566 Platt Street Sterling, NY 13156 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Sig re Agent Addressee B. Received by (Printed Na a) 44.10M .9 live D. Is delivery address different item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery addr s -low: 3. Service Type o Certified Mall o Registered o Insured Mail 0 Express Mail 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. ArticleiNurrer If I II H U U OV,800I06183471'45Q` I I (Transfer from service fat* PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 EXHIBIT "A' Law Offices of Hubshman, Flood & Bullock By: Luisa F Borelli, Esquire Attorney ID #9162o 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Telephone #(610) 276-4962 Luisa_F_Borelli@Progressive.com Our File #124446818-001 Attorney for Defendants J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., Barry J. Keville and SKC Transporation, LLC DZAMOLIDDIN RAKHIMOV : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY „ V. SKC TRANSPORATION, LLC AND BARRY . J. KEVILLE AND J.H. VERBRIDGE & SONS, INC. : 2014-5711 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., Barry J. Keville and SKC Transporation, LLC, in the above -captioned matter. Law Offices of Hubshman, Flood & Bullock By: ,<1/ 79-caL ``)Juisa F Bore i, Esquire Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Dzhamoliddin Rakhimov Plaintiff vs• SKC Transportation, LLC, et al. Defendant No. 14-5711 Civil 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 AN 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 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 REDUECED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 STEVEN LAYNAS, Esquire Identification No.: 33906 Suite 3620 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 851-8700 DZHAMOLIDDIN RAKHIMOV 1142 S. 22nd Street Philadelphia, PA 19146 Plaintiff v. SKC TRANSPORTATION, LLC 566 Platt Street Sterling, NY 13156 And BARRY J. KEVILLE 566 Platt Street Sterling, NY 13156 And J.H. VERBRIDGE & SONS, INC. 6700 Lake Avenue Williamson, NY 14589 Attorney for Plaintiff JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cumberland County No. 14-5711 Civil CIVIL ACTION — AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff is an individual who resides at 1142 S. 22" Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19142. 2. Defendant SKC Transportation, LLC, is a corporation who it is believed, and therefore, averred, to be lawfully authorized to transact business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with offices located at 566 Platt Street, Sterling, NY 13156. 3. Defendant Barry J. Keville is an individual who it is believed and, therefore, averred, to reside at 566 Platt Street, Sterling, NY 13156. 4. Defendant J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., is a corporation who it is believed, and therefore, averred, to be lawfully authorized to transact business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with offices located at 6700 Lake Avenue, Williamson, NY 14589. 5. At all times relevant hereto, defendant Barry Keville was the agent, servant, workman and/or employee of defendant SKC Transportation, LLC, and was acting within the course and scope of his employment. 6. At all times relevant hereto, defendant Barry Keville was the agent, servants, workman and/or employee of defendant J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., and was acting within the course and scope of his employment. 7. On or about October 6, 2012, at or about 10:17 a.m., plaintiff was the operator of an automobile proceeding in a northbound direction on Route 81, a public thoroughfare in the Township of East Pennsboro, County of Cumberland, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 8. On or about October 6, 2012, at or about 10:17 a.m., defendant, Barry Keville, was the operator of a tractor trailer, as the agent, servant, workman and/or employee, owned by defendants SKC Transportation, LLC and J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., which was proceeding in a northbound direction on Route 81, a public thoroughfare in the Township of East Pennsboro, County of Cumberland, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 9. As the vehicles were proceeding as aforesaid, the defendant, Barry Keville, caused his vehicle to violently collide with the rear of plaintiffs vehicle, with the result that plaintiff suffered severe and serious injuries and damages as are hereinafter set forth. COUNT I Dzhamoliddin Rakhimov v. SKC Transportation, LLC 10. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 2 1-9 hereof as though they were set forth more fully at length herein. 11. This collision was caused by defendant SKC Transportation, LLC's negligence through its agent, servant, workmen and/or employee, Barry Keville, in any or all of the following respects: (a) In operating a motor vehicle at a high, dangerous and reckless rate of speed under the circumstances; (b) In failing to have his motor vehicle under proper control under the circumstances; (c) In that the driver was inattentive and failed to maintain a sharp lookout of the road and surrounding traffic conditions; (d) In failing to maintain the vehicle in a proper mechanical condition; (e) In failing to operate the brakes in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to stop in time to avoid the collision; (f) In failing to observe that care and caution required under the circumstances; (g) In violating the various statutes and municipal ordinances pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares under the circumstances; (h) In failing to maintain a reasonable lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles on the roadway. 12. Solely as a result of the negligence of defendant SKC Transportation, LLC, through its agent, servant, workman and/or employee, Barry Keville, as aforesaid, plaintiff has sustained the following injuries, all of which are or may be of a serious and permanent nature, 3 including cervical sprain and strain; cervical myositis; cervical somatic dysfunction; enthesopathy of cervical spine; lumbosacral sprain and strain; lumbar myositis; somatic dysfunction lumbar spine; contusion left wrist; posttraumatic ganglion cyst left wrist; temporomandibular joint syndrome right jaw; and other severe and serious injuries, the full extent of which are not known at present, including possible aggravation and activation of pre- existing injuries. 13. As a result of the injuries as aforesaid, plaintiff has sustained the following damages: (a) Said plaintiff has been and will be required to in the future expend large sums of money for surgical and medical attention, hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical appliances, medicines and attendant services; (b) Said plaintiff has been injured; (c) Said plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great pain, suffering, inconvenience, embarrassment and mental anguish; (d) Said plaintiff has been deprived of earnings; (e) Said plaintiff has been disfigured; (f) Said plaintiffs general health, strength and vitality have been impaired; and (g) Said plaintiff has suffered a loss of the enjoyment of life. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands damages of the defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), together with costs of suit, interest and attorneys fees. 4 COUNT II Dzhamoliddin Rakhimov v. J. H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc. 14. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-13 hereof as though they were set forth more fully at length herein. 15. This collision was caused by defendant J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc.'s negligence through its agent, servant, workmen and/or employee, Barry Keville, in any or all of the following respects: (a) In operating a motor vehicle at a high, dangerous and reckless rate of speed under the circumstances; (b) In failing to have his motor vehicle under proper control under the circumstances; (c) In that the driver was inattentive and failed to maintain a sharp lookout of the road and surrounding traffic conditions; (d) In failing to maintain the vehicle in a proper mechanical condition; (e) In failing to operate the brakes in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to stop in time to avoid the collision; circumstances; (f) In failing to observe that care and caution required under the (g) In violating the various statutes and municipal ordinances pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares under the circumstances; (h) In failing to maintain a reasonable lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles on the roadway. 16. Solely as a result of the negligence of defendant J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., 5 through its agent, servant, workman and/or employee, Barry Keville, as aforesaid, plaintiff has sustained the following injuries, all of which are or may be of a serious and permanent nature, including cervical sprain and strain; cervical myositis; cervical somatic dysfunction; enthesopathy of cervical spine; lumbosacral sprain and strain; lumbar myositis; somatic dysfunction lumbar spine; contusion left wrist; posttraumatic ganglion cyst left wrist; temporomandibular joint syndrome right jaw; and other severe and serious injuries, the full extent of which are not known at present, including possible aggravation and activation of pre- existing injuries. 17. As a result of the injuries as aforesaid, plaintiff has sustained the following damages: (a) Said plaintiff has been and will be required to in the future expend large sums of money for surgical and medical attention, hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical appliances, medicines and attendant services; (b) Said plaintiff has been injured; (c) Said plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great pain, suffering, inconvenience, embarrassment and mental anguish; (d) Said plaintiff has been deprived of earnings; (e) Said plaintiff has been disfigured; (0 Said plaintiffs general health, strength and vitality have been impaired; and (g) Said plaintiff has suffered a loss of the enjoyment of life. 6 WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands damages of the defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), together with costs of suit, interest and attorneys fees. COUNT III Dzhamoliddin Rakhimov v. Barry Keville 18. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-17 hereof as though they were set forth more fully at length herein. 19. This collision was caused by defendant Barry Keville's negligence in any or all of the following respects: (a) In operating a motor vehicle at a high, dangerous and reckless rate of speed under the circumstances; (b) In failing to have his motor vehicle under proper control under the circumstances; (c) In that the driver was inattentive and failed to maintain a sharp lookout of the road and surrounding traffic conditions; (d) In failing to maintain the vehicle in a proper mechanical condition; (e) In failing to operate the brakes in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to stop in time to avoid the collision; circumstances; (f) (g) In failing to observe that care and caution required under the In violating the various statutes and municipal ordinances pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares under the circumstances; (h) In failing to maintain a reasonable lookout for the presence of other motor 7 vehicles on the roadway. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands damages of the defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), together with costs of suit, interest and attorneys fees. By: 8 LA AS, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff It- 5-71i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Steven Laynas, Esquire, do hereby certify that service of a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint has been forwarded to the parties via First Class United States mail, postage pre -paid, and/or via e-filing/e-mailing, as follows: Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire Law Offices of Hubshman, Flood & Bullock 5165 Campus Drive Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, P,. 19462 Dated: November 3, 2014 S EV •LAYNAS, Esquire 9 STEVEN LAYNAS, Esquire Identification No.: 33906 Suite 3620 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 851-8700 DZHAMOLIDDIN RAKHIMOV Plaintiff V. SKC TRANSPORTATION, LLC, et al. Defendants No. 14-5711 Civil STIPULATION It is hereby stipulated by and between Steven Laynas, Esquire, counsel for plaintiff, and Luisa Borelli, Esquire, counsel for defendants, that plaintiff is permitted to file an Amended Complaint e above -captioned matter. Attorney for Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cumberland County V LAYNAS, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff LtJ1A F. BORELLI, Esquire Attorney for Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiff You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be enteredyinst you. By L Luisa F Borelli, Esq. Attorney for Defendants Law Offices of Hubshman, Flood & Bullock By: Luisa F Borelli, Esquire Attorney ID #91620 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Telephone #(610) 276-4962 Our File #124446818-001 Dzamoliddin Rakhimov v. SKC Transporation, LLC and Barry J. Keville and J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the attached pleading upon all other parties or their attorneys by: regular mail certified mail oth By. Luisa F Borelli, Esq. Attorney for Defendants Attorney for Defendants' �a J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., Barryt.evilr, a n cr.=-71 SKC Transporation, LLC 4'1rn : Court of Common Pleas : Cumberland County : 2014-5711 Z ru DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2-6. Admitted. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and no response is required. By way of further answer, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and no response is required. COUNT I 10. Answering defendants incorporate by reference, paragraphs 1 through 9, inclusive, of their Answer to plaintiffs Civil Action Complaint as fully as though the same were herein set forth at length. 11. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and no response is required. 12-13. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and no response is required. By way of further answer, the answering defendants have no independent knowledge of what, if any, injuries or damages the plaintiff sustained. Further, it is denied that the alleged injuries, if truthful, are serious, permanent or causally related to the incident set forth in plaintiffs Complaint. Furthermore, all averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, answering defendants demand judgment in their favor and dismissal of plaintiffs complaint with prejudice. COUNT II 14. Answering defendants incorporate by reference, paragraphs 1 through 13, inclusive, of their Answer to plaintiff's Civil Action Complaint as fully as though the same were herein set forth at length. 15. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and no response is required. 16-17. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and no response is required. By way of further answer, the answering defendants have no independent knowledge of what, if any, injuries or damages the plaintiff sustained. Further, it is denied that the alleged injuries, if truthful, are serious, permanent or causally related to the incident set forth in plaintiffs Complaint. Furthermore, all averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, answering defendants demand judgment in their favor and dismissal of plaintiffs complaint with prejudice. COUNT III 18. Answering defendants incorporate by reference, paragraphs 1 through 17, inclusive, of their Answer to plaintiffs Civil Action Complaint as fully as though the same were herein set forth at length. . 19. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and no response is required. WHEREFORE, answering defendants demand judgment in their favor and dismissal of plaintiffs complaint with prejudice. NEW MATTER 20. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 21. Plaintiff failed to mitigate their damages. 22. If Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and damages as alleged in the Complaint, then same were caused by other entities or parties over which answering Defendants had no control. 23. Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole and/or in part, by the appropriate Statute of Limitations. 24. Plaintiffs voluntarily adopted a dangerous and hazardous method or manner of performing the actions that they were then undertaking when there was a safe method available and they thereby assumed the risk of injury in performing their actions. 25. Plaintiffs claims are barred, or must be reduced, as a result of Plaintiffs own negligence, which was the proximate cause of the incident described in Plaintiffs Complaint, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 7100. 26. Plaintiffs claims are barred and/or limited by the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S. Section 1701, et seq. 27. Plaintiffs claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle No -Fault Insurance Act. 28. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the within action. 29. If Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages as alleged in the Complaint, then same were not proximately caused by any action or failure to act on behalf of answering Defendants. 3o. Answering Defendants aver that Plaintiffs cause of action is barred or limited by the Sudden Emergency Doctrine. 31. Plaintiffs claims are barred and/or limited by the New Jersey Deemer Statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. WHEREFORE, answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor. BY: DATE: November 6, 2014 Law Offices of Hubshman, Flood & Bullock Luisa `F Borelli, Esquire Attorney for Defendants VERIFICATION I, Luisa F Borelli, Esquire, aver that I am the attorney for the answering Defendant in this case, and I aver that the averments contained in the foregoing pleadings are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; and that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Luisa F Borelli, Esquire Law Offices of Hubshman, Flood & Bullock By: Luisa F Borelli, Esquire Attorney ID #9162o 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Telephone #(61o) 276-4962 Our File #124446818-o01 DZAMOLIDDIN RAKHIMOV V. Attorney for Defendants, J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., Barry J. Keville and SKC Transporation, LLC : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY -0-j Cf) r- SKC TRANSPORATION, LLC AND BARRY : 2014-5711 J. KEVILLE AND J.H. VERBRIDGE & SONS, INC. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL = CD cz C." h7 -11 TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Defendants, J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., Barry J. Keville and SKC Transporation, LLC, hereby demands trial by eight (8) jurors. Law Offices of Hubshman, Flood & Bullock By: Luisa F TBorelli, Esquire Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW GRADY HALTEMAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 14-5730 CIVIL TERM JAMES A. DOUGHERTY and DALE E. DOUGHERTY, husband and wife, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Grady Halteman c/o Andrew H. Shaw, Esq. 200 S. Spring Garden Street Suite 11 Carlisle, PA 17013 T-1 - rn CD You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully Submitted, SAIDIS, SULLIVAN & ROGERS Date: November 10, 2014 By: Daniel L. Sullivan, Esquire Attorney I.D. 34548 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 - Phone (717) 243-6486 - Fax dsullivan@ssr-attorneys.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW GRADY HALTEMAN, Plaintiff v. • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • NO. 14-5730 CIVIL TERM • JAMES A. DOUGHERTY and • DALE E. DOUGHERTY, • husband and wife, • Defendants •CIVI-L ACTION - EQUITY DEFENDANTS' ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW come Defendants, James A. Dougherty and Dale E. Dougherty, by their attorneys, Saidis, Sullivan & Rogers, and hereby file the following Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Complaint: 1. Admitted on information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph so that the averments are deemed denied. In further response, nevertheless, the deed attached as Exhibit "A" to the Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants acquired their property under an agreement of sale in May, 1998 and occupied the property at that time. Thereafter they acquired title to the property by deed dated December 20, 2000. 6. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that there is a portion of Plaintiff's Property that forms a common boundary line with a portion of Defendants' property. (As used herein, "Plaintiffs' Property" refers to the tract of land currently owned by Plaintiff and previously owned by Plaintiff's predecessor —in -title, Vernon Wickard.) 7. Denied. Plaintiff does not enjoy access to his property from a so-called "Private Road" that leads over and through Defendants' Property. On the contrary, during the over 16 years that Defendants have occupied their property, Plaintiff and Plaintiff s predecessor in title, Vernon E. Wickard ("Wickard") used other means of access to Plaintiff's Property and except for very limited exceptions described herein they did not use access through Defendants' Property. 8. Denied. To Defendants' knowledge, except for specific and limited circumstances described herein, Plaintiff has not used the so-called "Private Road" for ingress, egress and regress to his property by vehicle and by foot. On the contrary, the so- called "Private Road" has been blocked to vehicular use near the area of the common boundary line between Plaintiff's Property and Defendants' Property since at least June, 1998. On two (2) occasions in the past, Plaintiff requested access over the so-called "Private Road" from Defendant James Dougherty, which Mr. Dougherty allowed for one (1) day each. Mr. Dougherty then immediately reblocked the so-called "Private Road.". If Plaintiff has utilized the so-called "Private Road" by foot or at other times, it has been without the knowledge and consent of Defendants. In further response, Defendants believe and therefore aver that Plaintiffs access to Plaintiff s Property has been through a wholly different access point to Plaintiff's Property running from Laurel Lane. 2 9. Denied. The subdivision plan attached as Exhibit "C" to Plaintiff's Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself, and Defendants deny the accuracy and completeness of any attempt by Plaintiff to describe, characterize or selectively quote therefrom. 10. Admitted, with the qualification that Walter E. Morrison is not the immediate predecessor in title to Defendants, having sold his property in and around 1993. 11. Denied. On the contrary, except as set forth in the response to paragraph 8 and herein, neither Plaintiff nor Wickard has used the so-called "Private Road" to access Plaintiff's Property since at least June, 1998. Defendants' response to paragraph 8 is hereby incorporated by reference. In further response, with respect to Wickard, Defendants blocked access to the so-called "Private Road" to Wickard from June 1998 until Wickard sold the property to Plaintiff, and did not allow Wickard access over Defendants' property except for a brief, 30 day period in and around 2004 when, upon specific request, Defendants allowed Wickard's timbering contractor, Tuscarora Hardwood, access. Defendants have also, on a very limited number of discrete occasions over the past 16 years, removed the obstructions for a short period of time (such as a weekend) to allow property owners farther up the mountain to go through their property. Each of these limited occasions, however, occurred only upon specific request by a party, with permission specifically provided by Defendants, and with the so-called "Private Road" being again blocked immediately after the short-term permitted use. 12. Denied as stated. Defendants' responses to paragraphs 8 and 11 are hereby incorporated by reference. In further response, shortly after Plaintiff purchased the property in 2013, James Dougherty spoke with Plaintiff at or near Plaintiff's Property, pointed out to 3 Plaintiff the property corners and where the property lines ran, and specifically advised Plaintiff at that time that Plaintiff did not enjoy access over Defendants' property. At the time of that conversation the so-called "Private Road" was already blocked (albeit in a different manner) as it had been for the prior 15 years. After that conversation, Defendants relocated the obstructing stone pile and changed the manner of obstruction, but the status quo of the so-called "Private Road" being blocked had not changed since 1998. Defendants further deny that they are required to provide "disclosure" or obtain "permission" from Plaintiff for Defendants' of Defendants' own property. 13. Denied as stated. Exhibit "D" to the Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself and Defendants deny the completeness and accuracy of any attempt by Plaintiff to describe, characterize or selectively quote therefrom. 14. Denied as stated. The so-called "Private Road" has been continuously blocked since approximately June, 1998 (except for those minor exceptions described above). Defendants' placement of the tractor represented only increased obstruction above and beyond the obstructions already in place. I -n further response, Exhibit "E" to the Complaint is a written document which speaks for itself. 15. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the pile of stones in the same location has remained, thereby continuing the obstruction of the so-called "Private Road" as it had been obstructed since approximately June, 1998. The tractor has been periodically moved in and about other areas of Defendants' Property. The essence of the averment of paragraph 15 — that the so-called "Private Road" has remained obstructed - is admitted; while the manner of obstruction may have changed, the so-called "Private Road" 4 has been obstructed (with minor exceptions as described herein) since approximately June, 1998. COUNT I — EASEMENT BY IMPLICATION 16. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference all averments of this pleading. 17. Denied. The quoted language is from a written document attached as Exhibit "C" to Plaintiff's Complaint, and as a written document speaks for itself. Defendants deny the accuracy and completeness of any attempt by Plaintiff to describe, characterize or selectively quote therefrom. 18. Denied. The quoted language is from a written document attached as Exhibit "C" to Plaintiff's Complaint, and as a written document speaks for itself. Defendants deny the accuracy and completeness of any attempt by Plaintiff to describe, characterize or selectively quote therefrom. 19. Denied. The quoted language is from a written document attached as Exhibit "C" to Plaintiff's Complaint, and as a written document speaks for itself. Defendants deny the accuracy and completeness of any attempt by Plaintiff to describe, characterize or selectively quote therefrom. In further response, Plaintiff's Property was not part of the Morrision subdivision. The Morrison subdivision created two (2) lots from Morrison's tract - Defendants' property on the east consisting of approximately 16 acres, and a new lot in the western portion consisting of 5 acres. Neither of these lots is Plaintiff's property. The owner 5 of Plaintiff s Property at the time of the subdivision, Wickard, was a stranger to the Morrison subdivision. It is illogical to conclude that in a plan intended to subdivide Walter E. Morrison's own property into two properties, that it was his intent thereby to grant an easement in favor of Plaintiff's Property, which is not otherwise implicated in any fashion by the subdivision. If it had been Walter E. Morrison's intent to grant an easement in favor of Plaintiff's Property, such a grant could have been easily accomplished by a simple easement agreement irrespective of any subdivision of Mr. Morrison's property. 20. Denied. The deed referenced in this paragraph is attached as Exhibit "B" to Plaintiff's Complaint, and as a written document speaks for itself. Defendants deny the accuracy and completeness of any attempt by Plaintiff to describe, characterize or selectively quote therefrom. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that they be awarded costs and fees, together with such further and additional relief as just and appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT II — ADVERSE EASEMENT (in the alternative) 21. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference all averments of this pleading as if set forth in full. 22. Denied. On the contrary, except for the limited exceptions described herein, neither Plaintiff nor Wickard has been permitted ingress, egress and regress to Plaintiff's Property since at least June, 1998. Defendants' responses to paragraphs 8 and 11 are hereby incorporated by reference. 6 23. Denied, on the contrary, except as described herein, neither Plaintiff nor Wickard has been permitted ingress, egress and regress to Plaintiff's Property since at least June, 1998. Defendants' responses to paragraphs 8 and 11 are hereby incorporated by reference. 24. Denied, on the contrary, except as described herein, neither Plaintiff nor Wickard has been permitted ingress, egress and regress to Plaintiff's Property since at least June, 1998. Defendants' responses to paragraphs 8 and 11 are hereby incorporated by reference. 25. The averments of paragraph 25 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required and are deemed denied. In further response, nevertheless, the averments are denied and Defendants' responses to paragraphs 8 and 11 are hereby incorporated by reference. 26. Denied as stated. While it is admitted that Defendants have obstructed the so- called "Private Road" near the property line with Plaintiff's Property since June, 1998, it is denied that this obstruction is the sole impediment to Plaintiff's use. On the contrary, Plaintiffs use is impeded also because he does not otherwise enjoy any legal right to unimpeded and open passage across Defendants' Property. 27. Denied. While it is admitted that Defendants have obstructed the so-called "Private Road" near the boundary line of Plaintiff s Property since June, 1998, it is denied that Plaintiff has suffered any irreparable harm. In further response, Defendants believe and therefore aver that both Plaintiff and Plaintiff s predecessor in title, Wickard, had accessed their property through other means, particularly through roads connecting to Laurel Lane. 7 28. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants' responses to paragraphs 26 and 27 are hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and that they be awarded costs and fees, and such further and additional relief as just and appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT III — PRELIMINARY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 29. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference all averments of their pleading as if set forth in full. 30. This paragraph is a statement of Plaintiff s claim which requires no admission or denial. Nevertheless, it is denied that Plaintiff is entitled to any injunctive relief against Defendants. 31. Denied. The so-called "Private Road" has never served as the primary access to Plaintiff's Property. On the contrary, Defendants believe and therefore aver that both Plaintiff and Plaintiff's predecessor in title, Wickard, have consistently accessed their property through other means, particularly roads leading to Laurel Lane. 32. Denied. This averment is totally inconsistent with and contradicted by the averment of paragraph 31, above (claiming that the so-called "Private Road" is merely the "primary" and "most convenient" access point). In further response, Defendants' responses to paragraphs 8, 11 and 31 are hereby incorporated by reference. 8 33. The averments ofparagraph 33 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are deemed denied. In further response, nevertheless, Defendants deny that Plaintiff enjoys any property rights in the so-called "Private Road." 34. The averments of this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are deemed denied. 35. The averments of this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are deemed denied. 36. Defendants admit that Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief; Defendants hereby incorporate by reference all of their responses to all of their facts alleged by Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and that they be awarded costs and fees, and such further and additional relief as may be just and appropriate under the circumstances. NEW MATTER 37. The so-called "Private Road" to which Plaintiff claims access has been obstructed (except on sporadic and limited occasions) since June, 1998. 38. Plaintiff has not used the so-called "Private Road" to access Plaintiff's Property except for two (2) limited, one day periods when, pursuant to Plaintiff's request, James Dougherty allowed Plaintiff access, and then immediately reblocked the so-called "Private Road" after each one -day period. 39. To the extent that Plaintiff may have used the so-called "Private Road" on occasions other than as described in paragraph 38, he did so without Defendants' knowledge or consent. 40. Plaintiff has gained access to Plaintiff's Property in the past by other means of ingress and egress, utilizing Laurel Lane, or has parked his vehicle on another adjoining landowner's property and has walked to Plaintiff's Property, all without transgressing on Defendants' Property. 41. In and around 2004, Plaintiff's predecessor in title, Wickard, wanted to perform timbering activity on Plaintiffs Property. 42. At that time, Wickard's timbering contractor, Tuscarora Hardwoods, specifically approached Defendant James Dougherty and sought permission from Mr. Dougherty to utilize the so-called "Private Road" on a limited basis to remove timber from Plaintiff's Property. 43. Solely as an accommodation and as a neighborly gesture, James Dougherty at that time permitted a 30 day period during which Wickard, through Tuscarora Hardwoods, was allowed to use the so-called "Private Road" to access Plaintiff's Property for the removal of timber. 44. At the conclusion of the 30 day period described above, Defendants again blocked access to the so-called "Private Road," which obstruction has remained (with limited exceptions as described herein) since that time. 45. By seeking permission from Defendants through Tuscarora Hardwoods to use the so-called "Private Road" to remove timber from Plaintiff's Property, Wickard 10 acknowledged that he did not have any legal right to use the so-called "Private Road" over Defendants' Property without Defendants' permission. 46. By seeking permission from Defendants on two (2) occasions to use the so- called "Private Road," Plaintiff has acknowledged that he does not have any legal right to use the so-called "Private Road" without Defendants' permission. 47. The subdivision plan attached as Exhibit "C" to the Complaint is not a subdivision of Plaintiff's Property, nor a subdivision in which Plaintiff's Property was subdivided from Defendants' Property. 48. The sole intent of the subdivision plan was to ensure that the easternmost lot of the subdivision plan (16.829 acres) continued to enjoy a right-of-way over the gravel road that traversed the westernmost lot of the subdivided parcel (5.0 acres) and then by Mare Road (a private, 12 foot wide driveway) to L.R. 81001. 49. The "adjoining landowners" referenced in the subdivision refer to those other landowners adjoining Mare Road who use Mare Road as access to L.R. 21001, but did not include Wickard. 50. As further evidence of the intent of the subdivision map, in an easement agreement dated September 27, 1985, the property owners adjoining Mare Road memorialized their use of Mare Road and provided an agreed-upon cost of maintenance in an Easement Agreement that did not include Wickard as a party (Wickard being the then -owner of Plaintiff's Property). A true and correct copy of the Easement Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 51. Plaintiff does not have any legal right to utilize Mares Rd. to the west of the original Morrison tract running to L.R. 21001. 11 52. If any easement ever existed in favor of Plaintiff's Property over the so-called "Private Road" (which is expressly denied), it has been extinguished and abandoned. 53. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean hands. 54. If any easement exists in favor of Plaintiff's Property (which is expressly denied), it is for the limited purpose of ingress and egress and not for the conducting of commercial activities, including quarrying and timbering. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and that they be awarded costs and fees, and such further relief as may be just and appropriate under the circumstances. COUNTERCLAIM 55. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference those admitted facts from Plaintiff's Complaint and all other averments set forth in their Answer and New Matter set forth above. 56. Plaintiff does not have an easement by implication over Defendants' Property. 57. Plaintiff does not have an adverse easement over Defendants' Property. 58. Plaintiff does not have any rights arising in law or fact to pass over or through Defendants' Property through the so-called "Private Road." WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter a judgment in their favor declaring that Plaintiff does not enjoy any rights in law or fact in, over or through Defendants' Property through the so-called "Private Road," plus costs and fees and such further and additional relief as may be just and appropriate under the circumstances. 12 Date: November 10, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, SAIDIS, SULLIVAN & ROGERS 13 Daniel L. Sullivan, Esquire Attorney I.D. 34548 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 - Phone (717) 243-6486 - Fax dsullivan@ssr-attorneys.com VERIFICATION I, James A. Dougherty, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: Novel" ha- 4-11k , 2014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, November 10, 2014, I, Daniel L. Sullivan, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of Defendants' Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First Class Mail: Andrew H. Shaw, Esq. 200 South Spring Garden Street Suite 11 Carlisle, PA 17013 SAIDIS, SULLIVAN & ROGERS By: Daniel L. Sullivan, Esquire Attorney LD. 34548 Attorney for Defendants 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone (717)243-6222 Fax (717) 243-6486 dsullivan@ssr-attorneys.com 14 4 AGREEMENT MADE this Zr%' day of , 1985, by and between ROSE M. LEIDIGH of R. D. 3, Box 408, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("Leidigh"), NANCY JEAN HERSHEY of 835 North West Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("Hershey") and JACK G. GILLAUGH of 421 West Louther Street, ' 4 Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("J. Gillaugh"), RAYMOND STINE and DONNA M. STINE of 110 Hollenbaugh Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("Stine"), EMERSON MILLER and ETHEL MILLER of 2980 Waggoners Gap Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("Miller"), WALTER E. MORRISON of, R. D. 3, Box 413-B, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("Morrison"), ROBERT L. NOLL and MARY ESTHER NOLL of 100 Chester Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("Noll"), MARGARET E. GILLAUGH of 28 Cumberland Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("M. Gillaugh"), and EUGENE I. ROTZ and OMA D. ROTZ of R. D. 9, Box 81, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("Rotz"). WHEREAS, the parties hereto are owners of certain tracts of land located in Lower Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania; and WHEREAS, access to the property owned by Leidigh, the property owned by Stine, the property owned by Miller, the property owned by Hershey and J. Gillaugh, the property owned by Rotz, the property owned by M. Gillaugh, the property owned by Noll and the property owned by Morrison is now and has been afforded by virtue of the existence of a certain twelve -foot wide driveway running northwardly from T-492, across the land of Leidigh; thence across land of Stine; thence across land of Miller; thence across land of Hershey and J. Gillaugh; thence across land of Rotz; thence across Iand of M. Gillaugh; thence across land of Noll;, thence across land of Morrison, respectively; and Booi( 310 i'nGE 495 -1- LAW OFFICES - MARMON. OEARDORFF. WILLIAWO & OTTO Exhibit "A" WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to reduce to writing the terms and conditions of the continued common use of such lane. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the garties do hereby agree as follows: I. An easement for a common twelve -foot driveway in favor of the lands owned by all the parties hereto is hereby granted and conveyed by Leidigh, Hershey and J. Gillaugh, Stine, Miller, Morrison, Noll, M. Gillaugh and Rotz to all of the parties hereto, as the same is presently located and described aforesaid, the same to be used in common by the parties hereto for the purposes of ingress, egress and regress to their respective properties. 2. Expenses for maintenance of such easement shall be shared equally by Morrison and Rotz, or their successors in title, and such easements shall run with the land and be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs, successors or assigns. 3. The easement shall never be blacktopped or otherwise paved and no trees shall be cut on either side of such easement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals day andyearfirst above written_ Rose M. LLe)44 e h 6y her fi Attorney-in-fact Ruth Adler . ai-44 4/N.o. J k G. Gillaugh Gillaugh bonna M. Stine JAI I • tiler Robert L. Noll i u11 L61,01 Nancy JeariO4 hey u 0 Raymd Stine ?G1¢ef Emerson Miller 4'4-tlM, Walter E. Morrison COOK • 310 PACE 996 LAM OYYICse - ) Ait37OR. DZARD011774 WILISAYS i Drib =.1541a...= . • N e t t E. Gsl3augh a D. ' otz • I'• f3 �A 497 —3— LAK oT7iCas — 1 AAieON, **ARDOR/T. KILUUtb * OTT* 4.4 f.. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) • sSS. COUNTY OF tteL#J21A•vD ) On this, the 2S IN day of SEPlPIC-2 , 1985, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Ruth Adler, Attorney-in-fact for Rose M. Leidigh, known to me (c.r satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the same for the purposes therein contained.„,,.,,, ,,, In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. > ".• '” Notary Public VACA5;E,, �k (RY ftiAQE C;•F_!AE E^4(; 4 lirhh►rg$44N1Y' . MY CON rs ; (; EXPURLS t. JC:1L•rlac . Member. Peans'lwal7 Anoeieftoe of Ncratin COMMONWEAL H OF PENNSYLVANIA ) • SS. COUNTY OF r ) On this, the pa day of , 1985, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Nancy Jean Hershey, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the same for the purposes therein contained. In witness whereof, thereunto set my hand and officialeal , •*.NO SANDRA tE teRIODh,417:4 NOTAAYIVOLf •,',9 ''.•' ,\ ;• LISLE, CutiasstA ymp Co;,, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) CARMYCOMMISSIONEMOCY. 13, sea • SS. COUNTY OF Ca4tU"C ) On this, the 2/ day of , 1985, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Jack G. Gillaugh, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same tor the purposes therein contained. In witness whereof, Ihereunto set my ha.• and official seal. Nu 310 PACE • 498 -a- e 0;id• .f,V f. a.. SANDRA S.EeKENhODER.:,j . L NOTAMYPuaug, ' '...0 :':. CARLISLE, CUMQEALAuP'COE MA:' Ci .• MY COMMISSION ¢JSM.IDeat•.*'(Yals; 1„µg: •. LAM orrtcas — ,IAaTBON. .DEAsno=rr. WILLIAMS • OTro COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) •SS. COUNTY OF C4' 6ekkAAfl' On this, the 77 1P day of SEP11 L Fir , 1985, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Raymond Stine and Donna M. Stine, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the persons whose names ere subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same for the purposes therein contained. ^ .,. In witness whereof, 1 hereunto set my hand and official seal. Notary Put he•%s , •'' DORCAS ` COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) :85. COUNTY OF eumei 2 ANO CARLISLE OwPO, CUiiSEaZM0 Crt, rt MY CO6mLi1SS1CN EXPIRES A10.16, 198D. Member, Penarylm,.i3 Assam mix of kats:ir. On this, the 2e7N day of Seorawsf? , 1985, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Emerson Miller and Ethel Miller, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same for the purposes therein contained. In witness whereof, 1 hereunto set my hand and official seal. 1.1i d 0. etti 1j{ 'Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) SS. COUNTY OF c'vmaa.0449 DORCAS A. ELEY. CARLISLE BON, CUMBER4 �. MY COMMISSICN ExPIBCS•11 D:•1 Member, Permsylvv:5 A:tociatit J On this, the 2S fR day of 5.erb1Fi(lj , 1985, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Walter -E. Morrison, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to -be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrumeritowlt#ckkgrIsdged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained. ,, ;. ;' ; '._" In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. °J.. LA . L1 Notary Public •eorA 310 pm 498 -5- r DORCAS R. Fe'.:FY. NOTA?.T CARLISLE Bw: r. CU?ABERtASO COJN;f MY COLAEIIS;ICt: EXPIRES AUG. 16. 1936 Member. PenriIrnil A::a<:nGon of Nalarl.7 LAW orrwye$ — APAICTISON. DEAADOAPV. NZLLZAKt A OTTO COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) :SS. COUNTY OF et,m8e,?/4 4 On this, the / $f day of i're fi , 1985, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Robert L. Noll and Mary Esther Noll, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same for the purposes„therein contained. In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand -and official seal. Notary Public DORCAS A. EARLEY. ROTARY PUBLIC' CAPIISLE ao;o. CU138ERLANDCOUNTP MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 1S, 1938 Member. Pennsyler.ia Aauciafi>A of 1 ctark- COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) •SS. COUNTY OF evm@E,Qtiwd On this, the ;7111 day of SFPrim/3E/ , 1985, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Margaret E. Gillaugh, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the -same for the -purposes therein containedo.,,, In witness whereof, 1 hereunto set my -hand and official seal..' :: Notary Public ,� DORCAS`A. EA.'.LEY;jin,. ,Pi • , • CARLISLE SCD.O, low o ,q) Aka* MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ALIs. 16. 1938 Marber, Peauylvznis AiD2C;II 1'JA et-kola:it: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) : SS. COUNTY OF t'Wd3fel4.4 ) On this, the 3'' V day of S(PIF/72/36f? , 1985, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Eugene 1. Rotz and Oma D. Rotz, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within Instrument, and acknowledged that they executed -the same for the purposes therein contained. In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal...: ;`'' Vit; Notary Public .��_Stetaof :�6y�raniA SS DORCAS-A. EARLEY: NOT E p-4' ;r C,ounty?of .0 ? g'L''erlai,d CAR115LE BOZO, CUNBERuxo CUUNr( •' MY COILOISSIOR EXPIRES 4UC.16, 1930^ • Ffeoolded-in' ho oftrce for the recording of needs_ Member, Penna I ,nia Auxinlx cf Notuiat Mc., in annd__•�rr Cumber hand County, pa. ' C/ : ou 310 PACE .rj(() in �`E tank .s u. voi. Papel ` �• witness my hand nd seal of office et�_ '^s' Carlisle, Pa. this t day of reox. DEA DORYP. WILLIAM, a'arro IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW GRADY HALTEMAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 14-5730 CIVIL TERM JAMES A. DOUGHERTY and DALE E. DOUGHERTY, husband and wife, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY G•n -n DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND NOW come Defendants, James A. Dougherty and Dale E. Dougherty, by their attorneys, Saidis, Sullivan & Rogers, and hereby file the following Reply to Petition for Preliminary Injunctive Relief: 1. It is admitted that Plaintiff has filed a Complaint. Defendants' Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim filed in response thereto is hereby incorporated by reference. 2. Admitted. 3. This averment is a statement of Plaintiff s claim to which no admission or denial is required. In further response, nevertheless, Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any injunction of any nature. 4. Denied. The averments of paragraphs 8, 11 and 31 of Defendants' Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim are hereby incorporated by reference. 5. Denied. Defendants' responses to paragraphs 8, 11, 12 and 15 of their Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim are hereby incorporated by reference. 6. Denied. Defendants' responses set forth in paragraphs 8, 11, 12 and 15 of their Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim is hereby incorporated by reference. In further response, whether or not the claimed consequences constitute "immediate and irreparable harm" is a conclusion of law to which no response is required and is deemed denied. 7. The averments of paragraph 7 are conclusions of law to which no response is required and are deemed denied. In further response, nevertheless, the averments are denied and Defendants' responses to paragraphs 8 and 11 set forth in their Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim are hereby incorporated by reference. 8. Denied. On the contrary, except for very limited permissive uses as set forth in paragraphs 8 and 11 of Defendants' Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim, (which are hereby incorporated by reference), for at least the past 16 years, the so-called "Private Road" has been obstructed by Defendants at a point near the common boundary line between Plaintiff's Property and Defendants' Property. The status quo is that the so-called "Private Road" is and has been obstructed and has not been used by either Plaintiff or Plaintiffs predecessor in title, Vernon Wickard. Further, permitting Plaintiff to use the so-called "Private Road" to ingress and egress Plaintiff s Property, particularly if said ingress and egress contemplates timbering and/or quarrying of the property or other commercial activities, as Defendants suspect, will result in damage to the roadway, interfere with Defendants' peaceful use enjoyment of their property, and cause overwhelming annoyance and inconvenience. 9. The averments of paragraph 9 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are deemed denied. In further response, nevertheless, the averments are denied and Defendants' response to paragraph 8, above, is hereby incorporated by reference. 2 10. The averments of paragraph 10 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are deemed denied. In further response, nevertheless, the averments are denied. Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits of his claims for the reasons set forth in Defendants' Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Complaint. 11. The averments of paragraph 11 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are deemed denied. In further response, nevertheless, the averments are denied. Any use by Plaintiff of the so-called "Private Road" would take place within steps of the front of Defendants' residence where they live full time. Use of the so- called "Private Road" by Plaintiff, particularly for quarrying, timbering or other commercial activity, will severely damage Defendants' interests through creation of noise, commotion and dust, invasion of their privacy, damage to the roadway and other physical damage. In the event a preliminary injunction is issued, despite the objections of Defendants, Defendants request that a bond or legal tender in an amount not less than $25,000.00 be required. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction be denied and that they be awarded costs and fees. In the alternative, in the event a preliminary injunction would be entered despite Defendants' objections, Defendants request that bond or legal tender be posted in an amount not less than $25,000.00. 3 Date: November 10, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, SAIDIS, SULLIVAN & ROGERS By: 4 Daniel L. Sullivan, Esquire Attorney I.D. 34548 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 - Phone (717) 243-6486 - Fax dsullivan@ssr-attornevs.com VERIFICATION I, James A. Dougherty, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 11 Tr , 2014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, November 10, 2014, I, Daniel L. Sullivan, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of Defendants' Reply to Petition for Preliminary Injunctive Relief upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First Class Mail: Andrew H. Shaw, Esq. 200 South Spring Garden Street Suite 11 Carlisle, PA 17013 By: 5 SAIDIS, SULLIVAN & ROGERS Daniel L. Sullivan, Esquire Attorney LD. 34548 Attorney for Defendants 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone (717)243-6222 Fax (717) 243-6486 dsullivan@ssr-attorneys.com STEVEN LAYNAS, Esquire Identification No.: 33906 Suite 3620 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 851-8700 DZHAMOLIDDIN RAKHIMOV Plaintiff v. SKC TRANSPORTATION, LLC And BARRY J. KEVILLE And J.H. VERBRIDGE & SONS, INC. TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Attorney for Plaintiff c. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cumberland County No. 14-5711 Civil PRAECIPE TO ATTACH Kindly attach the enclosed Verification of Plaintiff, Dzhamoliddin Rakhimov, to the Amended Complaint filed in this matter on behalf of Plaintiff. By: ST . EN LAYNAS, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, DZHAMOLIDDIN RAKHIMOV, plaintiff in the above matter, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 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. DZHAMOLIDDIN "• KH OV y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Steven Laynas, Esquire, do hereby certify that service of a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Attach has been forwarded to defense counsel via First Class United States mail, postage pre -paid, and/or via e-filing/e-mailing, as follows: Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire Law Offices of Hubshman, Flood & Bullock 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Dated: November 249, 2014 N LAYNAS, Esquire Law Offices of Hubshman, Flood & Bullock By: Luisa F Borelli, Esquire Attorney ID #91620 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Telephone #(610) 276-4962 Our File #124446818-oo1 Dzamoliddin Rakhimov v. SKC Transporation, LLC and Barry J. Keville and J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc. Attorney for Defendants, J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., Barry J. Keville and SKC Transporation, LLC : Court of Common Pleas : Cumberland County : 2014-5711 c: CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 As a prerequisite to service of subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22: Certifies that: 1. a notice of intent to serve the subpoena with copies of the subpoena attached hereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty (20) days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served; 2. a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate; 3. the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena; 4. no objection to the subpoena has been received. Law Offices of Hubshman, Flood & Bullock Date: December 8, 2014 By: l.A.1A-0, Luisa F Borelli, Esquire Attorney for Defendants 1 Law Offices of Hubshman, Flood & Bullock By: Luisa F Borelli, Esquire Attorney ID #91620 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Telephone #(61o) 276-4962 Our File #124446818-001 Dzamoliddin Rakhimov v. SKC Transporation, LLC and Barry J. Keville and J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc. Attorney for Defendants, J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc., Barry J. Keville and SKC Transporation, LLC : Court of Common Pleas : Cumberland County • : 2014-5711 • NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 DZHAMOLIDOIN RAKHIMOV: Prestom Investment Group Employment Records TO: Steven Laynas, Esquire Luisa F Borelli, Esquire intends to serve subpoena identical to the ones that are attached to this Notice. You have 20 days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If the 20 day Notice period is waived, or, if no objection is made, then the subpoena may be served. Complete copies of any reproduced records may be ordered at your expense by contacting, Avery Jackson. Luisa F Borelli, Esquire, Attorney for Defendants Date of Issue: November 14, 2014 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND DZHAMOLIDOIN RAKHIMOV Court of Common Pleas Plaintiff BARRY J. KEVILLE Defendant No.2014-5711 Subpoena to Produce Documents or Things for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.22 TO: Prestom Investment Group (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after the service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: Copies of any and all employment records pertaining to DZHAMOLIDOIN RAKHIMOV, DOB: January 20, 1987. at 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200, Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: Date: Name: Luisa F Borelli, Esquire Address: 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Telephone: (610) 276-4962 Supreme Court ID#: 91620 Attorney for: Defendants BY THE COURT: Dzamoliddin Rakhimov v. SKC Transporation, LLC and Barry J. Keville and J.H. Verbridge & Sons, Inc. : 2014-5711 : Court of Common Pleas : Cumberland County ORDER TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above -captioned matter Settled, Discontinued and Ended. teven Laynas, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff