Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-3887Brett P. Zankel, Esquire P.O. Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 717) 921-2192 BZ26WMOL.com Attorney for Plaintiff STAGY GARONZIK, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM AND CREATIVE CAR TUNES, DEFENDANTS NO.: pS- 3 T7 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW COMPLAINT Plaintiff Stacy Garonzik makes this Complaint in Assumpsit and Trespass against Creative Car Tunes and its owner Steven Ledebohm by and through her attorney Brett P. Zankel, Esquire, who enters his appearance on her behalf. 1. Plaintiff Stacy Garonzik is a sui juris individual and resident of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendants are Steven Ledebohm and his business Creative Car Tunes some form of Pennsylvania business entity, whose exact structure is unknown to the Plaintiff, both of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff is the owner of a 1970's Porsche 911 wide body turbo special interest collector automobile. 4. Plaintiff was induced by the false representation of Defendant Steve Ledebohm to take her car to Creative Car Tunes located at 1221 Market Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17043 for restoration, refurbishment and upgrade work to the interior and the suspension. Creative Car Tunes and only Creative Car Tunes, and its employees were to make improvements and other upgrades to the vehicle which included but was not limited to: (a) Install new driver and passenger seats. (b) Install new Steering wheel. (c) Replace old gauges and face plates with new white gauges (did not complete). (d) Replace old gauge bezels with new chrome ones. (e) Install a short shift kit. (f) Replace pedals. (g) Replace carpet in the interior and trunk. (h) Bleach the headliner and visor. (i) Replace floor mats (did not complete - were purchased and remain at business, paid for). (j) Replace hood struts and trunk struts. (k) Replace shocks and struts which were paid for by Plaintiff and not installed, and remain at Defendant's business. (1) Change the oil. (m) Replace rubber seals around windows, etc. (n) Replace head lights. (o) Replace interior door panels. The car was delivered to Defendant in late May of 2004. It was Plaintiff's understanding that Scott, an employee at Creative Car Tunes, was appointed by Defendant Steve Ledebohm to evaluate and order all the parts necessary to make the aforementioned upgrades and improvements to the vehicle. Scott represented to the Plaintiff when the vehicle was dropped off to the Defendant that he was a "Porsche automobile expert". Plaintiff later learned that Defendant and its employees has no experience whatsoever with Porsche automobiles. 6. Plaintiff paid Defendant over nine thousand dollars (9,000.00) in advance to begin restoring, refurbishing and upgrading vehicle. 7. Defendant kept Plaintiff's car an inordinately (7 months) long time and refused to return the car to Plaintiff. Plaintiff teamed that Defendant had put giant stickers with his business name and logo on the windshield of Plaintiff's automobile and parked it outside his business everyday as advertising and to draw in customers to Creative Car Tunes to whom he falsely claimed that he built said car. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant Steve Ledebohm, drove Plaintiff's automobiles to import car events and "outlaw" import car races where he "hot rodded" the car to advertise his business; said use being totally unauthorized by Plaintiff. 8. Plaintiff's car when it was turned over to the Defendant was equipped with custom alloy wheels shod with wide low profile unidirectional Yokohama ultra high performance tires and had just been inspected in April, one month prior to vehicle being turned over to the defendant. The tires had passed inspection and had good treads. 9. At some point during October of 2004, Defendant had telephoned Plaintiff and Plaintiff's agent, Eric Garonzik, and told them that the tires were going to need replacement at some point in time. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that this was because of Defendants unauthorized use and abuse of the car. Plaintiff and said agent instructed Defendant to attempt to locate replacement tires. Defendant informed Plaintiff that he had called his distributor and that the tires of the necessary size could not be found. Defendant then suggested that the Plaintiff upgrade to another tire diameter but the same width, which would require new wheels. Additionally, the Defendant indicated that to do so, the suspension would have to be upgraded which the Plaintiff agreed to do. It was understood that this would require a $5,000.00 investment on the Plaintiff's part, Plaintiff agreed to this. Plaintiff subsequently has learned that none of this was true or necessary. 10. In early October, more than 4 months after Plaintiff dropped the vehicle off to Defendant, Scott the primary employee contact at Defendant's shop told Plaintiff that the vehicle would be finished on or around October 30, 2004, Plaintiff went over at this time to inspect the automobile. It was at this time the Plaintiff saw that the driver's side at the window and door joint that it appeared somebody had attempted to break into the vehicle as the metal molding on the window was actually bent back creating an obvious gap at the door joint. This was pointed out to Defendant's employees present. Each person inspected it and agreed that this appeared to be the case. The employees stated that they would notify Defendant, Steven Ledebohm, the owner, about this. Plaintiff then asked employees to ensure that the vehicle was not parked outside in front any more as it appeared that this is where the incident would have happened. Employees agreed they would ensure this request would be granted. However, the next day, the vehicle once again was parked outside the front of the business along the street. Defendant did speak with the Plaintiff to state that he was made aware of the car being damaged by a break in and agreed to repair this damage at the expense of his insurance carrier Erie Insurance. This was never done. 11. On or around November 1", 2004 , Plaintiff stopped in to pick up the vehicle and pay the remaining balance due on the account and the Defendant rudely informed Plaintiff that the car was not done and that his employees " had no business" telling Plaintiff that the vehicle would be done. The Defendant Steven Ledebohm said that the vehicle would not be done for yet another 1-2 months. Defendant, did however ask that more monies be paid at this time to ensure completion of the upgrades and custom work, which the Plaintiff agreed to. 12. Finally after much argument during Christmas week 2004 and the first week of 2005, the vehicle was released to the Plaintiff's agent Erick Garonzik on or about January 7', 2005, unfinished more than seven (7) months after it was left with the Defendants. 13. While making a short trip in the automobile on January 15'h, 2005, the left rear tire cataclysmically failed and exploded with such force that the alloy wheel was damaged; further the tire carcass tore off the cars rear fender engine hood and rear bumper of the vehicle causing Plaintiff's agent to loose control of the vehicle. The Plaintiff was a passenger in the car at the time. The car was being driven at approximately 45 miles per hour at the time of the incident and had traveled less than fifty (50) miles since it was picked up from the Defendant. 14. Plaintiff Stacy Garonzik was informed by the Defendant and several of his employees that they had without any authorization from the Plaintiff had the rear tires "flipped" on the wheels of the car, that is unmounted the tires then remounted them in the opposite direction they had originally been turning, despite the fact that they were unidirectional tires designed by the manufacturer to be run in only one (1) direction. 15. The tire manufacturer warns of the possibility of cataclysmic tire failure should these radial tires be mounted and run in the wrong direction, or if the direction of any radial tire is reversed after the tire has any mileage on it. This is a general standard of the tire industry. 16. Defendant's act of flipping the driven unidirectional rear tires around is the proximate cause and direct cause of the cataclysmic rear tire failure causing damage to Plaintiff's vehicle and to the Plaintiff. COUNT I ASSUMPSIT 17, Plaintiff pleads all facts plead in the foregoing Complaint from paragraph 1 through 16 by reference as though set forth at length. 18. The upgrade and restoration work performed by the Defendant and his business was actually done in such an incompetent way that it devalues the vehicle rather than enhances it. 19. The restoration and refurbishment work performed by Defendants is not in accord with the professional standards of Porsche restoration promulgated by the Porsche Club of America nor in conformity with the standands of professional automobile mechanics and technicians. 18. The mechanical work performed by Defendants on Plaintiffs automobile is not up to the standards of standard repair mechanics and fails to meet the standards of all implied and stated warranties of automobile repair and caused the cataclysmic tire failure suffered by Plaintiff and resulting paint, body, and mechanical damage. 19. Plaintiff paid Defendant $19,000.00 for the restoration and refurbishment and seeks a full refund. 20. Damage due to the tire failure is estimated at $7,5000.00 for the body repairs and paint work. Custom wheels which were damaged extensively are $3,500.00. $12,500.00 total with other anticipated hidden damages. 21. The work performed on the automobile is of such poor quality and conception it totally devalues the vehicle to $0.00. WHEREFORE Plaintiff seeks damages from the Defendants in the amount of $35,000.00. COUNT II TRESPASS 22. Plaintiff pleads by reference all facts plead in paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint as though set forth at length. 23. Defendants were negligent in performing repair work on Plaintiff's automobile causing the failure of Plaintiffs tires and all resulting body, paint and wheel damages. 24. Due to Defendants' negligence and their refusal to repair, Plaintiff has lost the pleasure of using this automobile. 25. Plaintiff has suffered psychic injury from this incident and is now fearful when driving. WHEREFORE Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $50,000.00 from the Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitted, By: Bre P Zankel, Es u' e Attorney for the Plaintiff 321 Clarks Valley Road PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. This verification is made pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1024(c) due to the lack of availability of the Plaintiff. Date: 7 /2,? /0,?- By: BRETT P ZANKEL, FIS-QV Attorney for the P f 321 Clarks Valley Road PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 I)Z?:) 0 4 7 n r-` U 1\ Cl?l Q) NJ N Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM and CREATIVE CAR TUNES, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter the appearance of Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire of Goldberg Katzman, P.C. on behalf of the Defendants. GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. By: Thomas E. Brenner, Esq. Attorney I.D. No. 32085 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: August 11, 2005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following by depositing same into the United States Mail, first class mail, postage pre-paid to: Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. BY: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Date: August 11, 2005 125108.1 ? ? c~ ?' ? r;, "" Z? } ?;i -. C3"` .;{?-iii ?. y?'rd W ? <A :< Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attomeys for Defendants STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM and CREATIVE CAR TUNES, Defendants NO. 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Stacy Garonzik C/o Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 YOU ARE REQUIRED to plead to the within New Matter within 20 days of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. GOLDBERG K/A'TZMAN, P.C. By:`z--? Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Attorney ID # 32085 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants Date: September 6, 2005 Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff V. STEVEN LEDEI30HM and CREATIVE CAR TUNES, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes, by and through his attorneys, Goldberg Katzman, P.C., who state: 1. Denied in part. Defendant is unaware of the residence location of Plaintiff. 2. Admitted. Creative Car Tunes is a sole proprietorship owned and operated by Steven Ledebohm. 3. Denied. Defendant interacted with Eric Garonzik and is unaware if Plaintiff owned the 1971 Porsche 911. The vehicle was not a turbo. Defendant has no knowledge as to whether the vehicle was a "special interest collector automobile" because of its condition. 4. Denied. Defendant Steve Ledebohm had no interaction with Plaintiff a. Admitted. b. Admitted. C. Defendants advised Eric Garonzik that white gauges were not available. Therefore, chrome rings were installed around the gauges. d. Admitted. e. Admitted. f. Admitted. g. Admitted. h. Denied as stated. The head liner and visors were dyed black. i. Denied, j. Admitted. k. Denied. Defendant advised Eric Garonzik that the parts would be ordered but the vehicle should be referred to another shop for installation. 1. Denied. The oil was not changed. This type of work is not done at Creative Car Tunes and the vehicle was to be referred to another shop to accomplish this task. M. Admitted. n. Admitted. o. Admitted. 5. Denied. Plaintiff had limited interaction with staff. The majority of the contacts regarding the vehicle were with Eric Garonzik. As to what Plaintiff learned in discussions with others, the paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 6. Denied. An initial deposit of $200.00 was supplied with the vehicle. Over time, work was performed and various additional payments were made, which totaled $8,139.87. 7. Denied as stated. Eric Garonzik came to the Defendant's shop on several occasions asking for additional work and changing his decision as to work that had been requested. It is denied that the vehicle was placed on display outside the shop of Creative Car Tunes. It is also denied that the vehicle was ever driven by Defendant Steve Ledebohm to import car events or races. The vehicle did not leave Defendant's property. 8. Denied. Whether the vehicle was recently inspected at the time the vehicle was delivered to Defendant is unknown and this portion of the paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The poor condition of one of the tires of the vehicle was immediately pointed out to Eric Garonzik, noting the fire was in poor condition and in need of repair. Eric Garonzik acknowledged the condition of the tire and admitted others had recommended repairs. Indeed, Eric Garonzik authorized the purchase of new tires, which order he later cancelled. 9. Denied. The poor condition of one of the tires of the vehicle was immediately pointed out to Eric Garonzik, noting the tire was in poor condition and in need of repair. Indeed, Eric Garonzik authorized the purchase of new tires, which order he later cancelled. Defendant advised Eric Garonzik of the need for tire replacement soon after receipt of the vehicle. It is denied that there was any unauthorized use and abuse of the vehicle. It is denied that there were any discussions with Plaintiff about changing the tires and wheels or upgrading the suspension. 10. Denied. A projected date for completion of the work on the vehicle changed because Eric Garonzik requested additional work. Plaintiffs vehicle was never damaged by break-in while in possession of Defendant. Any damage that Plaintiff attributes to a break-in preexisted the delivery of the vehicle to Defendant. 11. Denied as stated. The continuing changes requested by Eric Garonzik caused delay for th receipt of parts and completion of work. A discussion occurred wherein Steve Ledebohm advised Stacy Garonzik and Eric Garonzik to solely discuss with him the schedule for completion of the vehicle. 12. Admitted. It is admitted that the vehicle was picked up by Eric Garonzik in January, 2005. Eric was advised that parts were on order to complete more of the requested upgrades and he was to return the vehicle. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information as to the truth of averments of paragraph 13. The paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 14. Denied. The tires were not designated to be run in only one direction. Defendant had no discussions with Plaintiff about the tires. Discussions were Eric about the tires. Eric authorized the tire swap. The remainder of the paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa. R. C. P. 1029 (e). 15. Denied. The paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 16. Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. COUNTI ASSUMPSIT 17. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated herein by reference. 18. Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. The repairs and upgrades were performed to industry standards. Eric Garonzik accepted the vehicle without complaint. 19. Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. Moreover, the paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa. R. C. P. 1029(e). 18. [sic] Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. Moreover, the paragraph is denied pursuant to 1029(e). In further response, the repairs and upgrades were performed to industry standards. Eric Garonzik accepted the vehicle without complaint. 19.[sid Denied. Plaintiff paid $8,139.87. 20. Denied. The paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 21. Denied. The paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). In further response, the repairs and upgrades were performed to industry standards. Eric Garonzik accepted the vehicle without complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendant Steven Ledebohm, t/a Creative Car Tunes requests that Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. COUNT II TRESPASS 22. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 21 are incorporated herein by reference. 21 Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 24. Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. Defendant never refused to repair the vehicle and was never provided the opportunity to repair the vehicle. 25. Denied. The paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WfEREFORE, Defendant Steven Ledebohm, t/a Creative Car Tunes requests that Count 11 of Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. NEW MATTER 26. Defendant Steve Ledebohm, t/a Creative Car Tunes dealt with Eric Garonzik with regard to the requested repairs and modifications to the Porsche. 27. Defendant Steve Ledebohm, t/a Creative Car Tunes is unaware of who the title owner is of the Porsche. 28. Defendant Steve Ledebohm, t/a Creative Car Tunes advised Eric Garonzik of the dangerous condition of one of the rear tires and that the belts were exposed. Eric Garonzik authorized the purchase of new tires, then, later cancelled the tire order. 29. All of the work performed by Defendant was of proper quality and to industry standards. Eric Garonzik accepted the vehicle without complaint. 30. The car was dropped off by Eric Garonzik and not the Plaintiff. Eric was advised that Defendant did not have time to work on the vehicle. Eric stated that because of loss of his license and lack of insurance the a he was not planning to drive the vehicle and no time frame set for the repairs and upgrades to the vehicle. 31. Eric Garonzik picked up the car aware that the old tires remained on the vehicle. He operated the vehicle knowing the worn condition of these tires. 32. Plaintiff was guilty of comparative negligence in the use and permitted use of the vehicle. 33. Plaintiff assumed the risk of harm in the use and permitted use of the vehicle. 34. The damages to the vehicle arose from the acts of Eric Garonzik. WIJEREFORE, Defendant Steven Ledebohm, t/a Creative Car Tunes requests that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. By: GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. Thomas E. Brenner, Esq. Attorney I.D. No. 32085 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorney for Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes Date: September 6, 2005 VERIFICATION I, Steven Ledebohm, hereby acknowledge that I am an authorized representative of Creative Car Tunes, the defendant in this action; that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes Date: 125640.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following by depositing same into the United States Mail, first class mail, postage pre-paid to: Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. BY: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Date: September 6, 2005 125342.1 v._Y ? l _:,, } (?. ?:.. 1 , ?) ? '11 Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PQ Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM and CREATIVE CAR TUNES, Defendants V. ERIC GARONZIK Additional Defendant NO. 05-3887 CIVII. ACTION - LAW NOTICE 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 WI IERF, YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Lawyer Referral Service Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea adisado que si usted no se defiende, la sin previo aviso o notificacion y pox cualquier quja o puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. ST NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE ELDINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGARTAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Lawyer Referral Service Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff V. STEVEN LEDEBOIIM and CREATIVE. CAR TUNES, Defendants V. ERIC GARONZIK Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AGAINST ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT ERIC GARONZIK AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes, by and through his attorneys, Goldberg Katzman, P.C., who state: 1. Additional defendant, Eric Garonzik, is an adult individual residing at 110-C West Vine, Camp Ifill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Plaintiff initiated this suit by filing a Complaint in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas on July 27, 2005. (Exhibit "A") 3. Defendant, Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes filed their Answer with New Matter on September 7, 2005. (Exhibit "B") 4. This lawsuit arises out of repairs and restoration upgrades that were performed on a vehicle that Plaintiff claims she owns. 5. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes negligently repaired the vehicle resulting in damage to the vehicle in a motor vehicle accident. 6. Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes believes that Eric Garonzik is solely liable for the damage done to the vehicle as he was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident. 7. Should the Plaintiff prevail on her claim, it is averred that Additional Defendant Eric Garonzik is liable to Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes for indemnity or contribution on the Plaintiffs' claim. WHEREFORE, Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes requests that Additional Defendant Eric Garonnik, be found liable for Plaintiff's claim; or in the alternative, liable to Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes for indemnity or contribution on the Plaintiffs claim. GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. 4 Thomas E. Brenner, Esq. Attorney I.D. No. 32085 320 Market Street, P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorney for Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes Date: September 19, 2005 VERIFICATION I, Steven Ledebohm, hereby acknowledge that I am an authorized representative of Creative Car Tunes, the defendant in this action; that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. j1 S't&Gen Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes Date: 125640.1 AUG 08 2005 8:13RM HP LRSERJET 3200 p.2 Brett P. Zankel, Esquire P.O. Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 717) 921-2192 BZ266MAOL.com Attorney for Plaintiff STAY GARONZIX, PLAINTIFF I>: jp,Slitiit7?t1 'oriif,,•;';;i. =, ?.st= 1:-^.E`c s8t 91tN ha+'?? :5ilfj Cf48 Gk'aP ref ark tr.-:ti 'S ^?? ?` j IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. .STEVEN LEDEROI9M AND CREATIVE CAR TUNES, DEFENDANTS No.: as- 373r? Cwm ACTION - AT LAw COWLA1NT Plaintiff Stacy Garonzik [Hakes this Complaint in Assumpsit and Trespass against Creative Car Tunes and its owner Steven Ledebohm by and though her attorney Brett P, Zankel, Esquire, who enters his appearance on her behalf. Plaintiff Stacy Garonzik is a Nui jurls individual and resident of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendants are Steven Ledebohm and his business Creative Car Tunes some form of Pennsylvania business eutity, whose exact structure is unknown to the Plaintiff, both of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff is the owner of a 1970's Porsche 911 wide body turbo special interest collector automobile. 4. Plaintiff was Induced by the false representation of Defendant Steve Ledebohm EXHIBR AUG 08 2005 8:13RM HP LRSERJET 3200 P.3 to take her car to Creative Car Tunes located at 1221 Market Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17043 for restoration, refurbishment and upgrade work to the interior and the suspension. Creative Car Tunes and only Creative Car Tunes, and its employees were to [Hake improvements and other upgrades to the vehicle wbich included but was not limited to: (a) Install new driver and passenger seats. (b) Install new Steering wheel. (c) Replace old gauges and face plates with new white gauges (did not complete). (d) Replace old gauge bezels with new chrome ones. (e) Install a short shift kit. (f) Replace pedals. (g) Replace carpet in the interior and trunk. (h) Bleach the headliner and visor, 0) Replace floor mats (did not complete - were purchased and remain at business, paid for). (j) Replace hood struts and trunk struts. (k) Replace shocks and struts which were paid for by Plaintiff and not installed, and remain at Defendant's business. (1) Change the oil. (m) Replace rubber seals around windows, etc. (n) Replace head lights. (o) Replace interior door panels. The car was delivered to Defendant in late May of 2004. It was Plaintiffs understanding that Scott, an employee at Creative Car Tunes, was appointed by Defendant Steve Ledebohm to evaluate and order all the parts necessary to make the aforementioned upgrades and improvements to the vehicle. Scott represented to the Plaintiff when the vehicle was dropped off to the Defendant that he was a "Porsche automobile expert". Plaintiff later learned that Defendant and its employees has no experience whatsoever with Porsche automobiles. 6. Plaintiff paid Defendant over nine thousand dollars (9,000.00) in advance to begin restoring, refurbishing and upgrading vehicle. Defendant kept Plaintiffs car an inordinately (7 months) long time and refused to return the car to Plaintiff. Plaintiff learned that Defendant had put giant stickers with his business name and logo on the windshield of Plaintiff's automobile and parked it outside his business everyday as advertising and to draw in customers to Creative Car Tunes to whom he falsely claimed that he HUU u8 2005 8:13AM HP LRSERJET 3200 p.4 built said car. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant Steve Ledebohm, drove Plaintiff's automobiles to import car events and "outlaw" import car races where he `hot rodded" the car to advertise his business; said use being totally unauthorized by Plaintiff. 8. Plaintiff's car when it was turned over to the Defendant was equipped with custom alloy wheels shod with wide low profile unidirectional Yokohama ultra high performance tires and had just been inspected in April, one month prior to vehicle being turned over to the defendant. The tires had passed inspection and had good treads. At some point during October of 2004, Defendant had telephoned Plaintiff and Plaintiffs agent, Eric Garonzllc, and told them that the tires were going to need replacement at some point in time. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that this was because of Defendants unauthorized use and abuse of the car. Plaintiff and said agent instructed Defendant to attempt to locate replacement tires. Defendant informed Plaintiff that he had called his distributor and that the tires of the necessary size could not be found. Defendant then suggested that the Plaintiff upgrade to another tire diameter but the same width, which would require new wheels. Additionally, the Defendant indicated that to do so, the suspension would have to be upgraded which the Plaintiff agreed to do. It was understood that this would require a $5,000.00 investment on the Plaintiffs part, Plaintiff agreed to this. Plaintiff subsequently has learned that none of this was true or necessary, 10. In early October, more than 4 months after Plaintiff dropped the vehicle off to Defendant, Scott the primary employee contact at Defendant's shop told Plaintiff that the vehicle would be finished on or around October 30, 2004, Plaintiff went over at this time to inspect the automobile. It was at this time the Plaintiff saw that the driver's side at the window and door joint that it appeared somebody had attempted to break into the vehicle as the metal molding on the window was actually bent back creating an obvious gap at the door joint- This was pointed out to Defendant's employees present. Each person inspected it and agreed that this appeared to be the case. The employees stated that they would notify Defendant, Steven Ledebohm, the owner, about this. Plaintiff then asked employees to ensure that the vehicle was not parked outside in front any more as it appeared that this is where the incident would have happened. Employees agreed they would ensure this request would be granted. However, the next day, the vehicle once again was parked outside the front of the business along the street, Defendant did speak with the Plaintiff to state that he was [Wade aware of the car being damaged by a break in and agreed to repair this damage at The expense of his insurance carrier Erie Insurance. This was never done, AUG 08 2005 8:13RM HP LRSERJET 3200 P.5 11. On or around November 1", 2004 , Plaintiff stopped in to pick up the vehicle and pay the remaining balance due on the account and the Defendant rudely informed Plaintiff that the car was not done and that his employees " had no business" telling Plaintiff that the vehicle would be done. The Defendant Steven Ledebohm said that the vehicle would not be done for yet another 1-2 months. Defendant, did however ask that more monies he paid at this time to ensure completion of the upgrades and custom work, which the Plaintiff agreed to. 12. Finally after much argument during Christmas week 2004 and the first week of 2005, the vehicle was released to the Plaintiffs agent Erick Garomik on or about January 71b, 2005, unfinished more than seven (7) months after it was left with the Defendants. 13. While making a short trip in the automobile on January 15'", 2005, the left rear tire cataclysmically failed and exploded with such force that the alloy wheel was damaged; further the tire carcass tore off the cars rear fender engine hood and rear bumper of the vehicle causing Plaintiffs agent to loose control of the vehicle. The Plaintiff was a passenger in the car at the time. The car was being driven at approximately 45 miles per hour at the time of the incident and had traveled less than fifty (50) miles since it was picked up from the Defendant. 14. Plaintiff Stacy Garonzik was informed by the Defendant and several of his employees that they had without any authorization from the Plaintiff had the rear tires "flipped" on the wheels of the car, that is unaccounted the tires then remounted them in the opposite direction they had originally been turning, despite the fact that they were unidirectional tires designed by the manufacturer to be run in only one (1) direction, 15. The tire manufacturer warns of the possibility of cataclysmic tire failure should these radial tires be mounted and rum in the wrong direction, or if the direction of any radial tire is reversed after the tire has any mileage on it. This is a general standard of the tire industry. 16. Defendant's act of flipping the driven unidirectional rear tires around is the proximate cause and direct cause of the cataclysmic rear tire failure causing damage to Plaindff s vehicle and to the Plaintiff. Courrr ] ASSO HM AUG 08 2005 8:13RM HP LRSERJET 3200 17. Plaintiff pleads all facts plead in the foregoing Complaint from paragraph 1 through 16 by reference as though set forth at length. 18. The upgrade and restoration work performed by the Defendant and his business was actually done in such an incompetent way that it devalues the vehicle rather than enhances it. 19. The restoration and refurbishment work performed by Defendants is not in accord with the professional standards of Porsche restoration promulgated by the Porsche Club of America nor in conformity with the standards of professional automobile mechanics and technicians. 18. The mechanical work performed by Defendants on Plaintiffs automobile is not up to the standards of standard repair mechanics and fails to meet the standards of all implied and stated warranties of automobile repair and caused the cataclysmic tire failure suffered by Plaintiff and resulting paint, body, and mechanical damage. 19. Plaintiff paid Defendant $19,000.00 for the restoration and refurbishment and seeks a full refund. 20. Damage due to the tire failure is estimated at $7,5000.00 for the body repairs and paint work. Custom wheels which were damaged extensively are $3,500.00. 512.500.00 total with other anticipated hidden damages. 21. The work performed on the automobile is of such poor quality and conception it totally devalues the vehicle to $0.00. WHEREFORE Plaintiff seeks damages from the Defendants in the amount of $35,000.00. otM IY T-MPAs 22. Plaintiff pleads by reference all facts plead in paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint as though set forth at length. P.6 23. Defendants were negligent in performing repair work on Plaintiff's antomobile causing the failure of Plaintiffs tires and all resulting body, paint and wheel AUG 08 2005 8:13AM HP LASERJET 3200 p.7 damages. 24. Due to Defendants' negligence and their refltsal to repair, Plaintiff has lost the pleasure of using this automobile. 25. Plaintiff has suffered psychic injury from this incident and is now fearful when driving. WRsRrpoRE Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $50,000.00 from the Defendants 7uRy TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitted, By: [I. Brett P1?l, E wire Attorney for the Plaintif 321 Clarks Valley Road PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 ?+o cuua a:1JHM HP LRSERJET 3200 P.e yERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. This verification Is made pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1024(c) due to the lack of availability of the Plaintiff. Date: By, RHTT P ZAN QUIRE Attorney for the Plaintiff 321 Clarks Valley Road PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM and CREATIVE CAR TUNES, Defendants IN THE COURT Or COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - LAW LNOTICE TO PLEAD -- TO: Stacy Garonzik c/o Brett P. Zankel, Esquire - -', PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 YOU ARE REQUIRED to plead to the within New Matter within 20 days of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Date: September 6, 2005 GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. B \ 1,? ?_ jl tw w ?- Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Attorney ID # 32085 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants EXHIBIT Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM and CREATIVE CAR TUNES, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Steven Ledebohm tja Creative Car Tunes, by and through his attorneys, Goldberg Katzman, P.C., who state: 1. Denied in part. Defendant is unaware of the residence location of Plaintiff Z Admitted. Creative Car Tunes is a sole proprietorship owned and operated by Steven Ledcbohm. 3. Denied. Defendant interacted with Eric Garonzik and is unaware if Plaintiff owned the 1971 Porsche 911. The vehicle was not a turbo. Defendant has no knowledge as to whether the vehicle was a "special interest collector automobile" because of its condition. 4. Denied. Defendant Steve Ledebohm had no interaction with Plaintiff. a. Admitted. b. Admitted. C. Defendants advised Eric Garonzik that white gauges were not available. Therefore, chrome rings were installed around the gauges. d. Admitted. e. Admitted. f. Admitted. g. Admitted. h. Denied as stated. The head liner and visors were dyed black. i. Denied. j. Admitted. k. Denied. Defendant advised Eric Garonzik that the parts would be ordered but the vehicle should be referred to another shop for installation. 1. Denied. The oil was not changed. This type of work is not done at Creative Car Tunes and the vehicle was to be referred to another shop to accomplish this task. M Admitted. n. Admitted. o. Admitted. 5. Denied. Plaintiff had limited interaction with staff. The majority of the contacts regarding the vehicle were with Eric Garonzik. As to what Plaintiff learned in discussions with others, the paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 6. Denied. An initial deposit of $200.00 was supplied with the vehicle. Over time, work was performed and various additional payments were made, which totaled $8,139.87. 7. Denied as stated. Eric Garonzik came to the Defendant's shop on several occasions asking for additional work and changing his decision as to work that had been requested. It is denied that the vehicle was placed on display outside the shop of Creative Car Tunes. It is also denied that the vehicle was ever driven by Defendant Steve Ledebohm to import car events or races. The vehicle did not leave Defendant's property. 8. Denied. Whether the vehicle was recently inspected at the time the vehicle was delivered to Defendant is unknown and this portion of the paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The poor condition of one of the tires of the vehicle was immediately pointed out to Eric Garonzik, noting the fire was in poor condition and in need of repair. Eric Garonzik acknowledged the condition of the tire and admitted others had recommended repairs. Indeed, Eric Garonzik authorized the purchase of new tires, which order he later cancelled. 9. Denied. The poor condition of one of the tires of the vehicle was immediately pointed out to Eric Garonzik, noting the tire was in poor condition and in need of repair. Indeed, Eric Garonzik authorized the purchase of new tires, which order he later cancelled. Defendant advised Eric Garonzik of the need for tire replacement soon after receipt of the vehicle. It is denied that there was any unauthorized use and abuse of the vehicle. It is denied that there were any discussions with Plaintiff about changing the tires and wheels or upgrading the suspension. 10. Denied. A projected date for completion of the work on the vehicle changed because Eric Garonzik requested additional work. Plaintiffs vehicle was never damaged by break-in while in possession of Defendant. Any damage that Plaintiff attributes to a break-in preexisted the delivery of the vehicle to Defendant. 11. Denied as stated. The continuing changes requested by Eric Garonzik caused delay for th receipt of parts and completion of work. A discussion occurred wherein Steve Ledebohm advised Stacy Garonzik and Eric Garonzik to solely discuss with him the schedule for completion of the vehicle. 12. Admitted. It is admitted that the vehicle was picked up by Eric Garonzik in January, 2005. Eric was advised that parts were on order to complete more of the requested upgrades and he was to return the vehicle. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information as to the truth of averments of paragraph 13. The paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 14. Denied. The tires were not designated to be run in only one direction. Defendant had no discussions with Plaintiff about the tires. Discussions were Eric about the tires. Eric authorized the tire swap. The remainder of the paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa. R. C. P. 1029 (e). 15. Denied. The paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 16. Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. COUNTI ASSUMPSIT 17. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated herein by reference. 18. Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. The repairs and upgrades were performed to industry standards. Eric Garonzik accepted the vehicle without complaint. 19. Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. Moreover, the paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa. R. C. P. 1029(e). 1S.[sid Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. Moreover, the paragraph is denied pursuant to 1029(c). In further response, the repairs and upgrades were performed to industry standards. Eric Garonzik accepted the vehicle without complaint. 19.[sid Denied. Plaintiff paid $8,139.87. 20. Denied. The paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 21. Denied. The paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). In further response, the repairs and upgrades were performed to industry standards. Eric Garonzik accepted the vehicle without complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendant Steven Ledebohm, t/a Creative Car Tunes requests that Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. COUNT II TRESPASS 22. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 21 are incorporated herein by reference. 23. Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 24. Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. Defendant never refused to repair the vehicle and was never provided the opportunity to repair the vehicle. 25. Denied. The paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant Steven Ledebohm, t/a Creative Car Tunes requests that Count 11 of Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. NEW MATTER 26. Defendant Steve Ledebohm, t/a Creative Car Tunes dealt with Eric Garonzik with regard to the requested repairs and modifications to the Porsche. 27. Defendant Steve Ledebohm, t/a Creative Car Tunes is unaware of who the title owner is of the Porsche. 28. Defendant Steve Ledebohm, t/a Creative Car Tunes advised Eric Garonzik of the dangerous condition of one of the rear tires and that the belts were exposed. Eric Garonzik authorized the purchase of new tires, then, later cancelled the tire order. 29. All of the work performed by Defendant was of proper quality and to industry standards. Eric Garonzik accepted the vehicle without complaint. 30. The car was dropped off by Eric Garonzik and not the Plaintiff. Eric was advised that Defendant did not have time to work on the vehicle. Eric stated that because of loss of his license and lack of insurance the a he was not planning to drive the vehicle and no time frame set for the repairs and upgrades to the vehicle. 31. Eric Garonzik picked up the car aware that the old tires remained on the vehicle. He operated the vehicle knowing the worn condition of these tires. 32. Plaintiff was guilty of comparative negligence in the use and permitted use of the vehicle. 33. Plaintiff assumed the risk of harm in the use and permitted use of the vehicle. 34. The damages to the vehicle arose from the acts of Eric Garonzik. WHEREFORE, Defendant Steven Ledebohm, t/a Creative Car Tunes requests that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. By: GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. n 1 , Thomas E. Brenner, Esq. Attorney I.D. No. 32085 320 Market Street P.O. BoN 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorney for Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes Date: September 6, 2005 VERIFICATION I, Steven Ledebohm, hereby acknowledge that I am an authorized representative of Creative Car Tunes, the defendant in this action; that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. r Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes Date: 125640.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following by depositing same into the United States Mail, first class mail, postage pre-paid to: Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. BY: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Date: September 6, 2005 125342.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following by depositing same into the United States Mail, first class mail, postage pre-paid to: Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. BY:? 1 /' n Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Date: September 19, 2005 M1] r r SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-03887 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND GARONZIK STACY VS LEDEBOHM STEVEN ET AL GERALD WORTHINGTON She riff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pe nnsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within NOT ICE was served upon CREATIVE CAR TUNES the DEFENDANT , at 0013:38 HOURS, on the 3rd day of August 2005 at 1221 MARKET STREE T LEMOYNE, PA 17043 by handing to STEVEN LEDEBOHM a true and attested copy of NOTICE together with COMPLAINT and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing Service 6.00 .00 0 04- 4 ? Affidavit .00 w P '10 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 16.00 08/0 4/2005 BRET T P. ZANKEL Sworn and Subscribed to before By: me this day of aor Deputy Sh iff Qf?) / A.D. P th ro onotary SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-03887 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND GARONZIK STACY VS LEDEBOHM STEVEN ET AL GERALD WORTHINGTON , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within NOTICE was served upon LEDEBOHM STEVEN the DEFENDANT , at 0013:38 HOURS, on the 3rd day of August 2005 at 1221 MARKET ST LEMOYNE, PA 17043 by handing to STEVEN LEDEBOHM a true and attested copy of NOTICE together with COMPLAINT and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing Service 18.00 11.20 10.00 Surcharge .00 R. Thomas Kline .00 39.20 08/04/2005 BRETT P. ZANKEL Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ?/_ I day of O vv 0Yp4-- ? A. D. Prothonotary By Deputy Sh ff SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2005-03887 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND GARONZIK STACY VS LEDEBOHM STEVEN ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named ADD'TL DEFEND GARONZIK ERIC but was unable to locate Him deputized the sheriff of LEHIGH serve the within COMPLAINT JOINING ADDL County, Pennsylvania, to On October 6th , 2005 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from LEHIGH Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep Lehigh County 30.00 Mileage/Postage 12.74 79.74 10/06/2005 GOLDBERG KATZMAN So answerer ? R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this dvu` day of 0-b 5' A. D. Pro nota to wit: in his bailiwick. He therefore In The Court of Common Teas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Stacy Garonzik VS Steven Ledebohm et al vs. Eric Garonzik No. 05-3887 civil Now, September 27, 2005 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Lehigh County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, within upon at by handing to _ a and made known to So answers, the contents thereof. Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this _ day of 20 copy of the original COSTS SERVICE _ MILEAGE _ AFFIDAVIT 20 at o'clock M. served the County, PA 67 SHERIFF OFFICE COURTHOUSE -- 5TH & HAMILTON STREETS JWPAR 155 W HAMILTON S'T ROOM 106 ALLETNTOWN PA 13101-1614 STACY GAZORNIK VS STEVEN LEDEBOHM; ET AL (CUMBERLAND CO--05-.33;.-77) WRIT : COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION AND NOTICE SERVE: ERIC GAZORNI. AT : LEHIGH COUNTY PRISON 38 N 4TH ST ALLENTOWN, PA RETURN OF SERVICE DOC#: 2005-CV-3365 CASE: 2005-NC-4537 EXPIR: 20-Oct-2005 .00 DEPOSIT: 30 .00 ENTRY: 03-Oct-2005 1. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL SERVED: 2. RELATIONSHIP TO DEFENDANT: 3. DATF_ : 13 - Q S 20 O F 4. LOCATION OF SERVICE: TIME/•_ HOURS: e 5. UNABLE TO LOCATE: ( ) NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS TO LOCATE DEFENDANT AT LAST KNOWN ADDRESS: 1.. DATE & TI 3. DATE & TI 5. DATE & TIME 2. DATE & TI 4. DATE & TIME 6. DATE & TIME. ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I HEREBY ACCEPT SERVICE OF THE LEGAL PROCESS AS OUTLINED ON THE FRONT OF THE DOCUMENT. THIS SERVICE IS ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE LISTED DEFENDANT(S) AND I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I: AM AUTHORIZED TO DO SO. PRINTED NAME OF AUTHORIZED AGENT DATE: SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT TIME: PRINT NAME OF DEPUTY SHERIFF SO ANSWERS L 1c Lc DEPUTY SHERIFF r lop SHERIFF OF LEHIGH COUNTY STAGY GARONZIK, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM AND CREATIVE CAR TUNES, DEFENDANTS No.: 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW ANSWER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT ERIC GARONZIK TO COMPLAINT Denied. 2. Admitted; in part in that Stacy Garonzik filed an action against Defendant's Stephen Ledebohm and Creative Car Tunes, rest Denied. Denied; Additional Defendant has no such knowledge. 4. Denied; Additional Defendant has no such knowledge. Denied; Plaintiff Stacy Garonzik filed an action in assumpsit for Defendants Stephen Ledebohm T.D.B.A. Creative Car Tunes failure to perform pursuant to a Contract to restore a vehicle, destroying its value and rendering it unfit for use. As well as trespass action for the same Defendants Steven Ledebohm et uz's incompetence rendered the vehicle unfit and unsafe to drive causing more damage. 6. Denied. Denied. Wherefore Eric Garonzik requests this Court to dismiss this Action against him with predudice. Garonzik By his P.O.A. Agent Stacy Garonzik C/O Brett P. Zankel, Esquire P.O. Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. This verification is made pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1024(c) due to the lack of availability of the Defendant. Date: _ - o /?---- -- ri Garonzik By his P.O.A. Agent Stacy Garonzik CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, being a sui juris individual, hereby certifies that she served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document on this 3151, day of October, 2005, by placing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 By: EGaronzik -_ gy-his P.O.A. Agent Stacy Garonzik C/O Brett P. Zankel, Esquire P.O. Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 ,_. ', ?; Brett P. Zankel, Esquire P.O. Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 BZ266(.&AOL.com Attorney for Plaintiff STACY GARONZIK, V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN LEDEBOHM AND CREATIVE CAR TUNES, DEFENDANTS No.: 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW REPLY TO NEW MATTER Plaintiff, Stacy Garonzik, by and through her attorney, Brett P. Zankel, Esquire makes answer in opposition to Defendant's New Matter and averrs: 26. Denied. 27. Denied; by way of further answer this is totally irrelevant to the issues of Defendant's negligence and failure to perform under this contract with Plaintiff. 28. Denied; by way of further answer no such warning was ever given and no authorization was ever given to Defendant to "flip" the tires or to do anything else with the tires. At one point purchase of different wheels with mounted tires was authorized to fit over larger after market Brembo "Big Red Brakes" however these high performance brakes would not fit on this car which Defendant did not know and Plaintiff was noticed of this by vendors. 29. Denied; by way of further answer Plaintiff, Stacy Garonzik was refused delivery of her car by Defendant, Steve Ledebohm who was rude and profane to her. Eric Garonzik went to the shop of Defendant and physically demanded and took the car from Defendant. 30. Denied. 31. Denied; by way of further answer there was nothing wrong with the rear tires of this automobile when it was delivered to the Defendant, by the Plaintiff. 32. Denied; by way of further answer if Defendant knows of a single fact to support this allegation, state it. 33. Denied; as a conclusion of law. 34. Denied; as a conclusion of fact. Wherefore Plaintiff, Stacy Garonzik, moves the Court for judgement against the Defendant in her favor on the original Complaint. Brett P. Zankel, Est 321 Clarks Valley R P.O. Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ,? ' U OLI By: CY GARONZIK CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, being a member in good standing of the Bar of Pennsylvania, hereby certifies that he served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document on this 15th day of February, 2006, by placing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Eric Garonzik Camp Hill, PA By: Attorney for the Plaintif 321 Clarks Valley Road PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 ?_ ? - , , ? ._? _ t° ??) ?1 _ ? ; i; l (. `;l r} Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Attornev ID # 32085 Carp-1. Wismer, Esquire Attorney ID # 92598 Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants STACY GARONZIK, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERL,-AND CO., PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 05-3887 STEVEN LEDEBOHM and : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CREATIVE CAR TUNES, Defendants V. ERIC GARONZIK Additional Defendant MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND NOW, comes the Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes (hereinafter "Creative") by and through its counsel, Goldberg Katzman, P.C., who state: 1. Plaintiff initiated this suit by filing a Complaint in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas on July 27, 2005 alleging that Creative negligently repaired the Plaintiff's vehicle resulting in damage to the vehicle in a motor vehicle accident. ?. Creative filed their answer with New Matter on September 7, 2005. 3. On September 20, 2006 Creative filed a Complaint against Additional Defendant Eric Garonzik alleging that he is solely liable for the damage done to the vehicle as he was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident. 4. Thereafter, on or about April 19, 2006 deposition testimony was taken of the Plaintiff at which time she made reference to several relevant documents. 5. On April 20, 2006, Creative requested copies of said documents. (See. Exhibit "A"). 6. As Plaintiffs failed to respond to the discovery responses, on or about September 18, 2006, Creative once again requested discovery responses. (See Exhibit 7. As of the time of this writing, Creative has not received Plaintiffs' Discovery Responses. 8. Pursuant to C.C.R.P. Rule 206.2(d), counsel for Creative has contacted Plaintiff's counsel seeking concurrence in this motion. Counsel for Plaintiff has not responded to that phone call and therefore, does not concur with Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. 9. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4009.12(x), Plaintiff's full and complete to Answers to Defendant's document requests were due more than five (5) months ago. WHEREFORE, Defendant Creative respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiff's discovery responses. GOLDBERG I-ATZNIAN, P.C. Bv: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 32085 Carly J. Wismer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 92598 P. O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorney for Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes Date: December 12, 2006 Goldberg Katzman A full-service law firm. April 20, 2006 Arthur L Goldberg 19 "1-2000) 1--larry B. Goldberg !1961-19981 'RonaiJ 1A. Katzin"111 Paul 1. Esposito, NI-il E. Hendershot ?. Tay Cooper Thon7as E. Brenner L. Strand-Kut<<rF Guy: H. Brooks Jerry J. Russo Michael 1. CnIcenzi Thomas (. bAleber Sie.>en E. Grubbs john DeI Crenzo i?o ce ... Jorris David M. Steckd . Ser7b ct sep n NA Heather L. Pat;_rno Carly J. `v?'is77er i'viichael F. Socha Arnold B. Kopn Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 RE: Stacy Garonzik v. Creative StevenLedebohm v. Eric Garonzik Dear Brett: Car Tunes and Several issues came up during the recent depositions. It is my understanding that you will be entering your appearance of record for Eric Garonzik. Please provide a copy of that entry of appearance for my file. Several documents were identified as being available by Stacy. I would request copies of those documents, including- 1 . Power of Attorney that she had for Eric Garonzik; 2. copies of any receipts, cancelled checks or other documents evidencing the purchase and purchase price of the Porsche; 3. copy of any insurance policies or information about policies showing insurance in place after the purchase and at the time of the accident in January, 2005; -10 14-arivet Street. Stra-oi 7errv Sr? u r e= I P.O. Box 12,6,8 I HarriSCsung., PA 171L08-1 6 7-, 11 y114I1 U. U'C:%?Li`y n?Ci.?.Zt ii. -I. CCi?i1 April 20, 2006 Page 2 4. the full name and address of the Nationwide adjuster with whom Stacy talked about the damaged vehicle after the January, 2005 accident; 5. a copy of all records reflecting all actual repairs performed, including records from Cassel's Body Shop, Farr Family Tire, "Isaac" the mechanic; 6. All pictures taken after the accident showing damage to the Porsche; 7. identify the present location of the tire that blew out so that I may arrange an inspection of same; 8. copy of insurance information for coverage that Eric had available to him in January, 2005; 9. the names and addresses of persons Stacy referenced in paragraph 7 of the Complaint who observed the Porsche at import car shows; 10. the full name and address of "Jan," the person who sold the Porsche to Stacy; and 11. the full name and address for Andrea Hunt, the therapist with which Stacy treated, as well as any bills evidencing payment by Stacy. yours, mas E. Brenner TEB:ar Goldbera Katzman'*7' A full-service law firm. September 18, 2006 ?sfhur L. Goldberg (1951-2000) Harry B. Goldberg 0961-1998) Ronald N4. Katzman Paul J. Esposito Neil E. Hendershot J. Jay Cooper Thomas Brenner April L. Strang-Kuta_y Guy H. Brooks ;eery J. Russo Ndichael J. crocenzi Thomas J. Weber Steven E. Grubb John DeLorenZO Royce L. Morris David ivT. Steckel Joseph Nil. Sembrot Carly J. Wismer Michael F. Socha COUNSEL Joshua D. Loch: Arnold B. Kogan Heather L. Paterno Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 RE: Stacy Garonzik v. Creative Car Tunes and Steven Ledebohm v. Eric Garonzik Dear Brett: I note I have not received a response to my letter of April 20"' requesting several documents in light of the testimony at the depositions. Please provide those items before the end of September. Very truly yours, I mas E. Brenner TEB:ar Enclosure _ iV ,?All I _ _..?. .. 0- 7 _i(J-, ?..%.`. 4 .o ]6L CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid, addressed to the following: Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. By J Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Date: December 12, 2006 ^a c:? ?-? ;? ?? ? _ ?? - I""?i ?? M1, t i? W 1 k it ..k ? ~? Y. • ?; i .. - ?F ? ?? _?1 , .? _ _.J ^-- Lxj -+ ..> .x7 •? STACY GARONZIK, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM AND CREATIVE CAR TUNES, DEFENDANTS V. ERIC GARONZIK ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT NO. 05-3887 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 18th day of December, 2006, upon consideration of the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Defendant, Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. A Rule is issued upon the Plaintiff to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted; 2. The Plaintiff will file an answer on or before January 8, 2007 or provide the Discovery requested by the Defendant Steven Ledebohm, t/a Creative Car Tunes; 3. If no answer to the Rule to Show cause is filed by the required date, the relief requested by Defendant shall be granted upon the Court's receipt of a Motion requesting Rule be made Absolute. If the Plaintiff files an answer to this Rule to Show Cause, and the answer raises disputed issues of material fact, an evidentiary hearing will then be scheduled. 4. The Prothonotary is directed to forward said Answer to this Court. By the Court, UA\z M. L. Ebert, Jr., 110 J. 9 ? s I ! N IV, 0 1 320 90oz „¢ , 4 Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Brett P. Zankel, Esquire 0 Brett P. Zankel, Esquire P.O. Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 717) 921-2192 BZ266aAOL.com Attorney for Plaintiff STAGY GARONZIK, V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN LEDEBOHM AND CREATIVE CAR TUNES, DEFENDANTS No.: 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW PLAINTIFF STACY GAROHNZIK'S REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY: NEW MATTER AND COUNTER MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY. Plaintiff, Stacy Garonzik by and through her attorney, Brett P. Zankel does make the following Reply in Opposition to the Motion of Original Defendants, New Matter, Counter Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions against Defendant pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019; and averrs in support as follows: 1. Denied; by way of further answer, Plaintiff filed and served on original Defendant a Breach of Contract Action for work that Defendant had been paid to perform on her Porsche automobile, alleging poor workmanship, failure to perform work paid for, fraud, and failure to perform under the terms of the contract, as well as a litany of other contract violations which reduced the automobiles value to zero. As an afterthought a second count in Negligence was appended to the Complaint. 2. It is admitted that some form of answer was made of consisting solely of general denials. 3. Although it is admitted that said additional Complaint was filed, it is denied that it was ever properly served on additional Defendant. 4. Admitted that said deposition was conducted, however the rest of that averrment is denied, further Plaintiff refused any and all stipulations at that deposition. To date Plaintiff has not been offered an opportunity to read said deposition to check for errors and to sign it, making it a nullity. 5. Denied; Original Defendant made formal interrogatory requests and formal requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiff on August 29d`, 2005 pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4005 and 4009, to which Plaintiff made complete verified answers. These requests filled Defendants limits for Discovery under Cumberland County Local Rules of Court. Defendant's letter demanding additional materials does not amount to a formal request for Discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4005 or 4009, further it joins original Plaintiff and additional Defendant. 6. Denied; By letter dated May 2id, 2006, attached "Exhibit #1" the undersigned refused to provide said materials prior to original Defendant making answer to Plaintiffs formal Discovery request, and absent a Formal request because original Defendant has refused to provide Plaintiff any informal Discovery. The Court should also note that original Defendant was afforded an opportunity to inspect the tires and automobile on December 22x, 2005 and refused that opportunity. Letter attached and marked "Exhibit #2". 7. Denied; Defendant has received answers under oath to all formal Discovery requests under Pa. R.C.P. 4005 and 4009. 8. Denied. 9. Denied; Defendant has received answers under oath to all Discovery requests under Pa. R.C.P. 4005 and 4009. NEw MATTER 1. This Motion was received by the undersigned's office on December 19', 2006, one (1) day after an Order was signed by the Court and eight (8) days after Defendant swore this Motion was served by mail. Postal service between Harrisburg and the undersigned's office is overnight. The Order was not received until December 27 h, 2006. Most Dauphin County Law Offices serve these matters by fax and by mail. 2. Moveant has failed to serve all parties, additional Defendant has not been served with this Matter. 3. Original Defendant served Plaintiff formal Interrogatories and formal Requests for Production of Documents on August 29', 2005. 4. These requests for discovery filled the allotted limits of discovery as allowed under Local Rules of Court. 5. Plaintiff answered all of those formal Requests fully and completely, under oath prior to the scheduling of the Oral Deposition. 6. Defendant orally deposed Plaintiff, Stacy Garonzik and additional Defendant on April 19`x, 2006, for in excess of four (4) hours, burning six (6) hours of the undersigned's time. 7. Plaintiff and additional Defendant refused to agree to the "usual" stipulations because original Defendant's attorney was unable to set forth exactly what those stipulations are. Importantly both Plaintiff and additional Defendant refused to waive signing the depositions, neither were ever offered the opportunity to read and sign the deposition nor has the undersigned been offered the opportunity to buy a copy, rendering these depositions a nullity. 8. Original Defendant has refused to honor any informal discovery request from the Plaintiff and they have failed to answer Plaintiff's formal Discovery requests that were hand served on the office of Goldberg and Katzman on or about April 20`x', 2006 and are long overdue. 9. By letter dated May 2nd, 2006, attached and marked as "Exhibit #I " the undersigned refused to answer the Defendants jumbled informal discovery requests made by letter on April 20`h, 2006, due to the refusal of original Defendant to answer Plaintiff's informal discovery request and Defendant's refusal to participate in Plaintiff's written discovery, said informal request was jumbled and unanswerable by Plaintiff. 10. A Court may not enforce an informal discovery request which does not comply with Pa. R.C.P. 4005 and 4009. Wherefore Plaintiff moves this Court to dismiss original Defendant's Motion with prejudice and award Plaintiff fees and costs responding to this specious Motion as per the infra Sanctions Motion. COUNTER MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Stacy Garonzik, by and through her attorney, Brett P. Zankel, Esquire, does hereby move this Court for an Order against Defendant, Steven Ledebohm and Creative Car Tunes, to Compel Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 4019(a). The grounds in support of this Motion are: 1. On the afternoon of April 20`h, 2005, Request for Discovery Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents was served on Defendant by hand delivery, by Susan Nielson of the undersigned's staff, addressed to T.A. Brenner, Esquire at the desk for Goldberg Katzman pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4005 and 4009. 2. Defendant has made no Reply or Answers whatsoever to the Plaintiff's Discovery Request. 3. Nor has Defendant objected to any of this Discovery or asked for an extension of time to make any. 4. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4006 et. seq. Requires complete Answers on or before thirty (30) days of service and therefore Answers were due on May 20'h,2005. More than eight (8) months 240 days have elapsed and therefore Defendant has waived the right to object. Wherefore, in light of the foregoing failure of Defendants to Answer or Object to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Stacy Garonzik respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order compelling Defendants as follows: 1. Compel Defendants to answer Plaintiff's Interrogatories within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. 2. Provide such other relief as the Court deems equitable, just and proper. MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 4019 Plaintiff, Stacy Garonzik by and through her attorney Brett P. Zankel does move this Court for Discovery Sanctions against original Defendants Steven Ledebohm and Creative Car Tunes. 1. Plaintiff pleads all facts herein as though set forth in full plead in Plaintiff's Answer and New Matter to original Defendants Motion. 2. Declare the oral deposition of April 19', 2006 void and provide Sanctions under Pa. R.C.P. 4019 (d) (f) in the nature of costs and attorney's fees for the void deposition of April 19`x, 2006 in the nature of six (6) hours of time at a billing rate of $230.00 per hour. 3. Provide Discovery Sanctions under Pa. R.C.P. 4019 (g) (2) for costs and fees including attorney's fees for original Defendant making a Motion to Compel Discovery on a jumbled informal discovery request which is unenforceable by the Court. Wherefore the Plaintiff moves this Court to grant these Motions for Sanctions and award the Plaintiff's fees, costs and attorney fees. By: Brett P Z e , Esquire" Attorney fo e Plaintiff 321 Clarks Valley Road PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 BRETT P. ZANKEL ATTORNEY AT LAW 321 CLARKS VALLEY ROAD P.O. Box 266 DAUPHIN, PENNSYLVANIA 17018 (717)921-2192 FAX (717) 921-8002 Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. P.O Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 May 2', 2006 Re: Stacy Garonzik v. Creative Car Tunes and Steven Ledebohm v. Eric Garonzik Dear Tom: I realize that you are actually working for Erie Insurance Company in his Matter, the company whose information requests never end. However we will provide you zero information until my outstanding discovery requests in this matter are answered. You have refused to participate in any informal discovery with us, so therefore I am unable to answer your informal discovery requests. Make formal discovery requests pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4004 and 4009 on each of the parties because you have joined interrogatory topics with requests for production of documents and joined Plaintiff Stacy Garonzik and additional Defendant Eric Garonzik as though they are one parry, they are not. Further until I enter a formal appearance on behalf of additional Defendant Eric Garonzik, you need to continue serving him as an unrepresented party and copy me as Ms Garonzik's attorney. If you wish to discuss any of these matters, feel free to call me. V truly yours, c: Stacy Garonzik BRrff P. ZANKkL ATTORMEY AT LAw 321 CLARKS VALLB t ROAD P.O. Box 266 DAUPHIN, PBNWSYLVANIA 17018 (717) 921-2192 PAX (717) 921-8002 December 2V, 2005 Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. P.O Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Re: Stacy Garanzik v. Creative Car Tunes and Steven L,edebohms v. Eric Garonzik Dear Tom: My client Stacy Garonzilc has audwimd me to offer settlement in the above captioned Action in the amount of $9,200.00. This solely covers her oasts for the repair of the subject cars body work, paint (which has been ctmpkoed) and her costs of filing this Action. If you want to examine the vehicle it is currently in a neutral site and I can arrange to get you access. In regard to your letter of December 7*, 2005. I am not, nor will I represent Eric Garonzik. I refuse in any way to be any kind of a conduit or go between for you and Mr. Eric Garonzik. The only information I can pass along to you is that it is my understanding that Mr. Garonzik is currently living and working in Cumberland County Pennsylvania. You need to find him and serve him with any and all documents and pleadings I have no knowledge of any agreement between my client Ms. Stacy Garonzik and Mr. Eric Garonzik nor will I get involved in it. Ve truly yours, Brett P. Zankel c: Stacy Garonzik VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. This verification is made pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1024(c) due to the lack of availability of the Plaintiff. Date: By: BRETT P ZAN Attorney for th P amtif 321 Clarks Vall y Road PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, being a member in good standing of the Bar of Pennsylvania, hereby certifies that he served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document on this 5' day of January, 2007, by placing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Eric Garonzik Address unknown through Stacy Garonzik. By: PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 321 Clarks Valley Road r-a `ry f - un C) STAGY GARONZIK, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. No.: 05-3887 STEVEN LEDEBOHM AND CREATIVE CAR TUNES, CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW As ATTORNEY Now comes the moveant Petitioner Brett P. Zankel, Esquire, 321 Clarks Valley Road, P.O. Box 266, Dauphin, PA 17018, and does hereby moves and petitions this Honorable Court for leave to withdraw as attorney from the above captioned court case in which he has entered an appearance on behalf of Stacy Garonzik as well as all other matters he represented Respondent in; and does hereby avers in support as follows: 1. Petitioner began representation of the Respondent in the above captioned matter. 2. Respondent is Stacy Garonzik a Cumberland County resident. 3. Petitioner has become unable to communicate with the Respondent. Petitioner and his staff have attempted to telephonically contact Respondent at least three (3) times during December, 2006 and twice in the first week of January 2007. Respondent has failed to return any calls or communicate in any way with Petitioner since June 2006. 4. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that he cannot effectively represent Stacy Garonzik, who refuses to communicate with him. 5. Respondent has failed to comply with the Petitioners fee agreement. 6. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner believes and avers that he can no longer represent this Respondent. 7. Pursuant to Local Rule of Court, Moveant has sought concurrence from Defendants Attorney Thomas Brenner, Esquire on January 8d` 2007 and January 9t', 2007 who failed to return either telephone call. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant the foregoing petition and allow him to withdraw from the legal representation of the Respondent, Stacy Garonzik, and stay all pending proceedings in this matter until this Petition is decided. BY; TT P. ZA , PETITIONER P.O. BOX 266 DAUPHIN, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 321 CLARKS VALLEY ROAD CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, being a member in good standing of the Bar of Pennsylvania, hereby certifies that he served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document on this 11 th day of January, 2007, by placing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Stacy Garonzik 110c W. Vine Street, Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania, 17011. By: BRETT P ZANKEL, U Attorney for the Pl mtif 321 Clarks Valley Road PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 C2 1 STAGY GARONZIK, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO.: 05-3887 STEVEN LEDEBOHM AND CREATIVE CAR TUNES, CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, being a member in good standing of the Bar of Pennsylvania, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Stacy Garonzik's First Set of Interrogatories on Defendant and Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents on Defendant was served on this 20`' day of April, 2006, by hand delivery at the Desk of Goldberg Katzman, P.C. by Susan Nielson addressed as follows: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 r By: BRETT P ZA?IKEL„? ESQUIRE PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 f'_ - ? t 7 c5 _? STACY GARONZIK, PLAINTIFF V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM AND, CREATIVE CAR TUNES DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3887 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 16th day of January, 2007, upon consideration of the Petition to Withdraw as Counsel filed by the Petitioner, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. A Rule is issued upon the Plaintiff to show cause why the Petitioner should not be granted permission to withdraw as counsel of record; 2. The Plaintiff will file an answer on or before February 5, 2007; 3. If no answer to the Rule to Show cause is filed by the required date, the relief requested by Petitioner shall be granted upon the Court's receipt of a Motion requesting Rule be made Absolute. If the Plaintiff files an answer to this Rule to Show Cause, and the answer raises disputed issues of material fact, an evidentiary hearing will then be scheduled. The Prothonotary is directed to forward said Answer to this Court. By the Court, ?% t ??AA - M. L. Ebert, Jr., 0 J. I 4v rett P. Zankel, Esquire Petitioner .9facy Garonzik, Plaintiff ?t'iomas Brenner, Esquire Attorney for Defendant bas 6e.lc I S :9 PV Q I ft,"r LOOZ :-IJHI 40 -.0 allu Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Carl- J. Wismer, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PIS 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attornevs for Defendants STACY GARONZIK, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 45-3887 STEVEN LEDEBOHM and : CIVIL ACTION - LA«' CREATIVE CAR TUNES, Defendants V. ERIC GARONZIK Additional Defendant DEFENDANT STEVEN LEDEBOHM T/A CREATIVE CAR TUNES' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; NEW MATTER AND COUNTER-MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND NOW', comes the Defendant Steven Ledebohm tr/a Creative Car Tunes (hereinafter "Creative") by and through its counsel, Goldberg Katzman, P.C., who state: New Matter I. Denied. After a reasonable investigation, Creative is without knowledge or information sufficient to forth an opinion as to the truth of this averment. By way of further response, counsel for Plaintiff was mailed a copy of Creative's Motion on December 12, 2006, the same day it was mailed to the Cumberland County Prothonotary. (See exhibit "A") 2. Denied. On April 19, 2006, depositions of Additional Defendant Eric Garonzik were taken at which time, Plaintiffs counsel, Brett Zankel, Esquire, stated "Before we get into that, I'm going to be representing Eric in the future. I'm going to be-well, I am as of now and will be filing an entry of appearance." (Deposition of Eric Garonzik, 4/19/06, at 3). Based on that representation, Creative has served Garonzik via Attorney Zankel. (See Exhibit "B"). By way of further response, Additional Defendant Eric Garonzik filed an Answer to Complaint on October 31, 2005 which was signed by Stacy Garonzik as power of attorney c/o Brett P. Zankel. (See Exhibit "C") 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. Cumberland County Local Rule of Court 4005-1 relating to interrogatories permits 40 interrogatories per party. Defendant served Plaintiff with 17 interrogatories. (See Exhibit "D"). 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. Depositions of the Plaintiff began at 10:00 a.m. and ended at 12:10 p.m. Additional Defendants depositions then started at 12:15 p.m. and ended at 1:10 p.m. for a combined total of three hours and 10 minutes. By of further response, said depositions took exactly as long as was necessarvv, and were not intended to "burn" anyrone's time. 7. Denied. Plaintiff and Additional Defendant, by and through their counsel, Brett Zankel, did agree to the "usual" stipulations, and iil particular waived their right to read, sign, seal, file and certify the transcripts, it was further agreed, as per the "usual" stipulations that all objections, except as to form of the questions would be reserved to the time of trial. (Deposition of Eric Garonzik and Stacy Garonzik, 4/19/06, at 3). (Exhibit "B" and "F,"). As the right to read and sign the depositions was waived prior to the depositions they= are not a nullity. Furthermore, should ttorney Zankel have wanted a copy of the depositions, he should have requested same from the court reporter. 8. Denied. Plaintiffs discovery was not received by undersigned counsel of Goldberg Katzman, P.C. until January 18, 2007. Defendants will answer said discovery within the time frame set by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Denied. As agreed to at the time of Plaintiffs deposition, Defendants sent a clear and concise letter to counsel requesting copies of documents that were brought up during the deposition. (Exhibits "F" and "G") 10. Denied. The letter of April 20, 2006 constitutes a discovery request as defined ui the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The passage of over seven (7) months without a response warranted the filing of the Motion to Compel Discovery. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiff's discovery responses. Counter-Motion to Compel Discover 1. Denied. It is denied that said were received by T.E. Brenner, Esquire of Goldberg Katzman, P.C. 2. Denied. After receiving Plaintiff's Discovery Requests on January 18, 2007, correspondence was sent to Plaintiffs counsel informing him that said discovery requests would be answered within the time frame set by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (Exhibit "H") 3. Admitted with clarification. Defendant has not vet completed responses to the Plaintiff's discovery received on January 18, 2007, therefore there have not yet been any objections. 4. Denied. Plaintiff's discovery requests were received on January 18, 2007 therefore pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4006 answers are due February 17, 2007, however because that is a Saturday, and the following Monday is President's Dav, answers are due February 20, 2007. By way of further response, notably, though Plaintiff has attached exhibits to her reply in opposition to the motion to compel discovery, a Certificate of Service evidencing service of her discovery requests has not been attached. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny Plaintiffs Counter Motion to Compel Discovery. Motions for Discovery Sanctions Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019 1. Defendant incorporates herein all preceding paragraphs above as if set forth in full. ?. Denied. The sanctions sought by Plaintiff are not warranted. By way of further response, there is no Pa.R.C.P. 4019(d)(?. Pa.R.C.P. 4019(d) refers to Requests for admissions pursuant to 4014. As there have been no requests for admissions in this matter, this section is clearly irrelevant. Furthermore, Pa.R.C.P 4019(f) states "if the party giving the notice of the taking of a deposition of a witness fails to serve a subpoena upon the witness and because of such failure the witness does not attend, and if another party attends in person or by attorney expecting the deposition of that witness to be take, the court may order the party giving the notice to pad- to such other party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by such other party and his or her attorney in so attending, including attorney's fees." Here, the party witnesses did appear and the depositions did occur, Pa.R.C.P. 4019(f) is also irrelevant. 3. Denied. The cited Rule is irrelevant to the facts of this case. Moreover, Plaintiff's failure to respond for over seven (7) months to a requested discovery warranted the filing of the Motion to Compel. Wherefore the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. B. Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 32085 Carly J. Wismer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 92598 P. O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorney for Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes Date: January 26, 2007 Goldberg Katzman A full-service law firm. December 12, 2006 Arthur L. Goldberg (1951-2000) Harry B. Goldberg c1s61-1998, Office of the Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse Ronald M. Katzman 1 Courthouse Square Paul. J. Esposito Carlisle, PA 17013 Neil E. Hendershot J. Jay Cooper RE: Garonzik v. Creative Car Tunes, et al Thomas E. Brenner No. 05-3887 April L. Strang-Kutay Guy H. Brooks Dear Sir/Madam: Jerry J. Russo Michael J. Crocenzi I enclose for filing a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. Thomas J. Weber Steven E. Grubb Please forward a copy of this Motion to the Court Administrator for John DeLorenzo assignment to a member of the Court Kindly return a time stamped copy Royce L. Morris of the Complaint to me in the enclosed envelope. David M. Steckel Joseph M. Sembrot Very truly yours, Carly J. Wisrner Michael F. Socha COUNSEL Joshua D. Lock Thomas E. Brenner Arnold B. Kogan Heather L. Paterno TEB:ar Enclosures cc: Brett Zankel, Esquire (w/encl.) 125110.4 H A P R I S 11 1'G I 11 A Ni IA TEp: I CA R1.(SLE. r 'r t , y P.O. I . PA n:;-12 ;3 7? 7 )? ? I ' ( -2`'? fl) fc ;i.. I ... ;.c ?... d:%, _ix?,\A;bei SCgLiare I .Sox 1268 .r i?). _-'?<>. ('tis n ??; 1 C ,k i ?u 1. STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM and CREATIVE CAR TUNES, Defendants V. ERIC GARONZIK Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER AND NOW, this day of December 2006, upon consideration of Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, and Plaintiffs' response, if any, IT IS HEREBY ordered that said Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Discovery Responses to Defendant's Requests for Production of Documents shall be filed within days of the date of this Order. BY THE COURT: Distribution: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire, P. O. Box 1268, Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Brett P. Zankel, Esquire, PO Box 266, Dauphin, PA 17018 Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Attorney ID # 33083 Carly .j. Wismer, Esquire Attorney ID # 92598 Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Boy; 1368 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM and CREATIVE CAR TUNES, Defendants V. ERIC GARONZIK Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3887 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND NOW, comes the Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative. Car Tunes (hereinafter "Creative") by and through its counsel, Goldberg Katzman, P.C., who state: 1. Plaintiff initiated this suit by filing a Complaint in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas on July 27, 2005 alleging that Creative negligently repaired the Plaintiff's vehicle resulting in damage to the vehicle in a motor vehicle accident. 2. Creative filed their Answer with New Matter on September 7, 2005. 3. On September 20, 2006 Creative filed a Complaint against Additional Defendant Eric Garonzik alleging that he is solely liable for the damage done to the vehicle as he was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident. 4. Thereafter, on or about April 19, 2006 deposition testimony was taken of the Plaintiff at which time she made reference to several relevant documents. 5. On April 20, 2006, Creative requested copies of said documents. (See Exhibit "A") 6. As Plaintiffs failed to respond to the discovery responses, on or about September 18, 2006, Creative once again requested discovery responses. (See Exhibit «; 7. As of the time of this writing, Creative has not received Plaintiffs' Discovery Responses. 8. Pursuant to C.C.R.P. Rule 206.2(d), counsel for Creative has contacted Plaintiff's counsel seeking concurrence in this motion. Counsel for Plaintiff has not responded to that phone call and therefore, does not concur with Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. 9. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4009.12(a), Plaintiff's full and complete to Answers to Defendant's document requests were due more than five (5) months ago. WHEREFORE, Defendant Creative respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiff's discovery responses. GOLDBERG KATZTNUkN, P.C. By: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 32085 Carly J. Wismer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 92598 P. O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 1.7108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorney for Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes Date: December 12, 2006 Goldberg Katzi-nan A full-service law firm. April 20, 2006 Arthur L. Goldberg Harry B. G nildbera ;19x,1.19951 ;?onald M. Katzman Paul J. EsE?asito Neil E. Hendershot ). Jai` Cooper. 3?omas F. F)renner -pr i1 L. Stran; Kutay Guy H. Brooks Jerry J. 1it15$Ci \4ichael ). Crocenzi Thomas J. Weber Steven E. Grubb John DeLcren7.o Rov_e Morris Dmr d r..4. Steckel Josef h M. Sernbrot Heather L. P tern Carly J.'Wismer N ichael F. tiacha Ccrut,'tiL,1. ;oshoa D. Lo,--k Arnolld F. Kogan Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 RE: Stacy Garonzik v. Creative StevenLedebohm v. Eric Garonzik Dear Brett Car Tunes and Several issues came up during the recent depositions. It is my understanding that you will be entering your appearance of record for Eric Garonzik. Please provide a copy of that entry of appearance for my file. Several documents were identified as being available by Stacy. I would request copies of those documents, including 1. Power of Attorney that she had for Eric Garonzik; 2. copies of any receipts, documents evidencing price of the Porsche; cancelled checks or other the purchase and purchase 3. copy of any insurance policies or information about policies showing insurance in place after the purchase and at the time of the accident in January, 2005; 20 J'?gLrket Street. Stravwberrv Soilaare I F.Ll. Bc,,_ 1268 I Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 I , 17-.'. ::/;/?/Vt/. _{C•`14i C'C't ?{i :CI tZi ? FiI'r t.. C:i?? 1 EXHIBIT Apra zu, >uu6 Page 2 4. the full name and address of the Nationwide adjuster with whom Stacy talked about the damaged vehicle after the January, 2005 accident; 5. a copy of all records reflecting all actual repairs performed, including records from Cassel's Body Shop, Farr Family Tire, "Isaac" the mechanic; 6. All pictures taken after the accident showing damage to the Porsche; 7. identify the present location of the tine that blew out so that I may arrange an inspection of same; 8. copy of insurance information for coverage that Eric had available to him in January, 2005; 9. the names and addresses of persons Stacy referenced in paragraph 7 of the Complaint who observed the Porsche at import car shows; 10. the full name and address of "Jan," the person who sold the Porsche to Stacy; and 11. the full name and address for Andrea Hunt, the therapist with which Stacy treated, as well as any bills evidencing payment by Stacy. y yours, E. Brenner TEB:ar Goldberg Katzman A full-service law firm. September 18, 2006 Arthur L. Goldberg (1951-2000) Harry B. Goldberg (1961-1998) Ronald 14 Katzman Paul J. Esposito Neil E. Hendershot J. Jay Cooper T homas E. Brenner April L. Strang-Yutay Guy H. Brooks je _ J J. Russo Michael J. Crocenzi Thomas J. Weber Steven E. Gribb John DeLorenzo P.oyce L. l Dorris David 1M. Steckel Joseph M. Sembrot Carly J. Wismer Michael F. Socha Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Boy: ?66 Dauphin, PA 17018 RE: Stacy Garonzik v. Creative Car Tunes and Steven Ledebohm v. Eric Garonzik Dear Brett I note I have not received a response to my letter of April 20'h requesting several documents in light of the testimony at the depositions. Please provide those items before the end of September. Very truly yours, maAFE-B;renner COUNSF_L Joshua D. Lock Arnold B. Kogan Heather L. Paterno TEB:ar Enclosure EXHIBIT ? z 2L CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all parties or counsel of record by deposithzg a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid, addressed to the following: Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box 266 Dauphin, Ply 17018 GOLDBERG I,,rATZKv N, P.C. By Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Date: December 12, 2006 W, 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STIPULATION It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties that reading, signing, sealing, filing, and certification are hereby waived; and that all objections, except as to the form of the question, are reserved to the time of trial. ERIC GARONZIK, called as a witness, being duly sworn, testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. BRENNER: Q. Could you state your name, please? A. Eric Andrew Garonzik. Q. Eric, my name is Tom Brenner. You sat through the deposition of Stacy earlier and you got an idea of how the process and procedure works? A. Yes. Q. I'm going to ask you a series of questions. MR. ZANKEL: Before we get into that, I'm going to be representing Eric in the future. I'm going to be -- well, I am as of now and will be filing an entry of appearance. MR. BRENNER: Thank you. I was going to ask some questions about that, but you took care of that. - FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INC. -- Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327 3 STAGY GARONZIK, PLAINTIFF V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM AND CREATIVE CAR TUNES, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No.: 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAw DEFENDANTS ANSWER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT ERIC GARONZIK TO COMPLAINT r ., 1. Denied. 2. Admitted; in part in that Stacy Garonzik filed an action against Defen4nt'll], Stephen Ledebohm and Creative Car Tunes, rest Denied. 3. Denied; Additional Defendant has no such knowledge. 4. Denied; Additional Defendant has no such knowledge. --t 5. Denied; Plaintiff Stacy Garonzik filed an action in assumpsit for Defendants Stephen Ledebohm T.D.B.A. Creative Car Tunes failure to perform pursuant to a Contract to restore a vehicle, destroying its value and rendering it unfit for use. As well as trespass action for the same Defendants Steven Ledebohm et ux's incompetence rendered the vehicle unfit and unsafe to drive causing more damage. 6. Denied. 7. Denied. Wherefore Eric Garonzik requests this Court to dismiss this Action against him with predudice. Eric Garonzik By his P.O.A. Agent Stacy Garonzik C/O Brett P. Zankel, Esquire P.O. Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. This verification is made pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1024(c) due to the lack of availability of the Defendant. Date: By his P.O.A. Agent Stacy Garonzik CERTIFICATE of SERVICE The undersigned, being a sui juris individual, hereby certifies that she served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document on this 3 V, day of October, 2005, by placing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 By: Eri Garonzik By his P.O.A. Agent Stacy Garonzik C/O Brett P. Zankel, Esquire P.O. Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 ? J • , Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants C(OPY STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM and CREATIVE CAR TUNES, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF TO: Stacy Garonzik c/o Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that you are hereby required, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 4001, et 5f-q,. to serve upon the undersigned, within thirty (30) days after service of this Notice, your Answers in writing under oath to the following Interrogatories. A ., DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS (1) Whenever the term "document" is used herein, it includes (whether or not specifically called for) all printed, typewritten, handwritten, graphic or recorded matter, however produced or reproduced and however formal or informal. (2) Whenever you are asked to "identify" a document, the following information should be given as to each document of which you are aware, whether or not you have possession, custody or control thereof (a) The nature of the document (e., letter, memorandum, computer print-out, minutes, resolution, tape recording, etc.); (b) Its date (or if it bears no date, the date when it was prepared); (c) The name, address, employer and position of the signer or signers (or if there is no signer, of the person who prepared it); (d) The name, address, employer and position of the person, if any, to whom the document was sent; (e) If you have possession, custody or control of the document, the location and designation of the place or file in which it is contained, and the name, address and position of the person having custody of the document, If you do not have possession, custody or control of the document, the present location thereof and the name and address of the organization having possession, custody or control thereof; and (g) A brief statement of the subject matter of such document. . 4 (3) Whenever you are asked to "identify" an oral communication, the following (a) The means of communication conversation, etc.); (b) Where it took place; (c) Its date; (e g , telephone, personal (d) The names, addresses, employers and positions (1) of all persons who participated in the communication; and (2) of all other persons who were present during or who overheard that communication; (e) The substance of who said what to whom and the order in which it was said; and Whether that communication or any part thereof is recorded, described or referred to in any document (however informal) and, if so, an identification of such document in the manner indicated above. (4) If you claim that the subject matter of a document or oral communication information should be given as to each oral communication of which you are aware, whether or not you or others were present or participated therein: is privileged, you need not set forth the brief statement of the subject matter of the document, or the substance of the oral communication called for above. You shall, however, otherwise "identify" such document or oral communication and shall state each ground on which you claim that such document or oral communication is privileged. (5) Whenever you are asked to "identify" a person, the following information should be given: . , (a) The name, present address and present employer and position of the person; and (b) Whether the person has given testimony by way of deposition or otherwise in any proceeding related to the present proceeding and/or whether that person has given a statement whether oral, written, or otherwise, and if so, the title and nature of any such proceeding, the date of the testimony, whether you have a copy of the transcript thereof, the name of the person to whom the statement was given, where the statement is presently located if written or otherwise transcribed, and the present location of such transcript or statement if not in your possession. (6) The term "you" shall be deemed to mean and refer to the party to whom these Interrogatories have been propounded for answer and shall also be deemed to refer to, but shall not be limited to, your attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors, insurers, investigators, and any other agents insofar as the material requested herein is not privileged. (7) The word "incident" shall be deemed to mean and refer to the incident as alleged to have occurred and as set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint. These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories. Between the time of your answers to said Interrogatories and the time of trial, if you or anyone acting in your behalf learns the identity or whereabouts of other witnesses not disclosed in your answers, or if you obtain or learn of additional information requested herein, but not supplied in your answers, then you shall promptly furnish a supplemental answer under oath containing the same. . 1 INTERROGATORIES Personal Identification 1. For the person answering these Interrogatories, state your name, present address, date of birth and job title. ANSWER: I , Employment: 2. State for each employment position held during the five-year period prior to the incident referred to in your Complaint, and since the time of the incident referred to in your Complaint: a. The name and address of your employer; the period of employment; position held and nature of work being performed; and the name of your immediate supervisor. b. Hours worked per week; and your weekly gross and net income. ANSWER: Trial Expert Witnesses: 3. State the names, business and residence addresses, and employers of each person whom you will call as an expert witness at the trial of this matter, including medical witnesses identified with regard to the issues of liability (L) and damages (D), and with regard to each expert, state: a. The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; b. The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is to testify; C. A summary of the grounds for each opinion; d. Whether the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify are contained in any written report, memorandum, or other document, and, if so, identify the name and address of the present custodian of said report, memorandum or other document. ANSWER: 1 16 Non-Expert Witness: 4. State the names, residence and business addresses, and employers of each person whom you will call to testify on your behalf at the trial of this matter, and briefly state the subject matter of their proposed testimony. ANSWER Exhibits: 5. Identify by date of preparation, description, and name of person preparing, all documents or other objects which you will introduce as exhibits at the trial of this matter, identified with regard to the issues of liability (L) and damages (D). ANSWER: Statements: 6. Do you or anyone acting on your behalf know or believe that any written statement (as defined by the Rules of Civil Procedure) or any oral statement concerning this action or its subject matter has been given by or obtained from any person? If so, identify (by stating the name, last known home and business address): a. Each person who gave an oral statement and when, where, and to whom it was made; and the substance of each such statement; b. Any person who has custody of any written statements or those reduced to a writing or otherwise recorded. ANSWER: . r Investigations: 7. Do you or anyone acting on your behalf know or believe that any investigations were conducted of the incident which is the subject matter of this action? If so, identify (by stating the name, last known home and business addresses): a. each person and employer of each person who so conducted investigations; b. if different from the person identified in subpart "a", the person who has custody of or possession of any written notes, reports or other documents prepared during or as a result of the investigation. ANSWER: Insurance: 8. State whether you are covered by any type of insurance, including any excess or umbrella insurance in connection with this incident. If so, identify (by stating the name, last known home and business address): a. Each person who you or someone acting on your behalf knows or believes to have relevant knowledge of i. the name and address of the insurance carrier(s), the policy number(s) and the named insured(s); ii. the type of each policy, the amount of coverage provided for injury or damage to each person, each occurrence and in the aggregate for each coverage, and effective date; iii. if the coverage is being denied by the company, state the reason which has been furnished for the lack of coverage; iv. the amount of coverage provided for injury or damage to each person, for each occurrence and in the aggregate for each policy; V. each exclusion, if any, in the policy which is applicable or potentially applicable to any claim thereunder and the reasons why you or the company claims the exclusion is applicable. ANSWER: . 4L 9. Set forth when you took title to the "1970s Porsche 911." ANSWER: 10. Do you continue to own the "1970s Porsche 911?" If you have sold the vehicle, set forth the date and sale price. ANSWER: .r t 11. Set fords by date and the person with whom you spoke on each occasion that you (Stacy Garonzik) interacted with Steven Ledebohm or employees of Creative Car Tunes. ANSWER: 12. In paragraph 5 of die Complaint, it is averred that Plaintiff learned that Defendant Ledebohm and his employees had no experience with Porsche automobiles. Set forth the source of that information. ANSWER: . 10 13. Plaintiff asserts paragraph 7 of the Complaint that stickers were placed on the vehicle for display. Set forth the source of that information. ANSWER: 14. Plaintiff asserts that the vehicle was driven by Steven Ledebohm to import car events and races. Set forth the source of that information. ANSWER: VP 1 15. It is averred in paragraph 9 of the Complaint that recommendations as to modifications of the tires and suspension were "learned to be not true or necessary." Set forth the source of that information. ANSWER: .rV . 1, 16. In paragraph 15 of the Complaint, it is averred that tire manufacturers warn against the remounting of radial tires and the direction of radial tires. Set forth the source of that information. ANSWER: • w 17. Was Stacy Garonzik or Eric Garonzik warned by Defendant Steven Ledebohm t/a Creative Car Tunes, or his staff, of the dangerous condition of the rear radial tine on the Porsche? ANSWER: GOLDBERG KATZMA.N, P.C. y. ?,- Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Attorney ID # 32085 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants Date: August 29, 2005 '4'* w r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following by depositing same into the United States Mail, first class mail, postage pre-paid to: Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. BY: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Date: August 29, 2005 125647.1 3 1 STIPULATION 2 It is hereby stipulated by and between 3 counsel for the respective parties that 4 reading,- signing, sealing, filing, and 5 certification are hereby waived; and that all 6 objections, except as to the form of the 7 question, are reserved to the time of trial. 8 STACY GARONZIK, called as a witness, being 9 duly sworn, testified as follows: 10 EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. BRENNER: 12 Q. Could you state your name, please, ma'am? 13 A. Stacy Ray Hollenshead Garonzik. 14 Q. Stacy, my name is Tom Brenner. I represent the 15 interest of the defendants in a lawsuit that 16 you are the plaintiff to filed in Cumberland 17 County. We're here today to take your 18 deposition. I'm sure your attorney has told 19 you what's going to happen, but let me touch on 20 some of the ground rules. 21 I'm going to ask a series of questions. 22 If you don't understand a question, tell me 23 that and I'll repeat or rephrase the 24 question. If you do understand the question I'm asking that you give an oral, audible FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INC. Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327 1 2 3 4 5 i 6 ? 7 8 r 9 z i 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Exam./Brenner - S. Garonzik 11 A. I would need to look at the paperwork to know that. Q. Do you still have a copy of the power of attorney? A. Yes, sir. Q. I'm going to ask that -- Brett and I had a little bit of discussion about this. I'm going to provide him a list after we finish today of some documents that I would like to see. MR. ZANKEL: Sure. Make me a list and I'll get them. BY MR. BRENNER: Q. At the time that that pleading was signed was it signed consistent with the authorization provided by that power of attorney? A. Yes, sir. Q. For what reason was the power of attorney provided? A. Eric was incarcerated at the time. Q. So during the period of incarceration you were handling some affairs for him? A. Correct. Q. The litigation involves a -- it's referred to in the complaint as a 1970s Porsche 911. Do ou remember when the Porsche was acquired? r- - FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INC. - Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327 a? Goldberg Katzman A full-service law firm. April 20, 2006 ?;rthur L. G:?ld.l erg 1);1-2000) Harr- B. Goldberg 1961-10981 Ronald i\!. Katzma}i Paul J. Espositc Neil E. Hendershot t - 1. I?Iv (?Iocper Thomas E. Brenner APril L. `;tram,-kutuv Guy H. Brooks J2r r J. R1 sso 'Michael J. Crncenzi Thomas J. t,Veber Steven E. Grubb John DeLerenzo DaviJ M. Steckel Joseph P«. Sembrot Heather L. Paterno Carly J. Wilmer iicnael F. Socha ioshua D. Lod.,, Arnold B. Kogan Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 RE: Stacy Garonzik v. Creative StevenLedebohm v. Eric Garonzik Dear Brett: Car Tunes and Several issues came up during the recent depositions. It is my understanding that you will be entering your appearance of record for Eric Garonzik. Please provide a copy of that entry of appearance for my file. Several documents were identified as being available by Stacy. I would request copies of those documents, including: 1. Power of Attorney that she had for Eric Garonzik; 2. copies of any receipts, cancelled checks or other documents evidencing the purchase and purchase price of the Porsche; 3. copy of any insurance policies or information about policies showing insurance in place after the purchase and at the time of the accident in January, 2005; Market Street. ltia vbetcv ,.)tJpaair-- I RO. Bo--,: ) 8, ? t?<.i [?1 i?ti Y•? j-L`i 171(rJ-?.:.EYU I i G!'234 April 20, 2006 Page 2 4. the full name and address of the Nationwide adjuster with whom Stacy talked about the damaged vehicle after the January, 2005 accident; 5. a copy of all records reflecting all actual repairs performed, including records from Cassel's Body Shop, Farr Family Tire, "Isaac" the mechanic; 6. All pictures taken after the accident showing damage to the Porsche; 7. identify the present location of the tire that blew out so that I may arrange an inspection of same; 8. copy of insurance information for coverage that Eric had available to him in January, 2005; 9. the names and addresses of persons Stacy referenced in paragraph 7 of the Complaint who observed the Porsche at import car shows; 10. the full name and address of "Jan," the person who sold the Porsche to Stacy; and 11. the full name and address for Andrea Hunt, the therapist with which Stacy treated, as well as any bills evidencing payment by Stacy. .C lly yours, E. Brenner TEB:ar z Goldberg Katzman A full-service law firm. January 22, 2007 Arthur L. Goldberg (1951-2000) Harry B. Goldberg (1961-1998) Ronald M. Katzman Paul J. Esposito Neil E. Hendershot J. Jay Cooper Thomas E. Brenner April L. Strang-Kutay Guy H. Brooks Jerry J. Russo Michael J. Crocenzi Thomas J. Weber Steven E. Grubb John DeLorenzo Royce L. Morris David IA. Steckel Joseph M. Sembrot Carly J. Wismer Michael F. Socha COUNSEL Joshua D. Lock Arnold B. Kogan Heather L. Paterno Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 RE: Stacy Garonzik v. Creative Car Tunes and Steven Ledebohm v. Eric Garonzik Dear Brett: On January 18, 2007, I received your correspondence dated January 15, 2006 which I presume reflects the incorrect year. After a thorough review of this file, I am confident that we did not receive discovery requests from your office in August 2006 as you contend. Contrary to your inappropriate generalization regarding defense attorneys, it is my policy to timely respond to discovery requests once they are received by my office. Since you have now propounded discovery upon my client you may anticipate receiving our answers within the time frame set by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Very truly yours, V&-M? Thomas E. Brenner TEB:mae F1 A R R I :P U R CI I, 4? ?A-1' -rr.T? ? RLISLE 320 Ni'iarket .Street. Strawberry Sq; 7a:,' 1 _ 10Bo= !268 r' I - 'alrj I 1 -11 - :_} ^rn - - :• szt_?,F _:i1. <<.?o? ril -- iJ 717-23 -15V)S } CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States ?Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid, addressed to the following: Brett P. Zankel, Esquire PO Box ?66 Dauphin, PA 17018 Counsel for Plaihq'Staz y Garoti:?,,ik C.o1w,sel f orl= dditlollal Def Jldant Eric Garo/i?Zlk By GOLDBERG I ATZMAN, P.C. Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Date: January 26, 2007 C 4: a "TI * LD j r'- ?. Brett P. Zankel, Esquire P.O. Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 717) 921-2192 BZ266CtZAOL.com Attorney for Plaintiff STAGY GARONZIK, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM AND CREATIVE CAR TUNES, DEFENDANTS No.: 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE The Moveant Brett P. Zankel, Esquire moves the Court pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 206.7(a) and Local Rule 2064(c) to make Rule Absolute on Motion for Leave to Withdraw as attorney for Stacy Garonzik. 1. The Court by the Honorable M.L. Ebert, Jr., J. issued a Rule to Show Cause against Respondent on January 16th, 2007, granting respondents until February 5t', 2007 to make reply. 2. Said Petition and Rule were served on Respondent by the Court. 3. The time for reply has run. 4. Respondent Stacy Garonzik, has taken no action whatsoever and therefore admits all material plead in this Motion. Pa. R.C.P. 206.7 (a) calls for the making of this Rule Absolute. 5. Defendant Steven Ledebohm has failed to file a reply and therefore admits all material plead in this Motion. Pa. R.C.P. 206.7 (a) calls for the making of this Rule Absolute. Additionally Defendant's attorney Thomas Brenner, Esquire sent the undersigned an informal letter, concurring in this Petition for Leave to Withdraw. 6. Respondent Stacy Garonzik has by failing to answer or reply admitted all facts plead in Plaintiff Moveants Motion for Leave to Withdraw. Wherefore, Attorney Brett P. Zankel moves this Court to make this Rule Absolute and grant his Motion for Leave to Withdraw as attorney for Plaintiff, Stacy Garonzik. Brett P. Zankel, s 321 Clarks Vail P.O. Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, being a member in good standing of the Bar of Pennsylvania, hereby certifies that he served a true and correct copy of MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE on this 12' day of February, 2007, by placing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Stacy Garonzik 110c W. Vine Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 By: BRETT P ZANxEL, E 321 Clarks Valley R PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 ° ? j c ? ;y -°.? '.fl - ? ?- ; "? -?z i , + +? CV , s -r, f ? ? ? s- ?, , - x, --;; -,z STACY GARONZIK, PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANTS FEB 12 2W?e STEVEN LEDEBOHM AND CREATIVE CAR TUNES, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW ORDER AND Now, this S'C ?.\ day of February, 2007. In consideration of the Motion to Make Rule Absolute by Brett P. Zankel, Esquire is granted. It is hereby Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed that: 1. Brett P. Zankel, Esquire is granted leave to withdraw as attorney for Stacy Garonzik. BY THE COURT: M.L. Ebert, Jr., Judge inn I I: I d N 03d LODZ AbN`1C NGi s0:'?d 3Hi 30 3012!_'6-MIY STACY GARONZIK, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 05-3887 CIVIL STEVEN LEDEBOHM AND, CREATIVE CAR TUNES DEFENDANTS CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2007, upon review of the file in the above- captioned case, the Court noting that there are numerous outstanding discovery requests and noting that counsel for the Plaintiff has now withdrawn as counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that a Discovery Status Conference in this case will be held on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 5 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Should the Plaintiff secure new counsel, he or she shall enter an appearance on or before the date of the Discovery Status Conference. By the Court, tacy Garonzik Plaintiff Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Attorney for Defendant M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. 8 Z .0 ild N 83d LODZ } Brett P. Zankel, Esquire P.O. Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 BZ266(&AOL.com Attorney for Plaintiff STAGY GARONZIK, PLAINTIFF V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM AND CREATIVE CAR TUNES, DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY: You are hereby praeciped, based on the Order of the Honorable J. M. L. Ebert, Jr. of February 21", 2007 to Withdraw the Appearance of Brett P. Zankel, Esquire on behalf of Stacy Garonzik. Plaintiff Pro Se Stacy Garonzik's address is: 110c W. Vine Street, Shiremanstown, PA 17011. BRETT P. ZAML, ESQUIRE Petitioner 321 Clarks Valley Road PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, being a member in good standing of the Bar of Pennsylvania, hereby certifies that he served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document on this 23rd, day of February, 2007, by placing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldberg Katzman, P.C. P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Stacy Garonzik 110c W. Vine Street, Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania, 17011. By: Brett P ankel, Esqu' e 321 Clarks Valley R PO Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 (717) 921-2192 t ? C e^'? (D -n r mFr t7 ?C `_ _ csa m STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff V STEVEN LEDEBOHM and CREATIVE CAR TUNES, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 05-3887 CIVIL TERM IN RE: STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 11th day of May, 2007, this being the time and place set for a discovery status conference in the above-captioned case, and the plaintiff having failed to appear, a Rule is issued upon her to show cause why sanctions, to include non-pros, should not be imposed. Said Rule is returnable within twenty days of service. IT IS DIRECTED that the Sheriff shall make service of this Order upon Stacy Garonzik. 1/acy Garonzik, Plaintiff Pro Se ./arly J. Wismer, Esquire P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, Pa. 17108-1268 For the Defendant .mtf Sher?? - By the Court, S Z : IV I ! H, W LOOZ M vi is k ::. llgi ja Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Attorney ID # 32085 Michael F. Socha, Esquire Attorney ID # 200988 Goldberg Katzman, P.C. PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 717-234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM and CREATIVE CAR TUNES, Defendants V. ERIC GARONZIK IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3887 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Additional Defendant MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF NON-PROS Defendants Steven Ledebohm and Creative Car Tunes, by and through their attorneys, Goldberg Katzman, P.C. file this Motion for Entry of Judgment Non- Pros, and in support thereof aver the following: 1. A discovery status conference was held in this matter on May 11, 2007. 2. Plaintiff Stacy Garoznik failed to appear for said status conference. I On May 11, 2007, this Honorable Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff, within twenty days of service, to show cause why sanctions, including non-pros, should not be imposed. (See Order attached hereto as "Exhibit A"). 4. On May 15, 2007, Plaintiff was served with the Order by the Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County. (See Sheriffs Return attached hereto as "Exhibit B" 5. Plaintiff has failed to show cause why sanctions, including non-pros, should not be imposed and more than twenty days have passed since service of the Order. WHEREFORE, Defendants Steven Ledebohm and Creative Car Tunes respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter a judgment of Non-Pros against Plaintiff Stacy Garoznik. KATZMAN, P.C. TT-i-()mas E. Brenner, Esquire Attorney ID # 32085 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants Date: June 15, 2007 STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff V STEVEN LEDEBOHM and CREATIVE CAR TUNES, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 05-3887 CIVIL TERM IN RE: STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 11th day of May, 2007, this being the time and place set for a discovery status conference in the above-captioned case, and the plaintiff having failed to appear, a Rule is issued upon her to show cause why sanctions, to include non-pros, should not be imposed. Said Rule is returnable within twenty days of service. IT IS DIRECTED that the Sheriff shall make service of this Order upon Stacy Garonzik. Stacy Garonzik, Plaintiff Pro Se Carly J. Wismer, Esquire/ P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, Pa. 17108-1268 For the Defendant :mtf Sheri-4 - ? A By the Court, SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-03887 P ` COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND GARONZIK STACY VS LEDEBOHM STEVEN ET AL SHANNON K. SHERTZER Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within ORDER OF COURT was served upon r'AnnRT7TV errnrv the PLAINTIFF , at 0019:50 HOURS, on the 15th day of May , 2007 At lln r VTNE ST SHIREMANSTOWN, PA 17011 by handing to a true and attested copy of ORDER OF COURT together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge Sworn and Subscibed to So Answers: 18.00 12.48 ? w ? 2.550 0 .00 R. Thomas Kline .00 32.98 05/16/2007 By. before me this day of A.D. 1 k?, , Deputy S riff c CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following by depositing same into the United States Mail, first class mail, postage pre-paid to: Stacy Garonzik 110-C West Vine Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 Eric Garonzik 5.316 Oxford Circle Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. B: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Date: June 15, 2007 i STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff V. STEVEN LEDEBOHM and CREATIVE CAR TUNES, V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3887 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants ERIC GARONZIK Additional Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this day of _Sahe_, 2007, upon consideration of Defendants Steven Ledebohm and Creative Car Tunes's Motion for Entry of Judgment of Non-Pros, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. BY THE COURT: Distribution: Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire, P. O. Box 1268, Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 acy Garonzik, 110-C West Vine Street, Shiremanstown, PA 17011 ri c Garonzik, 5316 Oxford Circle, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 J 7 F .. ?. 0 1 :ZI Wd I Z Nn LODI &VIONC" t Odd 3HI ?O SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-03887 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND GARONZIK STACY VS LEDEBOHM STEVEN ET AL SHANNON K. SHERTZER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within ORDER OF COURT was served upon GARONZIK STACY the PLAINTIFF , at 0019:50 HOURS, on the 15th day of May 2007 at 110 C VINE ST SHIREMANSTOWN, PA 17011 JIMMY KALATHAS by handing to a true and attested copy of ORDER OF COURT together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 12.48 Affidavit 2.50 Surcharge .00 .00 s?az?D? 98 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 05/16/2007 By: Deputy -S riff of A. 1D.