Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-5477WILLIAM H. SMITH and JOYCE SMITH, Plaintiffs V. LARRY EDWARD McLAUGHLIN, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF SUMMONS TO CURTIS R. LONG, PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons against the defendant, PLARRY EDWRAD McLAUGLIN, and enter my appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs, William H. Smith and Joyce Smith. Please direct the Sheriff to serve the defendant as follows: Larry Edward McLaughlin 201 Neil Road Shippensburg,PA 17257 By: October 18, 2005 Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & Marcus Mc Mght III, EF 60 West et Street, Car liPA 7013 (717) 24 2353 Supreme CouD. N 2547 6 To: LARRY EDWARD McLAUGHLIN You are hereby notified that William H. Smith and Joyce Smith, plaintiffs, has commenced an action against you which you are required to defend or a default judgmen may be entered gainst you. O TARY By: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2005- 5477 CIVIL TERM DEPUTY Date: L?Iu6. 2005 \J c? 0 C7 n r: n.) r, c? _a S4 5 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-05477 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SMITH WILLIAM ET AL VS MCLAUGHLIN LARRY EDWARD BRIAN BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon MCLAUGHLIN LARRY EDWARD the DEFENDANT at 201 NEIL ROAD at 1231:00 HOURS, on the 27th day of October , 2005 SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 LARRY MCLAUGHLIN by handing to a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 19.20 Postage .37 Surcharge 10.00 .00 47.57 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 9 r? day of 7&Vr,4,? ?o6.- A.D. P ota So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 10/28/2005 MARCUS MCKNIGHT By: Deputy Sheriff WILLIAM H. SMITH and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JOYCE SMITH, his wife, Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2005 - 5477 CIVIL TERM LARRY E. McLAUGHLIN, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint, order 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 money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 1-800-990-9108 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. 2 WILLIAM H. SMITH and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JOYCE SMITH, his wife, Plaintiffs : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2005 - 5477 CIVIL TERM LARRY E. McLAUGHLIN, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant COMPLAINT AND NOW, this 6th day of October 2008 comes the Plaintiffs, WILLIAM H. SMITH and JOYCE SMITH, his wife, by their attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, and makes the following Complaint against the defendant, LARRY E. McLAUGHLIN: 1. The Plaintiffs are William H. Smith and his wife, Joyce Smith, adult individuals residing at 175 Airport Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 2. The Defendant, Larry E. McLaughlin, is an adult individual residing at 201 Neil Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 3. On November 3, 2003, the Plaintiffs, William H. Smith and his wife, Joyce Smith, were in their home located at 175 Airport Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 4. At approximately 9:45 p.m., the Defendant, Larry E. McLaughlin, without warning or permission, entered the residence of the Plaintiffs and assaulted both William H. Smith and his wife, Joyce Smith. 3 5. During the course of the assault, the Defendant knocked the Plaintiff, William Smith, an amputee, to the floor and struck him on the left jaw, temple, and chest. He grabbed one of the Plaintiff's crutches and stuck him repeatedly with the crutch crushing his right elbow. He kicked the Plaintiff, William Smith, repeatedly in the ribs and head and then assaulted him again with the crutch. 6. During the course of the assault, the Defendant struck the Plaintiff, Joyce Smith, on her arm with the crutch he had used to attack the Plaintiff, William Smith. 8. When the Plaintiff, Joyce Smith, was able to call 911, the Defendant fled their premises leaving a loaded 45 automatic pistol on the Plaintiffs' floor. 9. The unprovoked assault on the Plaintiffs caused significant injuries to the Plaintiff, William Smith. He was taken by ambulance to Carlisle Regional Medical Center and treated for extensive injuries he received as a result of the Defendant's attack. 10. The Pennsylvania State Police confiscated the gun and charged the Defendant with aggravated assault, firearms charges, simple assault, and harassment. 11 The assault occurred without warning due to the willful negligence of the Defendant, Larry E. McLaughlin. 12. The Defendant, Larry E. McLaughlin was negligent and careless as follows: a. 4 13. The negligent actions of the Defendant, Larry E. McLaughlin, were the proximate cause of the severe injuries to the Plaintiff, William Smith. 14. The actions of the Defendant showed reckless indifference to the welfare of the Plaintiffs 15. The actions of the Defendant entitle the Plaintiffs for punitive damages for their injuries. 16. The Plaintiff, William Smith, seeks compensation for the pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of life's pleasures and permanent injuries sustained in the assault as well as compensation for future losses he will incur in these areas from the Defendant, Larry E. McLaughlin. 17. The Plaintiff, Joyce Smith, seeks compensation for the pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of life's pleasures and permanent injuries sustained in the assault as well as compensation for future losses she will incur in these areas from the Defendant, Larry E. McLaughlin. 17. The Plaintiffs seek compensation for the medical expenses and/or dental expenses which they have incurred and may incur in the future to treat their injuries. 18. The Plaintiffs also seek compensation for the serious and permanent injuries which sustained by the Plaintiff, William Smith, he has sustained which has caused extensive pain and suffering. 5 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, William Smith and Joyce Smith, his wife, request compensation and punitive damages from the Defendant in the amount in excess of Fifty Thousand and no/100 ($50,000.00) Dollars with interest as permitted by law and the costs of this litigation. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & M(ANIGHT l? By: Marcus A. McKni t, III, rl? 60 West Pomfret Stree Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476 Attorney for plaintiffs Date: October 6, 2008 6 VERIFICATION The foregoing document is based upon information which has been gathered by counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this document and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. WILLUM SMITH Date: October 6, 2008 7 WILLIAM H. SMITH and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JOYCE SMIM, his wife, Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2005 - 5477 CIVIL TERM LARRY E. McLAUGHLIN, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached document was served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and addressed as follows: Mr. Larry E. McLaughlin 201 Neil Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 IRWIN & By: Marcus . Mc ig , squire 60 West omfret Stree Carlisle, PA 170 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476 Date: October 6, 2008 8 f--'3 _ WILLIAM H. SMITH and JOYCE SMITH, Plaintiffs vs LARRY EDWARD McLAUGHLIN, Defendant Case No. 2005 - 5477 CIVIL TERM Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: WILLIAM H. SMITH & JOYCE SMITH intends to proceed ith the above ptioned matter. T rrintName Mzrcus A, .McKnight, III Sigrl`ame _J;;T Date: October 27, 2008 Attorney for Plaint Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. .-dt ?_??°, ,?.y f ?,. ??.,' ''? :_`> t? 4r i ..?; ?=?t w ?> , -?_ `,: .?? ?.?a ...,, r -? .?. ? ?: •: STACY B. WOLF, ESQ. SUPREME COURT ID NO. 88732 WOLF & WOLF 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17073 717-241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT WILLIAM H. SMITH and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JOYCE SMITH, his wife, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. LARRY E. McLAUGHLIN, Defendant To: Plaintiffs : NO. 2005-5477 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Respectfully submitted, WOLF & WOLF October 2008 STACY B. OLF, ESQL#E .l STACY B. WOLF, ESQ. SUPREME COURT ID NO. 88732 WOLF & WOLF 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 717-241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT WILLIAM H. SMITH and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JOYCE SMITH, his wife, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. : NO. 2005-5477 LARRY E. McLAUGHLIN, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW comes Defendant, Larry E. McLaughlin, by and through his attorney, Stacy B. Wolf, Esquire, and files this Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint with New Matter, representing as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. Admitted. 4. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant entered Plaintiffs' residence with permission and was assaulted by Plaintiff, William Smith, and Plaintiff, Joyce Smith. 5. Denied. Defendant specifically denies knocking Plaintiff, William Smith, to the floor and striking him on the left jaw, temple, and chest. Defendant specifically denies grabbing one of Plaintiff's crutches and striking him repeatedly crushing his right elbow. Defendant specifically denies kicking William Smith repeatedly in the ribs and head and assaulting him with the crutch. Strict proof thereof is demanded. To the contrary, Plaintiff, William Smith, fell to the floor, Plaintiff, Joyce Smith, repeatedly hit Defendant in the arms and back with Plaintiff's crutch, and Plaintiff, William Smith, hit Defendant with a board across his nose. 6. Denied. Defendant specifically denies striking Plaintiff, Joyce Smith, on her arm with the crutch and denies he had used that crutch to attack Plaintiff, William Smith. Strict proof thereof is demanded. To the contrary, Plaintiff, Joyce Smith, repeatedly hit Defendant in the arms and back with Plaintiff's crutch. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering party is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether Joyce was able or when she was able to call 911. To the contrary, after being attacked, Defendant left the premises and was unaware at the time that a 9 mm pistol had fallen out of his pocket onto the floor. 9. Denied. Defendant specifically denies any assault on Plaintiffs and specifically denies causing any injuries to Plaintiff, William Smith. After reasonable investigation, the answering party is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment regarding whether William Smith was taken by ambulance to Carlisle Regional Medical Center and treated for extensive injuries, and therefore said averment is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. Defendant specifically denies that any such injuries were a result of Defendant's attack. 10. Admitted. Byway of further response, following the confiscation, the gun was released by the Pennsylvania State Police. 11. Denied. The averments of paragraph eleven of Plaintiffs' complaint constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response may be required, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 12. Denied. The averments of paragraph twelve of Plaintiffs' complaint constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response maybe required, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 13. Denied. The averments of paragraph thirteen of Plaintiffs' complaint constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response maybe required, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 14. Denied. The averments of paragraph fourteen of Plaintiffs' complaint constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response maybe required, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 15. Denied. The averments of paragraph fifteen of Plaintiffs' complaint constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response maybe required, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 16. Denied. The averments of paragraph sixteen of Plaintiffs' complaint constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response may be required, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 17. Denied. The averments of paragraph seventeen of Plaintiffs' complaint constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response maybe required, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 17. Denied. The averments of paragraph seventeen of Plaintiffs' complaint constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response maybe required, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 18. Denied. The averments of paragraph eighteen of Plaintiffs' complaint constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response maybe required, these averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, with prejudice, and that judgment be entered for Defendant and against Plaintiffs along with any additional relief the Court deems just. NEW MATTER 19. On November 3, 2003, Defendant knocked on the door of Plaintiffs' residence, and Plaintiff, Joyce Smith, answered the door and allowed Defendant to enter. 20. Defendant asked to speak with Plaintiff, William Smith. Plaintiff, William Smith, approached Defendant and began counting money to give to Defendant because he had borrowed $200.00 from Defendant and was going to repay Defendant. 21. While Plaintiff, William Smith, was counting his money, he fellto the floor. 22. Plaintiff, Joyce Smith, grabbed Mr. Smith's crutch and began hitting Defendant repeatedly on the back and arms. 23. Plaintiff, William Smith, grabbed a board and hit Defendant across the nose. 24. Defendant left the residence after being assaulted by the Smiths, without ever receiving the $200.00 owed to him 25. The Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 26. The Plaintiffs have not suffered any damage as a result of the alleged actions of Defendant. 27. Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of life's pleasures, permanent injuries, and compensation for future losses. 28. Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, with prejudice, and that judgment be entered for Defendant and against Plaintiffs along with any additional relief the Court deems just. Respectfully submitted, WOLF & WOLF October ?, 2008 BY: STACY B. OLF, ESQUIRV Supreme Court ID No. 88732 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 Attorney for Defendant VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, hereby verify that I am the defendant in the above-referenced action and that the facts stated in the above complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. /U`IXIII l-ate ? ,coos Larry E ecLa????? n STACY B. WOLF, ESQ. SUPREME COURT ID NO. 88732 WOLF & WOLF 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 717-241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT w ii.i.ituvi ri.. DIvii i ri anct JOYCE SMITH, his wife, Plaintiffs V. LARRY E. McLAUGHLIN, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2005-5477 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have mailed a true and correct copy of Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, via U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire Irwin & McKnight 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: October '2008 Stacy B. Wo Esquire Attorney for efendant =?a r?s c- WILLIAM H. SMITH and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JOYCE SMITH, his wife, Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2005 - 5477 CIVIL TERM LARRY E. McLAUGHLIN, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ANSWER TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, this 15th day of January 2009, comes the Plaintiffs, WILLIAM H. SMITH and JOYCE SMITH, his wife, by their attorneys, IRWIN & McKNIGHT, and submits the following Answer to New Matter of the Defendant, Larry E. McLaughlin: 19. The averments of fact contained in paragraph nineteen (19) of the New Matter of the Defendant are specifically denied. On the contrary, it is denied that the Defendant knocked at the door. It is specifically denied that the Defendant was invited to enter due to the anger displayed by the Defendant as he entered. The Plaintiff, Joyce Smith, was in the kitchen and the Plaintiff, William Smith, was in bed at 9:00 p.m. 20. The averments of fact contained in paragraph twenty (20) of the New Matter of the Defendant are admitted. 21. The averments of fact contained in paragraph twenty-one (21) of the New Matter of the Defendant are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff, William Smith, fell to the floor only after being struck without warning by the Defendant who appeared to be visibly intoxicated at the time. 22. The averments of fact contained in paragraph twenty-two (22) of the New Matter of the Defendant are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff, Joyce Smith, verbally yelled to the Defendant to stop. The Defendant grabbed a crutch and began repeatedly striking the Plaintiff, William Smith, with the crutch as he kicked him. 23. The averments of fact contained in paragraph twenty-three (23) of the New Matter of the Defendants are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Defendant began to attack Plaintiff, Joyce Smith, and the Plaintiff, William Smith, hit the Defendant with a board. 24. The averments of fact contained in paragraph twenty-four (24) of the New Matter are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Defendant only left when the Pennsylvania State Police were called and he took the $200.00 as he left the Plaintiffs' residence. 25. The averments of fact contained in paragraph twenty-five (25) of the New Matter are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Complaint alleges that the Defendant caused the injuries of the Plaintiffs. 26. The averments of fact contained in paragraph twenty-six (26) of the New Matter are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiffs required medical and dental treatment due to the personal injuries sustained when they were attacked by the Defendant. 27. The averments of fact contained in paragraph twenty-seven (27) of the New Matter are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Complaint states a cause of action for compensatory damages. 2 28. The averments of fact contained in paragraph twenty-eight (28) of the New Matter are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Complaint states a cause of action for punitive damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs William H. Smith and Joyce Smith, request compensatory and punitive damages from the Defendant, Larry E. McLaughlin, in the amount in excess of Fifty Thousand and no/100 ($50,000.00) Dollars with interest as permitted by law and the costs of this litigation. IRWIN & MccKNIGHT, P.C. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Ct. ID. 25476 Date: January 15, 2009 uire 3 VERIFICATION The foregoing document is based upon information which has been gathered by counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this document and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. WILLIAM H. SMITH JO C SMIT Date: January 15, 2009 7 WILLIAM H. SMITH and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JOYCE SMITH, his wife, Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 2005 - 5477 CIVIL TERM LARRY E. McLAUGHLIN, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached Answers was served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and addressed as follows: Stacy B. Wolf, Esq. Wolf & Wolf 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. By: cus McKnight, III, Esquire 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476 Date: January 15, 2009 5 cr) ..._. - ...Sic. ,?. ?r WILLIAM H. SMITH and JOYCE SMITH, his wife, PLAINTIFFS V. LARRY E. McLAUGHLIN, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. NO. 2005 - 5477 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PERSONAL INJURY . 'Tj rr-?4 if RULE 1312-1 The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially ?ie Following form: PETITION FOR APPOINTME T OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: MARCUS A. McKNIGHT, III, counsel ifor the plaintiffikfixximt in action (or actions), respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are at issue. 2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is $ 50,00( .00 The counterclaim of the defendant in the actions is NONE N rn _T, c{? the above The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. and WOLF & WOLF WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable whom the case shall be submitted. to appoint three (3) arbitrators to III, ESQ. ORDER AND NOW, petition, Esq., and captioned action (or actions) as prayed for. of the foregoing are appointed arbitrators in the above By the Court, Kevin A. Hess, President Judge Esq. j and f_ j rw -5 .7-y.ad fdJAI (M GV 6-5 1-0- Y6615 WILLIAM H. SMITH and JOYCE SMITH, his wife, PLAINTIFFS V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005 - 5477 , LARRY E. McLAUGHLIN, CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANT PERSONAL INJURY n • C_ n-7 ! X f1": r: RULE 1312-1 The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially die Following form: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS} TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: rv o ? © n :) MARCUS A. McKNIGHT, III, counsel for the plaintiff/?keat in the above action (or actions), respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are) at issue. 2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is $ 50,000-00 The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is NONE The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. and WOLF & WOLF WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. A. MUBTIGRT?, III, ESQ. AND NOW, petition, r 1 ',17 Pr Esq., and captioned action (or actions) as p 7 :( 't u: d?dZ of the foregoing Esq., and i?? 1 ?- _ Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above By the Kevi . Hess, President Judge Co t ES .,, T y/r h o ?rr1 ORDER for. ,. ~ F1LEU L ~~'~ ~}yw~ v'i ~tJV ~li ~~ ~~~r7~ ~~, ,~ ~ .;~;,-~Y ZQ10,1t1~~ 30 ~~~ II: ~ I .C.+,, y ~f~ ~ J~ ~~l~Jl~'..~~iY~n; ti~~A WILLIAM H. SMITH and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JOYCE SMITH, his wife, Plaintiffs :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v 2005 - 5477 CIVIL TERM LARRY E. McLAUGHLIN, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE To the Prothonotary: Please mark the above-captioned case settled and discontinued. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. By: Marc A. Mc fight III, Esquire 60 W t Pomfr Stree Carlis e, Pennsy 17013 (717) j249-2353 Date: ~t~, 3a ZO ~ d )(l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached Praecipe to WILLIAM H. SMITH and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JOYCE SMITH, his wife, Plaintiffs :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. 2005 - 5477 CIVIL TERM LARRY E. McLAUGHLIN, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant . Settle and Discontinue was served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and addressed as follows: STACY B. WOLF, ESQ. WOLF & WOLF TEN EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 Date: ~ ~,, 30~ a~1t 0 By: IRWIN & ~~ 60 Weft Po fret Street Carlisle, PA 1 (717} 249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476