The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-5260 IN THE COURT OF COHHON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Rose Mary Koch and T. Allen Koch, her husband 816 Center Street Enola, PA 17025 Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) versus No. Civil Acti~ - ()l~)' Law ( ) Equity Gerald Henderson 392 Dairy Lane Palmyra, PA 17078 and Russell M. Bible 392 Dairy Lane Palmyra, PA 17078 Defendant(s) & Address(es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUI~IHONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue writ of summons in the above-captioned action. 2 Writ of Summons snail be issued and forwarded to ( )Attorney (x)$heriff Ira H. Weinstock, Esquire IRA H. WEINSTOCK~ P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Phone: 717-238-1657 Names/AdGres:/ Telephon No. of Attorney Signature of Atto{ney Supreme Court ID No. Date: 9/4/01 01602 WRIT OF SUNRONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE ~OMNEFCED~ ' AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Pr ;thonotary information 'Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: C. Roy Weidner, Jr. I.D. No. 19530 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs GERALD HENDERSON and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAEClPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE AND NOW, this 4th day March, 2002, enter the appearance of C. ROY WEIDNER, JR., I.D. 19530 on behalf of Defendants in the above captioned suit. :155096 5774-389 R ~__~li~eidner, Jr. CERTIFICATE OF $£RVICE ,AND NOW, this 4th day of March, 2002, the undersigned does hereby certify that she did this date serve a copy of the foregoing document upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Ira H. Weinstock, Esquire Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER Mich~lle Hag-y,~ ~ $ohnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: C. Roy Weidner, Jr. I.D. No. 19530 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs GERALD HENDERSON and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ISSUE RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: AND NOW, this /3 "'day of March, 2002, please issue a rule to Plaintiffs to file their complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of service thereof, or suffer judgment of non pros. JOHN~/~FF~/STE.WART & WEIDN ER : C.'RoyM/eid[~ RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PLAINTIFFS: AND NOW, this/~/~ day of March, 2002, a Rule is hereby issued to you to file your complaint in the above-captioned action within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof, or suffer judgment of non pros. CURTIS R. LONG, PROTHONOTARY :155778 5774-389 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2002, the undersigned does hereby certify that she did this date copy of the foregoing document upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows; Ira H. Weinstock, Esquire Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER '": --Michelle Ragy ~/' 5. ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs, GERALD HENDERSON, and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants. 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED 1N 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 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 loose 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 2 Liberty Ave. Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs, GERALD HENDERSON, and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, the Plaintiffs, Rose Mary Koch and T. Allen Koch, by and through their attorney's, Ira H. Weinstock, P.C., respectfully submit this Complaint demanding judgment against the Defendants, Gerald Henderson and Russell M. Bible, and in support thereof aver the following: 1. Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, presently residing at 816 Center Street, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 2. Plaintiff, T. Allen Koch, is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, presently residing at 816 Center Street, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025. 3. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff, T. Allen Koch, was the lawfully wedded husband of Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch. 4. Defendant, Gerald Henderson, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a last known address of 4182 Antelope Court, Apt. 118, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 5. Defendant, Russell M. Bible, is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with the last known address of 4182 Antelope Court, Apt. 118, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 6. On or about September 10, 1999 at approximately 11:55 a.m., Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, was driving a 1993 Dodge Dakota bearing Pennsylvania registration number YC- 45340 in an easterly direction of Route 944 (Wertzville Road), at or near the intersection of Valley Road in Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. At the aforesaid date and the aforesaid time and place, Defendant, Russell M. Bible was operating a 1985 Chevrolet Monte Carlo beating registration number BJA-7024 in a northerly direction on Valley Road at the intersection of Valley Road and Wertzville Road. 8. At or about the time described herein, and at a point where Wertzville Road and Valley Road intersect, the vehicle operated by Rose Mary Koch, was driving, with the right of way through the intersection of Wertzville Road and Valley Road. 9. At the aforesaid time, date and place, Defendant Russell M. Bible, was traveling in the northbound direction of Valley Road and suddenly, without any wuming, drove through a stop sign and negligently, carelessly and recklessly collided with the vehicle operated by Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, with great force and violence thereby causing the serious injuries set forth more fully herein. 10. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Gerald Henderson, was the legal owner of the vehicle being operated by Russell M. Bible which collided with the vehicle being operated by Rose Mary Koch and which caused the damages which are set forth at length herein. 11. At all times described herein, Defendants, Gerald Henderson and Russell M. Bible, owed Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, a duty to operate or cause the motor vehicle to be operated with due care and in conformity with the applicable statutes and common law of Pennsylvania. 12. As a direct result of the recklessness, carelessness and negligence of the Defendants, the Plaintiff suffered severe, painful, disabling and personal injuries as follows: (a) Cervical Strain/Sprain; (b) Lumbrosacral Sprain; and (c) Bilateral Knee Sprain. 13. As a further result of the recklessness, carelessness and negligence of the Defendants, Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, was rendered sick, sore and disabled and Plaintiff suffered severe physical and mental anguish and a loss of her well being and enjoyment of life. 14. As a result of the negligence of the Defendants, Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, has sustained serious permanent injury for the treatment of which she has incurred lost wages, medical bills and expenses. 15. As a result of the negligence of the Defendants, Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, has suffered an interruption of her daily habits and pursuits to her great and permanent detriment and loss. 16. All of the losses, damages, and injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, resulted from the acts or omissions of the Defendants and were in no manner whatsoever due to any act or omission on the part of the Plaintiff. 17. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, acted with due care and was not negligent. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE ROSE MARY KOCH v. RUSSELL M. BIBLE 18. Thc Plaintiff incorporates by reference thc allegations contained in paragraphs 1- 17 inclusive as though the same were set forth at length herein. 19. At all times described herein, Defendant Russell M. Bible, owed the Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, the duty to operate or cause the motor vehicle to be operated with due care and in conformity with the applicable statutes and common laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 20. At all times described herein, the Defendant, Russell M. Bible, owed a duty to the Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, not to operate the vehicle in such a manner as to injure the Plaintiff. 21. The Defendant, Russell M. Bible's, reckless and/or careless and/or negligent conduct directly and proximately caused the Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, to sustain all of her resulting losses, injuries and damages. 22. The accident was directly and proximately caused by the negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, Russell M. Bible, in one or more of the following ways: (a) Operating said motor vehicle in a careless, reckless and negligent manner; (b) Operating said vehicle in violation of Section 3323(b) of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code; (c) Operating said motor vehicle with no warning of approach; (d) Not having the motor vehicle under the proper control so as to stop said vehicle within the assured clear distance ahead (75 Pa. C.S. § 3361); 4 (e) Operating said motor vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety, and position of the Plaintiff; (f) Failing to have said motor vehicle under the proper control as to prevent his vehicle from striking Plaintiff's motor vehicle; (g) Failure to keep a proper lookout; (h) Failing to use due care under the circumstances; (i) Failing to yield the right of way to Plaintiff's vehicle; (j) Failing to take evasive action in order to avoid impacting with Plaintiff's vehicle; (k) Failing to apply his brakes in sufficient time to avoid striking Plaintiffs car; (1) Operating said motor vehicle in disregard of the rules of the road, and the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including but not limited to motor vehicle code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 3323(b). 23. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Russell M. Bible, Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, has been rendered sick, sore and disabled and has suffered severe physical pain and mental anguish and has suffered a loss of her well being, loss of income, and enjoyment of life. 24. Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are of a continuing and permanent nature and that she may, therefore, continue to suffer in the future, thereby requiring additional medical care and treatment and experience continuing disability, physical pain, mental anguish and loss of her well being and enjoyment of life from time to time in the future. 25. All of the losses, damages and injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, resulted from the acts or omissions of Defendant, Russell M. Bible, and were in no manner whatsoever due to any act or omission on the part of Plaintiff. 26. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, acted with due care and was not negligent in any manner. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, demands judgment against the Defendant, Russell M. Bible, individually or jointly and severally in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration under the rules of Cumberland County together with delay damages pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, attorneys fees, lawful interest, punitive damages, costs and any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE PER SAY ROSE MARY KOC}I v. RUSSELL M. BIBLE 27. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1- 26 inclusive as though the same were set forth at length herein. 28. All of the resulting losses, injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, directly and proximately resulted from the violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code by Defendant, Russell M. Bible, by failing to obey stop signs and yield signs in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3323(b). 29. As a result of Defendant, Russell M. Bible's violations of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code at the time of the accident, Defendant, Russell M. Bible, pleaded guilty to failing to obey stop signs and yield signs in violation of Section 3323(b) of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. 30. Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, is within the class of persons to be protected by the provision of Motor Vehicle Statute, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3323(b). 6 31. As a direct and proximate result of the violation of motor vehicle statute, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3323(b) by the Defendant, Russell M. Bible, the Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, has been obliged to spend various sums of money to receive and undergo medical care and attention for her injuries. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the violation of motor vehicle statute, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3323(b) by the Defendant, Russell M. Bible, Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch has been rendered sick, sore and disabled and has suffered lost wages, severe physical pain and mental anguish and has suffered a loss of her well being and enjoyment of life. 33. Defendant, Russell M. Bible, is liable to the Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, for all injuries and damages as a result of his violation of the motor vehicle code. 34. The injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, are the type the Motor Vehicle Statute 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3323(b) was designed to prevent. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, demands judgment against the Defendant, Russell M. Bible, individually or jointly and severally in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration under the rules of Cumberland County together with delay damages pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, attorneys fees, lawful interest, punitive damages, costs and any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. COUNT III ROSE MARY KOCH v. GERALD HENDERSON 35. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1- 34 inclusive as though the same were set forth at length herein. 7 36. Defendant, Gerald Henderson, acted recklessly, wantonly and/or negligently by entrusting his vehicle to Defendant, Russell M. Bible, when Defendant, Gerald Henderson, knew or should have known that Defendant, Russell M. Bible, would drive the vehicle in violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the reckless, wanton and/or negligent conduct of the Defendant, Gerald Henderson, Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, has been rendered sick, sore and disabled and has suffered lost wages, severe physical pain and mental anguish and has suffered a loss of her well being and enjoyment of life. 38. All of the losses, damages and injuries sustained by Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, resulted from the acts or omissions of the Defendant, Gerald Henderson, and were in no manner whatsoever due to any act or omission on the part of said Plaintiff. 39. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, acted with due care and was not negligent in any manner. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Rose Mary Koch, demands judgment against the Defendant, Gerald Henderson, individually or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration under the rules of Cumberland County together with delay damages pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, attorneys fees, lawful interest, punitive damages, costs and any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. COUNT IV - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM T. AI.I ~F~N KOCH v. RUSSELL M. BIBLE AND GERALD HENDERSON 40. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 39 inclusive as though the same were set forth at length herein. 8 41. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, T. Allen Koch, was the lawfully wedded husband of Rose Mary Koch. 42. As a result of the aforementioned injuries sustained by his wife, Plaintiff, T. Allen Koch, has been and may in the future be deprived of the care, companionship, consortium and society of his wife all of which will be to his great detriment and claim is made therefore. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, T. Allen Koch, demands judgment against the Defendant, Gerald Henderson and Russell M. Bible, individually or jointly and severally, in an mount in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration under the rules of Cumberland County together with delay damages pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, attorneys fees, lawful interest, punitive damages, costs and any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully Submitted, IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Phone: (717) 238-1657 IRA H. WEINSTOCK --~JO[l~ B~ DOUGI~RT~ 9 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ) I verify that the statements made in the attached COMPLAINT are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties set forth in 18 Pa. C. S. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. DATED: ROSE MARY KOCH DATED: T. ALLEN KOCH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this~(?/x day of March, 2002, I, John B. Dougherty, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served the within COMPLAINT this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in the post office at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: By First Class Mail: C. Roy Weidner, Jr., Esquire JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 oHN s. pouo r Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: C. Roy W¢idner, Jr. I.D. No. 19530 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs GERALD HENDERSON and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Rose Mary Koch and T. Allen Koch c/o Ira H. Weinstock, Esquire 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2002, you are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed preliminary objection within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof, or judgment may be entered against yOU. :156478 5774-389 JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER ,~"~.. Roy V~eidner, Jr. Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: C. Roy W¢idncr, Jr. I.D. No. 19530 301 Market Street ?. O. Box 109 Lcmoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs GERALD HENDERSON and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRELIM/NARY OBJECT/ON TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2002, come Defendants, through their undersigned attorneys, and preliminarily object to Plaintiffs' complaint upon the following: 1. Plaintiffs' complaint, the averments of which are incorporated herein but neither admitted nor denied, claims personal injuries arising out of a claim that Defendants were negligent and careless resulting in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on September 10, 1999. 2. As evidenced by the docket from the Prothonotary's office, a copy of which is attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein and marked as Exhibit "A", Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a praecipe for writ of summons on September 6, 2001. 3. As evidenced by the return of service of the Sheriffs Department of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, a copy of which is attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein and marked as Exhibit "B", the writ was returned "not found" by the Sheriff without service on Defendants on September 25, 2001. 4. As evidenced by the docket from the Prothonotary's office, a copy of which comprises Exhibit "A" hereto, a copy of the Sheriff's return of service was forwarded to Plaintiffs' counsel along with any refund of costs on September 25, 2001. 5. As evidenced by the docket from the Prothonotary's office, a copy of which comprises Exhibit "A" hereto, no further action was taken by Plaintiff to serve Defendants. 6. As evidenced by the docket from the Prothonotary's office, a copy of which comprises Exhibit "A" hereto, no further action was taken by Plaintiff to reinstate the writ of summons issued on September 6, 2001. 7. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs failed to serve the writ within 30 days as required by Pa. R.C.P. 401(a) or reissue it pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 401(b)(1), thereby effectively ending any extension of the two year statute of limitations which expired on September 10, 2001. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that your Honorable Court terminate Plaintiffs' action on account of the passage of the statute of limitations without appropriate service upon Defendants. :156478 5774-389 JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER C. Roy Weidner, Jr. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2002, the undersigned does hereby certify that she did this date serve a copy of the foregoing document upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: ira H. Weinstock, Esquire Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 :156478 5774-389 JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER "' "'-:- Michelle"Hagy ~'/x/ EXHIBIT ",4" 2001-05260 KOCH ROSE MARY ET AL Reference No..: Case TVDe ..... : WRIT OF S.0U~0ONS qu~gme5% ...... ~uage Assigned: ' Disposed Desc.: (rs) HENDERSON GERALD ET AL Filed ........ : Time ......... : Execution Date 9/06/2001 · 3:52 o/00/o000 Jury Trial .... ............ Case Comments ............. DisDosed Date. 0/00/0000 Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: ******************************************************************************** General Index KOCH ROSE MARy Attorney Info 816 CENTER STREET PLAINTIFF WEINSTOCK IRA H ENOLA PA 17025 KOCH T ALLEN 816 CENTER STREET ENOLA PA 17025 HENDERSON GERALD 392 DAIRY LANE PALMYRA PA 17078 BIBLE RUSSELL M 392 DAIRY LANE PALMYRA PA 17078 PLAINTIFF DEFENDA/~T DEFENDANT * Date Entries ****************************************** 9/o /2oo1 E6I E-FSR-W I 6F-S6 FIRST ENTRY ..................... ONS IN CIVIL ACTION-WRIT OF SUMMONS ,- 9/25/2001 SHERIFF'S RE~ ~Tn=~ ............................. ISSUED Lit ........... - ............... lqant.: HENDERSON GERALD 9?~ifffj_{~{f~_Pd By: IRA WEINSTOCK 09/25/2001 /25/2OOl q .: !BL~ RUSSELL M SERVED : 9/24/01 NOT FOUND PALMYRA PA LEBANON COUNT WRIT OF SUMMONS Y Costs .... : $16.00 Pd By. IRA WEINSTOCK 09/25/2001 LAST ENTRY .............. TAX ON WRIT 35.00 35.00 .00 .50 .50 00 SETTLEMENT 5.00 5.00 ' JCP FEE 5.00 .00 _ 5.00 .00 .00 ******************************************************************************* End of Case Information EXHI81T "8~'' ' SHERIFF'S RETLrR-N - OUT OF COUNTY CA'SE NO: 2001-05260 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: coUNTY OF CUMBERLAND KOCH ROSE M3%RY ET AL VS HENDERSON GERALD 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 DEFENDANT , to wit: HENDERSON GERALD but was unable to locate Him deputized the sheriff of LEBANON serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS in his bailiwick. Ee therefore County, Pennsylvania, On September 25th , 2001 , this office was in receipt of the to attached return from LEBANON Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep Lebanon Co 18.00 9.00 10.00 52.68 .00 89.68 09/25/2001 IRA WEINSTOCK R~: ~homas Kline - Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~-- day of ~ ~,.. A.D. , ~ p~ot~hon~ot ~r~ SHERIFF'S RE'I'UF~N CAgE NO: 2001-05260 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLV~NIA: COLrNTY OF CUMBERLAND KOCH ROSE MARY ET AL VS HENDERSON GERALD ET AL R. Thomas Kline duly sworn according to law, and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT BIBLE RUSSELL M but was unable to locate Him deputized the sheriff of LEBANON serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being says, that he made a diligent search and in his bailiwick. County, , to wit: He therefore Pennsylvania, to On September 25th , 2001 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from LEBANON Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge 6.00 .00 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 09/25/2001 IRA WEINSTOCK Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~ day of~__ A.D. Prothonotary ' in The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Rose Mary Koch et al VS. Gerald Henderson et al SERVE: Gerald Henderson NO. 01 5260 civil Now, 9/7/01 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriffof Lebanon County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at. the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Now, within Affidavit of Service , 20__., at o'clock M. served the upon by handing to and made known to copy of the original So answers: the contents thereof. Sworn and subscribed before me this __ day of ,20 Sheriff of COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT County, PA : In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Rose Mary Koch et al Gerald Henderson et al SERVE: Russell M. Bible N0. 01 5260 civil NOW, 9 / 7 / 0:1 , I, SlIER.IFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNT'Y, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Lebanon 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 . 20 _, at o'clock __ M. served the upon by handing to a and made known to copy of the original the contents thereof. So answers, Sworn and subscribed before me this __ da3, of ,2O Sheriff of County, PA COSTS SERVICE M/LEAGE AFFIDAVIT SUMMONS No. 01-5260 CIVIL ROSE F~LRY KOCH, ET AL vs. GERALD HENDERSON & RUSSELL M. BIBLE Lebanon, PA, September 24, 2001 (RETURN TO CUMBERLAND CO. SHERIFF) DOCKET PAGE 16892 STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA } COUNTY OF LEBANON } SS: Kirk Juliani, Deputy Sheriff, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that after due and diligent search by him having been made in this bailiwick, and after having exhausted all known facets to locate defendant, as stipulated under Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 430, "good faith effort," he was unable to find GERALD HENDERSON & RUSSELL M. BIBLE, the within named DEFENDANTS, and he therefore returns "NOT FOUND" as to the said GERALD HENDERSON & RUSSELL M. BIBLE, the within named Defendants. *NOTE: According to Deputy Juliani, the Defendants reside outside of this bailiwick, most likely living in Dauphin County, PA. Sw.orn to and subscribed before me SO this 24th day of September, A.D., 2001 / V' I~NC¥ L. S]ARNER. N~ry Publi~ ~ C,ma~,~ Ex~r,~ A,~u~t 8. 2002 SHERIFF'S COSTS IN ABOVE PROCEEDINGS Advanced costs paid on 9/12/01 Check No. 33898 Amount 100.00 Costs incurred: Amount 52.68 Refund: Check No.10546 Amount 47.32 Ail Sheriff's Costs shall be due and payable when services are performed, and it shall be lawful for him to demand and receive from the party instituting the proceedings, or any party liable for the costs thereof, all unpaid sheriff's fees on the same before he shall be obligated by law to make return thereof. Sec. 2, Act of June 20, 1911, P.L. 1072 ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs, V. GERALD HENDERSON, and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM CWIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S pREIJMINARY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. By way of further answer, the Defendants' insurer was contacted on August 17, 2001 and was notified of the Plaintiffs' representation in regard to the matter. See Exhibit "A". On August 23, 2001, Paul Gearin, Claims Specialist for Harleysville Insurance, contacted Plaintiffs' Attorney and notified him that he was the Claim Representative assigned to the case. In the aforementioned letter, Mr. Gearin acknowledges that Plaintiff will be filing a Praecipe for Writ of Summons and that he would contact Plaintiffs' Attorney to discuss the case upon receipt of the "specials". See Exhibit "B ". On August 23, 2001, Plaintiffs' Attorney forwarded to Mr. Gearin copies of medical reports and a pay out log. See Exhibit "C". 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. It is specifically denied that the SherifFs return of service was forwarded to Plaintiffs' Counsel on September 25, 2001. To the contrary, the first time Plaintiffs' Counsel was notified of the inability of the Sheriff to locate the Defendants, was by Defendants' Counsel on or about April 8, 2002 and by the Sheriff on April 9, 2002. Prior to that date, Plaintiffs' Counsel believed that proper service was made upon the Defendants. By way of further answer, on November 12, 2001, at the request of Mr. Gearin, a copy of the Praecipe for Writ of Summons was faxed to him. See Exhibit "D". At no time did Mr. Gearin or any representative of the Defendants indicate that the Defendants had not been served. 5. Denied. It is specifically denied that no further action was taken by the Plaintiff to serve Defendants after the filing of the Praecipe. See Answer to Paragraph 4. 6. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that the Writ of Summons was not reinstated, however, it is denied the no further action was taken to reinstate the Summons. To the contrary, the filing of the Complaint on March 27, 2002 constituted a reissuance of the Writ pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure, 401(5). 7. Denied. The Plaintiffs' have attempted to make a good faith effort to serve the Defendants and up until April 9, 2002 Plaintiff's believed that Defendants had been served and therefore the two year statute of limitations has not expired. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs' respectfully request that Defendants' Preliminary Objections be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully Submitted, IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Phone: (717) 238-1657 (J~OHN B. DOUGI-IER~FY W~N~¥ D. Bov~ d~.soN ,JOHN B. J~r R. 5c,o~r LAw OFFIGES IRA H. WEINSTOCK P. 5U~T~ 1OO 800 N. SeCOnD STa~T I-L~ms~URG, p~S~V~ 1710a AR~ GODE 717 TELEP~O~: a38-1667 Augustl7,2001 C$ FAX: (7 17) ~38-6691 E.1VI~-~ A~DR~SS weins tock.lav~verizon.net Ken Schmitt, Claims Supervisor Harleysville Insurance Company P. O. Box 1016 Moorestown, NJ 08057 RE: Your Insured My Client Date of Accident Claim No. Gerald Henderson/Russell Bible Rose MaryKoch September 10, 1999 A44 227145-U Dear Mr. Schmitt: Please be advised I represent Rose Mary Koch. She was injured in an accident on September 10, 1999 as a result of the negligence of your insured. It is my understanding your company paid property damage in the amount of approximately $8,000 to my client. You had a file number as captioned above. I would appreciate talking to the claim adjuster as soon as possible to resolve this matter. As you can see the statute of limitations is approaching and I would like to resolve this matter prior to September 10th. Ronald Sahonick was working on this case and it is my understanding he has passed away. Your attention to this matter is of utmost importance. Very truly yours, IRA H. WEINSTOCK IHW:lsw EXHIBIT Harleysv lle. Good £eople to know The Law Offices of Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. 800 N. Second Street, Suite 100 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Att: Ira H. Weinstock, Esq. Claim Number: Insured: Date of Loss: Claimant: MidAtlantic Claims Service Center Office Address Mailing Address 308 Harper Drive, Suite 200 P.O. Box 1016 Moorestown, NJ Moorestown, NJ 08057-3245 08057-0916 (888) 595-9876 Fax (888) 492-8954 www.hadeysville,qroup.com August 23, 2001 44-227145 UJ Geraldine Henderson September 10, 1999 Rose Mary Koch Dear Mr. Weinstock: We are in receipt of your letter of representation dated August 17, 2001. Please be advised that I am the claim representative handling the above captioned matter. Kindly direct all future correspondence to my attention referencing the above claim number. As per our conversation today, please provide a medical specials package so that we can propedy evaluate your client's claim. It is my understanding that you will draft a summons in order to protect the statute in this matter. Upon receipt of the specials, I will contact you with any questions. Should you wish to discuss this claim in the intedm, feel free to contsct me at the below listed number. Clain~Specialie 856-.,~42-1646 ext 2345 ~.Jar'm@ha rleysvilleg roup.com F/HIBIT IR~ I~. WI~,INB~OCK~ P. (~. Sun ~ 100 800 N. $~COND tg~s~u~. P~NNmmV~NU~ I ? 10g AR~., GOD~ 717 'Ik~mloN~: a~8-16§7 August 23, 2001 FAX: (717) ~118-6691 l!l-blAx~ ADDRESS wcinstock.lav~verizon.net Paul Gearin, Claims Rep. Hafleysville Insurance Co. 308 Harper Drive, Suite 200 P. O. Box 1016 Moorestown, NJ 08057 gEl Your Insured My Client Date of Accident Claim No. Gerald Henderson/Russell Bible Rose Mary Koch September I0, 1999 A44 227145-U Dear Mr. Gearin: Enclosed please find medical reports and the payout log with regard to the above matter. Please give me a call so we can discuss this matter. Very truly yours, IRA H: WEINSTOCK IHW:lsw Enclosures EXHIBIT -C# IN THE COURT OF' CObl4(Ot PL.E:^S CUP.]3~..Rt, RND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI A ~..~ Civi~ Act,on - (X) Law ( ) Equ i ty Rose Mary Koch and T. Koch, her husband 816 Center Street Enola, PA 17025 Allen TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whemot I h~re unto set my hand = the .~0~;aid Co~j~ at Carlisle, Pa. Plain?iff(s) AddFess ( es ) versus Gerald Henderson 392 Dairy Lane Palmyra, PA 17078 and Russell M. Bible 392 Dairy Lane Palmyra, PA 1707 Defend Address(~) PRAEC I PE FOR WR I T OF SUI~MONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue writ of summons in the above-captioned action. 2 Writ of Summons snail be issued ano forwarded to ( )Attorney (x)Sheri ff~.._. Ira H. Weinstock, Esquire IRA H. WEINSTOCK~ P.C- 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Phone: 717-238-1657 Names/AdCress/ Telephon No. of Attorney Signature of Attocney Supreme Court ID No. 01602 Date: 9/4/01 WRIT OF S~NS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): '~OU ARE NOTtFIED THAT THE ABOVE-HAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMNENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Pr ;thonotary ( 9epu t' EXHIBIT 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 E-Mail Address: weinstoc~.law@vedzon, net Phone: (717) 238-1657 Facsimile: (717) 238-6691 IRA H. WEINSTOCK WENDY D. BO~AE JASON U. ~/EINSTOCK JOHN B. DOUGHERTY JEFFREY R. SCHOTT To: Paul Geadn From: Ira H. Weinstock, Esquire Fax: 856-642-7846 Pages: 2 Phone: (717) 238-1657 ll3ate: November 12, 2001 Re: Koch, et al. vs. Henderson, et al. CC: [] Urgent [] For Review [] Please Comment [] Please Reply [] Please Recycle · ¢~ts:. THE INFORMATION BEING TRANSMITTED BY THIS FACSIMI~LE IS CONSIDERED ATI'ORNEY-CUENT OR A'I-t-ORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL AND iS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED. IF THE READER OF THiS MESSAGE tS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, DISCLOSURE, COPYING OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS TRANSMISSION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAys- RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIAU.S. MAIL. THANKYOU. TRANS~OTION REPORT NOV-12-2001MON 11:20 FOR: IRA N. WEINSTOOK, P.C. 7172388891 PAGES TINE NOTE DATE START RECEIVER - 2 40# OK CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 25th day of April, 2002, I, John B. Dougherty, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served the within ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in the post office at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: By First Class Mail: C. Roy Weidner, Jr., Esquire JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 B. ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, Plaintiffs, VS. GERALD HENDERSON and RUSSELL BIBLE, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. No. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly reinstate the complaint in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully Submitted, IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Phone: 717-238-1657 (J~HN B. DOUGHEI~Y Attorney I.D. No. 70680 ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband VS. Plaintiffs, GERALD HENDERSON and RUSSELL BIBLE, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. No. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly reinstate the complaint in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully Submitted, IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Phone: 717-238-1657 By: dOmB. DOUGHERW J2 VAttomey I.D. No. 70680 [J SHERIFF'S RETURN - CASE NO: 2001-05260 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND KOCH ROSE MARY ET AL VS HENDERSON GER3kLD ET AL OUT OF COUNTY 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 DEFENDANT , to wit: HENDERSON GERALD but was unable to locate Him deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS in his bailiwick. County, He therefore Pennsylvania, to On June 4th , 2002 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from DAUPHIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 18.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep Lebanon Co. 53.34 Dep Dauphin Co. 36.50 135.84 06/04/2002 IRA WEINSTOCK So answers: R.' Thomas ~fline Sheriff of' Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this .7~ day of~ A.D. ! ' Prothonotary' ~ ' SHERIFF'S RETURN - CASE NO: 2001-05260 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVAIqIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND KOCH ROSE MARY ET AL VS HENDERSON GERALD ET AL OUT OF COUNTY R. Thomas Kline duly sworn according to and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT BIBLE RUSSELL M but was unable to locate Him deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being law, says, that he made a diligent search and in his bailiwick. County, , to wit: He therefore Pennsylvania, to On June 4th , 2002 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from DAUPHIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 06/04/2002 IRA WEINSTOCK So answer : R. K1 ine Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~ day of~ ~0~ A.D. / ! Prothonotary7 ' Mary Jane Snydet Real Estate Deputy William T. Tully Solicitor Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 255-2660 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff J. Daniel Basile Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin AND NOW:May 31, 2002 COMPLAINT BIBLE RUSSELL M to HIM of the original to him/her the contents thereof at DAUPHIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, FRONT & MARKET STREETS HARRISBURG, PA 17101-0000 : KOCH ROSEMARY us : BIBLE RUSSELL M Sheriff's Return No. 1355-T - -2002 OTHER COUNTY NO. 01-5260 at 12:15PM served the within upon by personally handing i true attested copy(ies) COMPLAINT and making Known RM. 104 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 31ST day of MAY, 2002 PROTHONOTARY So Answers, Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pa. Sheriff's Costs:S36.50 PD 05/24/2002 RCPT NO 164805 KSTUMP Mary Jane Snyde~ Real Estate Deputy William T. Tully Solicitor Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 255-2660 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff J. Daniel Basile Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin AND NOW:May 28, 2002 COMPLAINT HENDERSON GERALD to HIM of the original : KOCH ROSE MARY vs : BIBLE RUSSELL M Sheriff's Return No. 1355-T - -2002 OTHER COUNTY NO. 01-5260 at 3:46PM served the within upon by personally handing 1 true attested copy(les) COMPLAINT and making known to him/her the contents thereof at DAUPHIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, RM. 104 FRONT & MARKET STREETS HARRISBURG, PA 17101-0000 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 31ST day of MAY, 2002 PROTHONOTARY So Answers, ,/Deputy Sheriff Sheriff's Costs: $36.50 PD 05/24/2002 RCPT NO 164805 REDMOND REINSTATED NOTICE & COMPLAINT No. 01-5260 CIVIL ROSE MARY KOCH, ET AL vs. GERALD HENDERSON & RUSSELL M. BIBLE Lebanon, PA, May 15, 2002 (RETURN TO CUMBERLAND CO. DOCKET pAGE 17801 SHERIFF) STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA } COUNTY OF LEBANON } SS: Kirk Juliani, Deputy Sheriff, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that after due and diligent search by him having been made in this bailiwick, and after having exhausted all known facets to locate defendant, as stipulated under Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 430, "good faith effort," he was unable to find GERALD HENDERSON & RUSSELL M. BIBLE, the within named DEFENDANTS, and he therefore returns "NOT FOUND" as to the said GERALD HENDERSON & RUSSELL M. BIBLE, the within named Defendants. *NOTE: Deputy Juliani checked once again with the Palmyra Post Office, and was informed that the given address of 392 Dairy Lane, Palmyra, is located in Dauphin County. He also checked with Lebanon County Assessment office who verified that 392 Dairy Lane, Palmyra, is not in Lebanon County. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15th day of May, A.D., 2002 ~w~, ~~~_z.Y Notary Public ( NANCY L. STARN~R, N~r~ r~u,i Leba~en. Leba~e, s° 2 S H E~FF V ~/& ~' SHERIFF'S COSTS IN ABOVE PROCEEDINGS Advanced costs paid on 5/3/02 Check No. 36464 Amount 100.00 Costs incurred: Amount 53.34 Refund: Check No. 11787 Amount 46.66 Ail Sheriff's Costs shall be due and payable when services are performed, and it shall be lawful for him to demand and receive from the party instituting the proceedings, or any party liable for the costs thereof, all unpaid sheriff's fees on the same before he shall be obligated by law to make return thereof. Sec. 2, Act of June 20, 1911, P.L. 1072 Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: C. Roy Weidner, Jr. I.D. No. 19530 301 Market Street ?. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs GERALD HENDERSON and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF SUBPOENA BY MAIL TO: Doris Goodhart c/o Cumberland County Sheriffs Office The enclosed subpoena is served pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 234.2(b)(3). Complete the acknowledgment part of this form and return the copy of the completed form to the sender in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Sign and date the acknowledgment. If you are served on behalf of a partnership, unincorporated association, corporation or similar entity, indicate under your signature your relationship to that entity. If you are served on behalf of another person and you are authorized to receive the subpoena, indicate under your signature your authority. Date Notice Mailed: Se0tember 3. 2002 JOH/~~F~ART & WEIDNER By://~ ' ~ C. Ro~We~r~r, Jr. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF SUBPOENA Date: :162345 I acknowledge receipt of a copy of the subpoena in the above captioned matter. (Signature) Relationship to entity or authority to receive the subpoena ORIGINAL ROSE MARY KOCH AND T. :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ALLEN KOCH, HER HUSBAND :OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS : V GERALD HENDERSON AND RUSSELL M. BIBLE, DEFENDANTS :NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM : :CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEPOSITION OF: TAKEN BY: BEFORE: DATE: PLACE: DORIS GOODHART DEFENDANT TAMMY L. BOCK, REPORTER-NOTARY PUBLIC OCTOBER 21, 2002, 9:01 A.M. CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA APPEARANCES: LAW OFFICE OF IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. BY: JOHN B. DOUGHERTY, ESQUIRE FOR - PLAINTIFFS JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER BY: C. ROY WEIDNER, IR., ESQUIRE FOR - DEFENDANTS 2080 Linglestown Road · Suite 103 · Harrisburg, PA 17110 717.540.0220 · fax 717.540.0221 · Lancaster 717.393.5101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DORIS GOODHART BY MR. WEIDNER BY MR. DOUGHERTY GOODHART EXHIBIT NO. 1. DOCUMENT 2. DOCUMENT 3. DOCUMENT 4. LE1-FER WITNESS EXHIBITS EXAMINATION 3, 19 12 PRODUCED & MARKED 5 6 6 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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, certification and filing are hereby waived; and that all objections except as to the form of the question are reserved to the time of trial. DORIS GOODHART, called as a witness, being duly sworn, testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. WEIDNER: Is it Mrs Goodhart? A Yes. Q Okay. My name's Roy Weidner. I'm the attorney for the Defendants in the action filed in Cumberland County; 01-5260; Civil Term; Rose Mary Koch, K-O-C-H, and Alan T., her husband; versus Gerald Henderson and Russel M. Bible. We are here today to take your deposition because of an issue of service of process in this case, and because you responded to a letter that I wrote to the sheriff. If I ask you a question and you don't understand, tell me that. And I'll try to rephrase it. Okay? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Okay. Q I have some papers here that are copies. I'll use those as exhibits. I may need t:o either retrieve documents that I don't have if you have them in your file. Have you brought the sheriff's department file and service of process for this case with you? term. A Yes. And tell me your full name to start off with. Doris Goodhart. And you're what in the sheriff's department? Staff assistant. T think that's the correct Q Okay. What do you as staff assistant to the sheriff's department? A I normally process the civil papers that come through. I also do the deputizing of other counties for service, which would pertain to this case. Q Okay. As I said, we're here about a case docketed to 5260 that's an '01 in year. And that's Koch versus Henderson and Bible. A Um-hum. Q There was a writ of summons that issued from the Prothonotary's office on September 6, 2001. Was that sent to the sheriff's department of Cumberland County for servi ce? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A summons? A Yes. We received it September 7th. And what transpired of your receipt of that We deputized Lebanon County for service of Gerald Henderson and Russell Bible at 32 Dairy Lane, Pal myra. Q address? A Q County. A And why was that address used, the Palmyra Was that the one given to your department? Yes. Now, I realize some judge is going to read this so -- but briefly, you deputized the sheriff of Lebanon Is that correct? Yes. And that's because it was an out-of-the-county service? A Correct. Q And that's because the Rules of Civil Procedure require it be served out of county 'in that manner. Is that correct? A Yes. MR. WEIDNER: I'll show !fou what I've marked as Goodhart 1 and pass a copy to counsel. (Document marked Goodhart Exhibit No. 1.) BY MR. WEIDNER: Q Can you identify Goodhart 1, which is Goodhart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit 17 A Q A Can I identify it? Yeah. Can you tell us what it is? Okay. That's a return that I generated from our office stipulating that we deputized the sheriff of Lebanon County for service. Q Okay. And that was to serve? A Gerald Henderson. MR, WEIDNER: Okay. I'll show you Exhibit 2 and pass a copy to counsel. (Document marked Goodhart Exhibit No. 2.) BY MR, WEIDNER: Q And can you identify Exhibit 2? A Okay. Again, we deputized Lebanon County for service. This time it was on Russell Bible. Q Okay. Did you receive back any information concerning what Lebanon County did with regard to service? A Yes. Q And what did they report? A Not found. It said accolrding to Deputy Guliani, the defendants reside outside of this bailiwick, most likely living in Dauphin County, PA. (Document marked Goodhar't Exhibit No. 3.) BY MR. WEIDNER: Q I'm going to show you what's been marked 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Goodhart Exhibit 3 and ask if you can identify that. A That is a copy of the ret:urn from Lebanon County on both Gerald Henderson and Russell Bible. Q And that was received by your sheriff's department from the Lebanon County sheriff. Is that correct? A Yes. Q Now, referring to Exhibits I and 2, do you know what was done with those returns of service after you prepared them? MR. DOUGHERTY: First, I want to place an objection. I don't think she ever testified that she prepared them. BY MR. WEIDNER: Q Okay. Did you prepare the returns of service for Cumberland County Sheriff's Department? A These two, yes, sir. Q That would be Exhibits 1 and 2, correct? A Um-hum. Q What was done after you prepared those returns? A What T do is get the sheriff's signature on those, then they go for any type of refund check that's due back to the Plaintiff's attorney. And after signatures and everything is ready to go, the original goes -- the original return goes to the Prothonotary's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Weinstock? A office, photocopies go in our file jacket, and then the other one would go back to the attorney. Q Now, in the case of the attempt to serve Henderson and Bible, were there refunds due to the Plaintiff's attorney in each of those? A Yes. I don't -- Q You can refer to the exhibits if you need to refresh your recollection. A It's easier here. On September 25th, 2001, there was a refund check issued for $44.32. And who was that issued 1:o? Ira Weinstock. Was that check ultimately sent to Mr. Yes. That would have been -- the check and the returns go together in the same enw.~lope. Q Okay. So the check sent to Mr. Weinstock would have gone to the returns marked Exhibits i and 2 here today? A There should have also been a copy of 3 as wel 1. Q Okay. Then he would haw_~ gotten his check, Exhibits 1, 2 and 3; being the Cumberland County returns for Bible and Henderson and the single Lebanon County sheriff's return for both Bible and Henderson. Is that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 correct? A Q Yes. You have in your hand what appears to be a canceled check. A yes. Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Is that true? Well, it's a photocopy of: our canceled check, And who is it issued to? Ira Weinstock. And what's the date on it? The date of the check? Correct. September 25th. Do you know whether that check was negotiated? Yes, it was. And when was it negotiated? Processed October 1st, 2001. And by process, what do you mean? That's when it cleared tile bank. Is there any endorsement on the check? Pay to the order of Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Company, Ira H. Weinstock, P.C., I guess that is. Q correct? A Q And that's on the back of the check. Is that Yes. And that is check number what? 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you? A A don' t know. you thi s. you. 34107. Do you have any extra copies of that check with I was told not to give you guys this check. I I'm not sure what we need from you to give But that's what I was told, not to give it to MR. WEIDNER: All right. Are you satisfied that the check is authentic, even ii: she doesn't put it into the record? THE WITNESS: That's the copy of the front and that's the copy of the back. MR. DOUGHERTY: Well, I can't stipulate to the authenticity of this check. But based on my answer, I don't think there's a dispute that we received a check. MR. WEIDNER: Okay. BY MR. WEIDNER: Q After that check was issued back to Mr. Weinstock, to your knowledge, what else was done to serve process in this case? A Okay. On April the 30th, we received a reinstated complaint to be served on Gerald Henderson and Russell Bible at 392 Derry Lane, Palmyra, Lebanon County. The attorney also enclosed papers f~rom the post office indicating that both defendants do get mail at that 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 address. Q A Were they ultimately served there? No. We received a second return from Lebanon County indicating that 392 Derry Lane, Palmyra is actually located in Dauphin County and not in Lebanon County. I spoke with the attorney's secretary and informed her of the same. She's going to have the complaint reinstated, and then we are to deputize Dauphin County for service. Q Okay. Going back to the check that you're not allowed to give me, I just want to make sure that's drawn on the Cumberland County Sheriff's Department account. Is that correct? Yes. And that, again, what was the number and date A of issue? A Q A Q September 25th, 2001, check No. 34107. And what bank is it drawn on? M&T. And, again, would you read the endorsement stamp on the back? A Pay to the order of Dauplhin Deposit Bank and Trust Company, Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. Q Now, the check was dated September 25th, 2001. Is that correct? 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Yes. Q And that's the date that the sheriff's returns of service were issued by Cumberlancl County. Ts that correct? A Well, it should be the same. one day difference. No, it is the same. Q Okay. was mai 1 ed? A Yes. MR. WEIDNER: Sometimes there's And they accompanied the check when it No further questions. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGHERTY: Q Mrs. Goodhart, you indicated that you are a staff assistant with the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office. Is that correct? A Yes. Q Are there any other staff assistants that work in the office? A Yes. Q How many others? A One. Q And what's that person's name? A Claudia Brubaker. Is Ms. Brubaker also responsible for handling out-of-county services? 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A details. Q A No. Well, that's okay. If you don't need any What are her responsibilities? She deals with writs of execution and papers that originate outside of Cumberland County. Q Now, are there any other employees in the sheriff's office that deal with out--of-county service? A Well, as far as processing the paper, no. The receptionist is the one who actually makes the photocopies and physically puts the papers in the mail. Q Okay. So after you are -- after you prepare the sheriff's return of service and have it signed by the sheriff, you hand it over to the secretary? A Well, after the guys put their signatures on, it goes in a basket. And she's actually the one that makes the photocopies for the jacket and for the envelope and makes sure everything gets where it needs to go. Q Is she also responsible 'for seeing that the original is filed with the Prothonotary? A Um-hum. Q Now, I noticed during the course of your direct testimony, you were referring to what appeared to be a computer printout? A Yes. That's our docket. Q The docket of the activity that went on with 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 regard to this docket number? A A Um-hum. Through your office. Is that correct? Yes. Would it be fair to say that you don't have any personal knowledge or recollection as to what went on with this, that you don't remember specifically dealing with ail of this, that you' re simply relying on the docket entries that are included in there? A I -- my personal feeling was that most of this problem lies with the Lebanon Count!/ return, because the first return, in my opinion, doesn't stipulate that that address is not in Lebanon County. It just says they're not in Lebanon County but .... Q Okay. Well, let me ask '.you my question again. As you're testifying today, if you didn't have this docket entry in front of you, would you be able to tell us everything that you told us today? A Oh mercy, no. Q Okay. You do probably dozens of these a week, probably. Is that fair to say? A Yes. Q So you're relying basically on the docket entries that are included in front of you today? A Yes. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Now, you brought up, I believe, it's Goodhart Exhibit 3, which is the return from Lebanon County. Is that correct? A Um-hum. Q Now, when you received the precipe for writ of summons that was originally filed on September 7, 2001, did it have the addresses for the Defendants. Is that correct? A Yes. Q Is it typically your responsibility to see where that address is located as far as what county that address is in? A Actually, I think that was on the instruction letter. But normally we verify it. We have a book, which I didn't bring along up, that we look up the town name and it tells us what county that particular town is located in. And Palmyra is listed as being in Lebanon County. Q Okay. From what I understand, where the problem came up is part of Palmyra 'is in Lebanon County and part is in Dauphin County. A Correct. Q Is that correct? A Yes. Q So there's no dispute that this was sent to Lebanon County with the address of -- what is it -- 329 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Derry Street? A 392. Q 392 Derry Street? A I think that's right. Yeah, 392 Derry Lane. Q Okay. Derry Lane. And that's ultimately where the Defendants were served. Ts that correct? A Yes. Well, no, they were actually served in the Dauphin County Sheriff's office.. Q Okay. A But they do reside there. Q They do reside at 392 Derry Lane which is in Dauphin County? A Correct. Q And when you received this summons back, you said the confusion was it never indicated that the individuals or the address that was listed was in Dauphin County? A Q Ri ght. Is that fair to say? Now, you indicated that the typical procedure is once you receive the summons back, you prepare the sheriff's return of service and that was Goodhart Exhibits 1 and 2? A Yes. Q Would it be fair to say you don't have any specific recollection of preparing these specific 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 exhi bi ts? A Q No. Okay. And likewise, would it be fair to say that you don't have any specific recollection of preparing -- or preparing -- preparing an envelope or any type of cover letter to the office of Ira Weinstock with the return of service? A Correct. q Do you typically prepare any type of cover letter indicating here are the returns of service as well as your check? A No. Q So your understanding under the Rules of Civil Procedure is that you' re required to send a return of service or return of no service to 'the Plaintiff's attorney. Is that correct? A To be truthful, I've newer had any type of class on civil processes. That's how I've been trained in the office. Q It's you just doing what you're told? A Exactly. Q Okay. Have you ever received any questions from any other attorneys regarding the failure to send a return of service? A No. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Or return of no service? A Oh, occasionally we'll get calls from secretaries saying that they never received one, or it's been misplaced and we fax them a photocopy. Q And you're referring to exhibits -- Goodhart Exhibits I and 2? A Um-hum. Q Not this specific document but -- A That type. Q The general return of service? A Yes, Q And other than the procedure that you outlined, you have no specific information to confirm that these returns of service were sent to Ira Weinstock, P.C.? MR. WEIDNER: Objection. She testified to a check that he negotiated. BY MR. DOUGHERTY: Q Well, I'm talking about F_xhibits i and 2. A They should have been in the envelope with the check. Q Based on the procedure tl~at you typically use? A Correct. Q Do you know when the returns were filed with the Prothonotary? A These original ones? 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Yes, Exhibits i and 2. A Okay. We did them September 25th. So they would have probably gone down to the Prothonotary's office that following day. Q Do you have anything indicated in the docket as to the exact date that it was filed with the Prothonotary? A No. Q Can you tell for sure from the docket that it was filed with the Prothonotary? A No. But it wouldn't be hard to check with the Prothonotary' s offi ce. Q You're just assuming that since the typical procedure is that they file the original, that it was filed? A Right. But I can be positive that it was, because if it wasn't, Joyce would have called and yelled at us. Q A From the Prothonotary's ,office? Yes. MR. DOUGHERTY: I have n.o further questions. EXAMINATION BY MR. WEIDNER: Q Mrs. Goodhart, did you write a letter to me dated May 2, 2002, in response to an inquiry I made about service on this? 20 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q fi I e? A Q A I have. Yes. And that is, in fact, your letter? Yes. And that's after you researched the sheriff's Yes, Is that correct? Yes, MR, WEIDNER: I will marl( that as Exhibit 4. (Letter marked Goodhart Exhibit No. 4,) MR. WEIDNER: That's all the further questions MR. DOUGHERTY: I have nothing else. (The deposition concluded at 9:16 a.m.) 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND : SS COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : I, Tammy L. Bock, a Notary Public, authorized to administer oaths within and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the testimony of Doris Goodhart. I further certify that before the taking of said deposition, the witness was duly sworn; that the questions and answers were taken down stenographically by the said Reporter-Notary Public, and afterwards reduced to typewriting under the direction of the said Reporter. I further certify that the said deposition was taken at the time and place specified in the caption sheet hereof. I further certify that I am not a relative or employee or attorney or counsel to any of the parties, or a relative or employee of such attorney or counsel, or financially interested directly or indirectly in this action. I further certify said deposition constitutes a true record of the testimony given by said witness. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I haw.· hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of October, 2002. SLE B~RO. GUMBERLAN Muiti-Pag¢~ $44.32 - be DORIS OOODHART account lq 11:12 allsw¢rs [1] 21:9 -$- -6- ACTION [H 1:6 ally [16l 6:16 7:22 $44.32111 8:10 6[31 2:9 2:10 actionF, i 3:15 21:19 9:19 10:2 12:17 4:23 activity[l] 13:25 13:1 13:6 14:5 16:24 17:4 17:5 -&- Actually ill 15:13 17:9 17:17 17:22 &[2] 1:22 2:7 -7- actually [41 11:4 17:23 21:16 7[11 15:6 13:9 13:15 16:7 anything[il 19:5 -*- 7th [1] 5:1 address [gl 5:7 5:8 APPEARANCES [1] 11:1 14:13 15:11 1:18 15:12 15:25 16:16 appeared [il 13:22 '01 Ill 4:19 -9- addresses/il 15:7 appears ill 9:3 -0- 9:01 [il 1:14 administer ill 21:4 April £~] 10:21 01-5260121 1:4 9:16111 20:14 After 1~1 10:18 Ar~ [2] 10:8 12:17 3:16 after £?1 7:9 7:20 -A- 7:23 13:11 13:11 are [12] 3:4 3:5 -1- A [lOO1 3:13 4:1 13:14 20:4 3:19 12:13 4:2 13:3 13:6 11:8 1 [13] 2:8 5:22 4:7 4:9 4:11 afterwards[ii 21:10 13:11 14:9 14:24 5:23 5:25 6:1 4:15 4:21 5:1 Again lq 6:14 17:10 7:8 7:18 8:18 5:4 5:9 5:13 again £51 11:15 11:20 As[i] 4:18 14:16 8:23 16:22 18:6 5:16 5:20 6:2 14:15 !as 1171 3:5 3:8 18:18 19:1 6:4 6:8 6:14 Alan [Il 3:17 3:9 4:3 4:13 6:18 6:20 7:2 12III 2:4 7:7 7:17 7:19 AllI~I 10:8 5:21 8:20 13:8 19[11 2:3 7:21 8:6 8:9 all [3] 3:4 14:8 13:8 14:6 15:11 lst,l 9:16 8:12 8:15 8:20 20:11 15:11 15:17 17:10 17:11 19:5 20:9 9:2 9:5 9:8 ALLEN [Il 1:2 ask [3] 3:23 7:1 9:10 9:12 9:14 allowed ill 11:11 14:15 -2- 9:16 9:18 9:20 2[14] 1:14 2:9 9:24 10:1 10:4 along 111 15:15 assistant 131 4:11 6:9 6:11 6:13 10:21 11:3 11:14 also 151 4::16 8:20 4:13 12:14 7:8 7:18 8:18 11:17 11:19 11:22 10:24 12:24 13:18 assistants lq 12:17 8:23 16:22 18:6 12:1 12:5 12:9 am[il 21:15 assuming lq 19:12 18:18 19:1 19:24 12:16 12:19 12:21 an[61 3:20 4:19 at[?] 5:5 10:23 20Ill 2:11 12:23 13:1 13:4 5:14 7:11 17:5 10:25 16:11 19:17 13:8 13:14 13:20 19:24 2001161 4:23 8:9 13:24 14:2 14:4 20:14 21:13 9:16 11:17 11:24 14:10 14:19 14:22 AND 121 1:1 1:7 attempt [118:3 15:6 14:25 15:4 15:9 And [351 3:24 4:8 attorney[si 3:14 2002 [31 1:14 19:24 15:13 15:21 15:23 4:10 4:19 5:2 7:23 8:2 8:5 21:23 16:2 16:4 16:7 5:7 5:14 5:17 10:24 17:16 21:16 251h [~1 8:9 9:12 16:10 16:13 16:18 6:7 6:13 6:19 21:17 11:17 11:24 19:2 16:23 17:2 17:8 7:4 7:23 8:11 attorney's [q 11:6 2ndtll 21:23 17:12 17:17 17:21 9:7 9:9 9:15 17:25 18:2 18:7 9:17 9:22 9:25 attorlley8 ill 17:23 18:9 18:11 18:19 11:15 11:18 11:20 authentic [il 10:9 -3- 18:22 18:25 19:2 12:2 12:7 12:22 authonticity [il 10:14 3 171 2:3 2:10 19:7 19:10 19:15 13:15 15;:17 16:5 authorized ill 21:3 6:23 7:1 8:20 19:19 20:1 20:3 16:14 17:3 18:5 8:23 15:2 20:6 20:8 18:12 20:2 20:4 30th 111 10:21 al31] 3:8 3:21 and [si] 3::2 3:4 ~B- 3:23 4:18 4:22 3:4 3:16 3:17 Bill 1:20 32 Ill 5:5 5:22 6:4 6:10 3:21 3:23 4:5 :3291u 15:25 7:2 8:10 8:20 4:20 5:5 5:22 back ii01 6:16 7:23 34107 [21 10:1 11:17 9:3 9:5 10:15 6:10 7:1 7:3 8:2 9:22 10:12 39216! 10:23 11:4 10:15 10:21 11:3 7:8 7:118 7:24 10:18 11:10 11:21 16:2 16:3 16:4 12:13 13:15 13:22 8:1 8:'I 8:15 16:14 16:21 16:11 14:20 15:14 17:14 8:18 8:23 8:24 bailiwick 111 6:21 17:23 18:4 18:15 8:24 8:25 9:20 Bailk [2] 9:20 11:22 19:23 21:3 21:15 10:11 10:22 11:5 bank121 9:18 11:18 -4- 21:17 21:20 11:6 11:8 11:15 4131 2:11 20:9 A.MIU 1:14 11:22 13:4 13:10 Based 111 18:21 13:12 13:16 13:17 based i~l 10:14 20:10 a.m Ill 20:14 15:15 15:20 16:21 basically [Ii 14:23 able [~1 14:17 16:22 18:4 18:6 baskot [il 13:15 -5- about i31 4:18 18:18 18:18 19:1 19:16 be [131 5:18 7:18 5 [Il 2:8 19:24 21:4 21:9 21:10 5260 Ill 4:19 accompanied 111 12:7 21:13 9:3 10:22 12:5 13:22 14:5 14:17 according ill 6:20 answer[il 10:14 16:24 17:3 17:17 HU~JltES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ & NATALE Index Page 1 717-540-0220/717-3 93-5101 because - oven Multi-Pascr~ DORIS CJOODHART 19:10 19:15 21:12 21:15 21:20 county[al 5:18 15:11 t~f~,t[ll 13:21 bocause 161 3:20 che~k [271 7:22 8:10 15:16 diroction pi 21:11 3:21 5:14 5:17 8:13 8:15 8:17 cour~ [i] 13:21 dir~tly [1] 21:18 14:11 19:16 8:22 9:4 9:5 COURT [11 1:1 dispttt© [2] 10:15 15:24 b~ [6] 6:25 8:15 9:10 9:13 9:19 COURTHOUSE [21 Do[s] 9:13 10:2 8:20 17:18 18:4 9:22 9:25 10:2 1:15 1:16 17:9 18:23 19:5 18:19 10:4 10:9 10:14 10:15 10:18 11:10 COVCI' [2] 17:6 17:9 do 1~Ol 4:13 4:16 BEFORE 11] 1:12 11:17 11:24 12:7 CUMBERLAND [al 7:8 7:21 9:17 b~foro il! 21:7 17:11 18:16 18:20 1:2 1:15 21:1 10:25 14:20 16:10 being[al 3:8 8:23 19:10 Cnmberland 1si 3:15 16:11 21:5 15:17 CML[21 1:4 1:6 4:24 7:16 8:23 docket[al 13:24 13:25 believe £11 15:1 Civil Ia! 3:16 5:17 11:12 12:3 12:14 14:1 14:8 14:16 b~twoon [1] 3:2 17:13 13:5 14:23 19:5 19:8 BIBLE[il 1:8 civil 121 4:15 17:18 docketed ii1 4:19 Bible19] 3:18 4:20 class/Il 17:18 -D- DOCUMENTial 2:8 2:9 2:10 5:5 6:15 7:3 Claudia 111 12:23 Dairy[i] 5:5 Docnmont [31 5:23 8:4 8:24 8:25 cleared[il 9:18 DATEtl] 1:14 10:23 6:11 6:23 eom~ ill 4:15 date [Sl 9:9 9:10 document Vl 18:8 BOCK[ii 1:12 COMMON[ii 1:1 11:15 12:2 19:6 ; docnme3nts Il! 4:4 Bock I21 21:3 21:25 COMMONWEALTH Ol da[cd [21 11:24 19:24 book[Ii 15:14 21:2 Dauphin [91 6:22 doesn't [2110:9 14:12 both [31 7:3 8:25 i Commonwealth D! 21:4 9:20 11:5 11:8 doing Ill 17:20 10:25 11:22 15:20 16:8 don't jill 3:23 4:4 Company [21 9:21 16:12 16:16 7:12 8:6 10:5 briefly[il 5:11 11:23 10:15 13:1 14:5 day [31 12:6 19:4 bring[il 15:15 complaint [21 10:22 21:23 14:7 16:24 17:4 brought i21 4:5 11:8 deal iii 13:7 done [3] 7:9 7:20 15:1 computer o1 13:23 10:19 Brubakcr 121 12:23 concerning 111 6:17 dealing 111 14:7 DORIS[a] 1:10 2:2 12:24 concluded 111 20:14 deals[il 13:4 3:8 But[61 10:6 10:14 DEFENDANTuI 1:11 Doris[2] 4:9 21:6 15:14 16:10 19:10 confirm 111 18:13 DEFENDANTS t21 DOUGHERTY tal 1:20 19:15 confusion lq 16:15 1:9 1:24 2:4 7:11 10:13 butol 5:11 14:14 constitutes iq 21:20 I)efendants 131 3:15 12:12 18:17 19:20 18:8 copies [21 4:2 10:2 15:7 16:6 20:13 BYu4] 1:11 1:20 copy [~l 5:22 6:10 d©fcndants [21 6:21 down [21 19:3 21:9 1:23 2:3 2:4 7:2 8:20 10:11 10:25 doz~ns ill 14:20 3:11 5:24 6:12 10:12 DEMANDEDtll 1:9 drawn[21 11:11 11:18 6:24 7:14 10:17 Corf©et [~15:16 9:11 I)cp~t [2] 7:16 dug [2] 7:23 8:4 12:12 18:17 19:22 15:21 16:13 17:8 11:12 by I71 3:2 7:4 18:22 dcpa, iment [~i 4:5 DUFFIE Ill 1:22 9:17 12:3 13:12 corrc(gt [181 4:11 4:10 4:14 4:24 duly [21 3:8 21:8 21:9 21:21 5:12 5:19 7:6 5:8 7:5 during[il 13:21 7:18 9:1 9:23 -C- 11:13 11:25 12:4 Deposit 121 9:20 12:15 14:3 15:3 11:22 -E- C[ll 1:23 15:8 15:22 16:6 DEPOSITION ill 1:10 eagh iii 8:5 galled[21 3:8 19:16 17:16 20:7 deposition ts] 3:19 easiertli 8:9 galls pi 18:2 counsel [5] 3:2 20:14 21:8 21:12 came[ii 15:19 5:22 6:10 21:16 21:20 either[ii 4:3 Can [41 5:25 6:2 21:17 deputize pi 11:8 else [21 10:19 20:13 6:3 19:8 counties [~] 4:16 deputized [41 5:4 employee [2] 21:16 can [4] 6:13 7:1 COUNTY [31 1:2 5:11 6:5 6:14 21:17 8:7 19:15 1:15 21:1 deputizing 11! 4:16 cmployccs 111 13:6 can't [1] 10:13 County[as] 3:16 D~.~puty [116:20 enclosed vi 10:24 canceled 12] 9:4 4:24 5:4 5:12 Dcilnj g/] 10:23 11:4 endorsement [2] 9:19 9:5 6:6 6:14 6:17 16:1 16:3 16:4 11:20 6:22 7:3 7:5 16:5 16:11 cnt£ie$ [2] 14:9 14:24 caption ill 21:13 7:16 8:23 8:24 CARLISLE 111 1:17 10:23 11:4 11:5 details[il 13:2 ~ntry ill 14:17 ease [6] 3:20 4:6 11:5 11:9 11:12 Did [21 6:16 7:15 envelope [4] 8:16 4:17 4:18 8:3 12:3 12:14 13:5 did[z] 6:17 6:19 13:16 17:5 18:19 10:20 14:11 14:13 14:14 15:7 19:2 19:23 ESQUIRE [2] 1:20 certification o1 3:4 15:2 15:17 15:19 didn't [21 14:16 15:15 1:23 15:20 15:25 16:8 even iii 10:9 certify[si 21:5 21:7 16:12 16:17 difference iq 12:6 Index Page 2 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ & NATALE 717-540-0220~717-393 -5101 Multi=PageTM ever - just DORIS ~ Cvv, [2] 7:12 17:22 full 111 4:8 HER[il 1:2 indirectly [1] 21:18 everything[al 7:24 further [~1 12:10 19:20 her[a! 3:17 11:7 individuals [~1 16:16 13:17 14:18 20:11 21:7 21:12 13:3 information [21 6:16 exact pi 19:6 21:15 21:20 II, re iq 13:19 4:2 18:13 Exactly ill 17:21 4:18 8:9 8:18 informed iq 11:7 EXAMINATION [4] -O- 17:10 2:2 3:10 12:11 general[ii 18:10 hereby[al 3:2 3:4 inquiry[il 19:24 19:21 21:5 instruction[il 15:13 except[il 3:5 generated [H 6:4 hereof[l] 21:14 interestedul 21:18 GERALD [1] 1:7 hereunto[il 21:22 into iH 10:10 execution [11 13:4 Gerald[si 3:17 5:5 his/ii 8:22 IRA[il 1:19 EXHIBIT Iii 2:7 6:8 7:3 10:22 Exhibit [mi 5:23 getm 7:21 10:25 IHow Ill ]2:20 Ira[q 8:12 9:8 9:21 11:23 17:6 6:1 6:9 6:11 18:2 how[H 17:18 6:13 6:23 7:1 18:14 15:2 20:9 20:10 gets [H 13:17 HUSBAND [H 1:2 Is [24] 3:12 5:12 EXHIBITS iq 2:6 give [4! 10:4 10:5 husband pi 3:17 5:18 7:5 8:25 10:6 11:11 9:4 9:19 9:22 :Exhibits tSl 7:8 given [21 5:8 21:21 -I- 11:12 11:25 12:3 7:18 8:18 8:23 12:15 12:24 13:18 16:22 18:6 18:18 go[q 7:22 7:24 I[44] 3:21 3:23 14:3 14:21 15:2 19:1 8:1 8:2 8:16 4:2 4:3 4:4 15:7 15:10 15:22 exhibits [nl 4:3 13:17 4:11 4:15 4:16 16:6 16:19 17:16 8:7 17:1 18:5 goes [al 7:25 7:25 4:18 5:10 6:2 20:7 extra u] 10:2 13:15 6:4 7:11 7:12 is 1a21 3:2 5:10 Going o1 11:10 7:21 8:6 9:21 5:25 6:3 7:2 -F- going Ol 5:10 6:25 10:4 10:4 10:6 7:21 7:24 9:7 11:7 10:13 10:14 11:6 9:21 9:25 10:9 11:11 13:21 14:10 11:4 11:18 12:6 fact[il 20:2 gone [2] 8:18 19:3 15:1 15:13 15:15 13:9 13:19 14:13 failure[il 17:23 GOODHART iq 1:10 15:18 16:4 19:15 15:2 15:11 15:12 fair[z] 14:5 14:21 2:2 2:7 3:8 19:20 1!9:24 20:9 15:16 15:17 15:19 16:19 16:24 17:3 Goodhart [iCl 3:12 20:12 213:13 21:3 15:19 15:20 15:25 far [21 13:8 15:11 4:9 5:22 5:23 21:7 21:12 21:15 16:11 16:20 17:14 fax[l] 18:4 5:25 5:25 6:11 21:15 21:20 21:22 19:13 20:2 21:5 feeling iq 14:10 6:23 7:1 12:13 I'll iq 3:24 4:2 issue [21 3:20 11:16 15:1 16:22 18:5 5:21 6:9 issued iq 4:22 8:10 file [51 4:4 4:5 19:23 20:10 21:6 I'm[4] 3:14 6:25 8:11 9:7 10:18 8:1 19:13 20:5 gotten[il 8:22 10:5 18:18 filed 171 3:15 13:19 12:3 15:6 18:23 19:6 guess iii 9:21 I've[al 5:21 17:17 It[al 3:2 6:20 19:9 19:14 Guliani 11! 6:21 17:18 14:13 filing tq 3:4 guys 121 10:4 13:14 identify 14] 5:25 ,it [aSl 3:12 3:24 financially[il 21:18 6:2 6:13 7:1 5:1 5:14 5:18 First[il 7:11 -H- ,If[21 3:23 13:1 6:2 6:3 6:15 if iq 4:4 7:1 9:7 9:9 9:14 first[il 14:12 H[al 1:19 9:21 8:7 10:9 14:16 9:15 9:18 10:6 following[il 19:4 11:23 19:16 10:9 11:18 12:5 follows[il 3:9 hadul 17:17 IN[21 1:1 21:22 12:6 12:7 13:12 13:13 13:15 13:17 FOR [21 1:21 1:24 hand o1 9:3 13:13 in [41] 3:15 3:15 14:5 15:7 15:10 for 1221 3:3 3:15 21:22 3:20 4:4 4:10 15:14 15:16 15:25 4:6 4:16 4:24 handling[il 12:24 4:19 5:18 6:22 16:15 16:24 17:3 5:4 6:6 6:14 hard IH 19:10 8:1 8:3 8:5 19:6 19:8 19:10 7:16 7:22 8:10 Have [21 4:5 17:22 8:16 9:3 10:20 19:13 19:15 19:16 8:24 8:25 11:9 have [261 4:2 4:4 11:5 11:5 12:18 It's [21 8:9 17:20 12:24 13:16 13:16 13:6 13:10 13:15 13:18 15:5 15:7 4:4 8:15 8:18 14:9 14:12 14:13 it's la] 9:5 15:1 19:8 21:4 8:20 8:22 9:3 14:14 14:17 14:24 18:3 10:2 11:7 13:12 15:12 15:17 15:17 foregoing 111 21:5 14:5 14:16 15:7 15:19 15:20 16:7 ~j_ folnl ill 3:5 15:14 16:24 17:4 16:11 16::16 17:18 foundlq 6:20 18:13 18:19 19:3 18:19 19:5 19:24 jacket[zl 8:1 13:16 From [21 15:18 19:18 19:5 19:16 19:20 20:2 21:13 21:18 JOH]hl IH 1:20 20:12 20:13 21:22 included [21 14:9 JOHNSON Ill 1:22 from[iii 4:22 6:4 he[21 8:22 18:16 7:2 7:5 10:5 14:24 Joyee [1] 19:16 10:24 11:3 15:2 HENDERSON[il 1:7 indicated [41 12:13 JR[l] 1:23 17:23 18:2 19:8 Henderson 1~1 3:17 16:15 16:19 19:5 judge iii 5:1o front 1al 10:11 14:17 4:20 5:5 6:8 indicating o] 10:25 14:24 7:3 8:4 8:24 11:4 17:10 JURY IH 1:9 8:25 10:22 Just [41 11:11 14:13 ., , FOLTZ & NATALE Index Page 3 717-540-02201717-393-5101 K-O-C-H - Plaintiff's Multi-Page ; GOODHART 17:20 19:12 m~ is] 3:24 4:8 objections Ill 3:5 ones [ti 18:25 11:11 14:15 19:23 occasionally[al 18:2 opinion [11 14:12 -K- ii. an Ill 9:17 OCTOBER []] 1:14 Or [11 18:1 m~rcy D] 14:19 October [2] 9:16 orD4] 14:6 16:16 K-O-C-H m 3:16 misplaced m 18:4 21:23 17:5 17:5 17:15 know [4] 7:8 9:13 18:3 21:15 21:16 10:5 18:23 most [2] 6:22 14:10 OF[6! 1:1 1:2 knowledge [21 10:19 MR [23] 2:3 2:4 1:10 1:19 21:1 21:16 21:16 21:17 14:6 kll 5:21 5:24 21:2 21:17 21:17 21:18 6:9 6:12 6:24 offal 3:5 3:6 order [21 9:20 11:22 KOCH [2] 1:1 1:2 7:11 7:14 10:8 3:20 3:20 3:20 origillal [si 7:24 Koch [2] 3:16 4:19 10:13 10:16 10:17 4:6 4:16 4:22 7:25 13:19 18:25 12:10 12:12 18:15 4:24 5:2 5:2 19:13 -L- 18:17 19:20 19:22 5:4 5:11 5:17 originally 01 15:6 20:9 20:11 20:13 5:18 6:5 6:21 originate[al 13:5 L[al 1:12 21:3 Mr[3l 8:13 8:17 7:2 7:9 7:15 21:25 10:18 7:22 8:3 8:5 oth~l [61 4:16 8:2 8:20 9:5 9:10 12:17 13:6 17:23 Lane [61 5:5 10:23 Mis[a] 3:12 12:13 9:20 9:22 10:2 18:12 11:4 16:4 16:5 19:23 10:11 10:12 10:14 ethos pi 12:20 16:11 MsB] 12:24 11:7 11:16 11:22 oux [4] 6:5 8:1 LAW t21 1:6 1:19 Lebanon pSl 5:4 MyBI 3:14 12:3 13:4 13:5 9:5 13:24 5:11 6:6 6:14 my[s1 10:14 14:10 13:12 13:21 13:25 outtH 5:18 6:17 7:2 7:5 14:12 14:15 21:22 14:8 14:10 14:17 14:20 14:24 15:5 out-of-county m 12:25 8:24 10:23 11:3 15:19 15:25 16:21 13:7 11:5 14:11 14:13 -N- 16:25 17:4 17:5 out=of-th~=¢ounty el 14:14 15:2 15:17 17:6 17:7 17:9 5:14 15:19 15:25 nam~ [31 4:8 12:22 15:15 17:10 17:13 17:14 outlined tH 18:12 l~tu] 14:15 17:15 17:17 17:24 outside 12] 6:21 13:5 nantes Ul 3:14 18:1 18:10 18:14 LETTER[q 2:11 nocd [41 4:3 8:7 21:4 21:6 21:7 orgY' Iai 13:13 I~tt~ Di 20:10 10:5 13:1 21:11 21:16 21:17 letter iq 3:21 15:14 n~ds [ii 13:17 21:21 21:23 -p- 17:6 17:10 19:23 20:2 negotiated o] 9:13 off[i] 4:8 P.C Iai 1:19 9:21 9:15 18:16 OFFICE [11 1:19 11:23 lies el 14:11 never[al 16:15 17:17 Offi~u] 12:15 P.C.[i] 18:14 likely D] 6:22 18:3 offi~ [aa] 4:23 6:5 PA O1 6:22 likewise [al 17:3 NO[21 1:4 2:7 8:1 10:24 12:18 Palmyra iq 5:6 listed [21 15:17 16:16 No[iq 5:23 6:11 13:7 14:3 16:8 5:7 10:23 11:4 living IH 6:22 6:23 11:3 11:17 17:6 17:19 19:3 15:17 15:19 located 1a1 11:5 15:11 12:6 12:10 13:1 19:11 19:18 15:16 17:2 17:12 17:25 Oh[2] 14:19 18:2 paper Bi 13:8 lookB] 15:15 19:7 19:10 20:10 Okay[2q 3:14 3:25 papers[si 4:2 4:15 10:24 13:4 13:10 no[s] 13:8 14:19 4:1 4:13 4:18 15:24 16:7 17:15 6:4 6:7 6:9 part [21 15:19 15:20 -M- 18:1 18:13 19:20 6:14 6:16 7:15 particttlar ill 15:16 MI2] 1:8 3:18 normally [21 4:15 8:17 8:22 10:16 parties 12! 3:3 21:16 M&TOI 11:19 15:14 10:21 11:10 12:7 pass 121 5:22 6:10 made[a] 19:24 Not [21 6:20 18:8 13:11 14:15 14:20 15:18 16:5 16:9 Pay [21 9:20 11:22 mail [2] 10:25 13:10 not [81 10:4 10:5 17:3 17:22 19:2 ?ENNSYLVANIA i31 mailed[al 12:8 10:6 11:5 11:10 1:2 1:17 21:2 make[il 11:11 14:13 14:14 21:15 okay[il 13:1 On121 8:9 10:21 Pennsylvania Ol 21:5 Notary Ul 21:3 pOl'8On*S BI 12:22 makes [al 13:9 13:16 nothing Di 20:13 on [221 4:23 6:15 13:17 7:3 7:21 9:9 l~rsonal [21 14:6 manner Bi 5:18 noticed O1 13:21 9:19 9:22 10:14 14:10 man), iai 12:20 Now [91 5:10 7:8 10:22 11:12 11:18 portaili Bi 4:17 8:3 11:24 13:6 11:21 13:14 13:25 photocopies[al 8:1 mark[al 20:9 13:21 15:1 15:5 14:6 14:8 14:23 13:9 13:16 'MARKED[al 2:7 16:19 15:6 15:13 17:18 marked t~l 5:21 5:23 mlmbor [al 9:25 11:15 18:21 19:25 photocopy [21 9:5 18:4 6:11 6:23 6:25 14:1 onc~ [11 16:20 ~hysically BI 13:10 8:18 20:10 ONE [1] 1:16 PLACE[il 1:15 MARY BI 1:1 -O- OnoD] 12:21 Mary[al 3:16 oathsDi 21:4 ono[q 5:8 8:2 plae~[21 7:11 21:13 May iai 19:24 Objection Ill 18:15 12:6 13:9 13:15 Plaintiff's [al 7:23 may[il 4:3 objection pi 7:12 18:3 8:5 17:15 Index Page 4 HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FO] 717-540-0220/717-393-5101 Multi-PageTM PLAINTIFFS - Street PLAINTIFFS [21 1:3 16:14 16:19 16:24 msponsibJilities Ill 13:3 17:7 17:10 17:15 1:21 17:3 17:9 17:13 rcsponsibi[lity gl 15:10 17:15 17:24 18:1 PLEAS Iq 1:1 17:20 17:22 18:1 responsible 121 12:24 18:10 18:14 19:25 )ositive UI 19:15 18:5 18:8 18:10 18:12 18:18 18:21 13:18 services [1] 12:25 lost[il 10:24 18:23 19:1 19:5 retrieve iii 4:3 sgtul 21:22 prt~il~ ill 15:5 19:8 19:12 19:18 return[lq ,6:4 7:2 Sh~ [21 13:4 18:15 pl~palx~ [417:15 13:11 19:23 20:2 20:4 7:25 8:25 11:3 sh~ [41 7:12 7:12 16:21 17:9 20:7 13:12 14:11 14:12 10:9 13:18 prepared Iai 7:10 question [al 3:5 15:2 16:21 17:7 SIn's U1 11:7 7:13 7:20 3:23 14:15 17:14 17:15 17:24 preparing i41 16:25 questions Is] 12:10 18:1 118:10 she's [11 13:15 17:4 17:5 17:5 17:22 19:20 20:11 returns [lo] 7:9 sheet[il 21:13 printout el 13:23 21:8 7:15 7:20 8:16 sheriff [Sl 3:22 5:11 8:18 8:23 12:2 6:5 7:5 13:13 probably[al 14:20 17:10 ].8:14 18:23 Sheriff's [41 7:16 14:21 19:3 -R~ , Right [21 16:18 19:15 11:12 12:14 16:8 >roblem [2] 14:11 read [21 5:10 11:20 right [21 10:8 16:4 sheriff's [12] 4:5 15:19 reading Iii 3:3 ROSE iq 1:1 4:10 4:14 4:24 Ptoc~dilI~ [2] 5:17 ready Ill 7:24 7:4 7:21 8:25 17:14 Rose[il 3:16 12:2 13:7 13:12 procedure [41 16:20 realiz~ ill 5:10 ROY[il 1:23 16:21 20:4 18:12 18:21 19:13 receipt[il 5:2 Roy[i] 3:14 shouldlal 8:20 12:5 procesS[si3:20 4:6 receive[21 6:16 16:20 Rulcs[21 5:17 17:13 18:19 4:15 9:17 10:20 received [91 5:1 Russcl Ill 3:17 show[al 5:21 6:9 Processed [11 9:16 7:4 10:15 10:21 RUSSELL[il 1:8 6:25 11:3 15:5 16:14 processes iii 17:18 17:22 18:3 Russell 141 5:5 6:15 signature [11 7:21 processing Ill 13:8 receptionist Ill 13:9 7:3 10:23 signatures I21 7:24 PRODUCED iq 2:7 re. collection [41 8:8 13:14 Prothonotary [41 13:19 14:6 16:25 17:4 -S- signod [11 13:12 signing ill 3:3 18:24 19:6 19:9 record[2] 10:10 21:21 said191 4:18 6:20 simplylli 14:8 Prothonotary's is] 4:23 reduced Ill 21:10 16:15 21:7 21:9 7:25 19:3 19:11 21:11 21:12 21:20 since[il 19:12 19:18 refer[il 8:7 21:21 single Ill 8:24 PIJBLIC ul 1:13 refcrring [al 7:8 Public[al 21:3 21:10 13:22 18:5 same [41 8:16 11:7 sirlq 7:17 21:25 refresh Ill 8:8 12:5 12:6 So Iq 8:17 13:11 put 121 10:9 13:14 reftmd 121 7:22 8:10 satisfied lq 10:8 14:23 15:24 17:13 say 1~1 1,1:5 14:21 19:2 puts[l] 13:10 refunds[il 8:4 16:19 16:24 17:3 so[il 5:11 regard[2] 6:17 14:1 saying[il 18:3 son~[2] 4:2 5:10 _Q_ regarding[i] 17:23 says[il 14.:13 Sonlotin~s ul 12:5 reinstated [21 10:22 sealing ill 3::3 specific Q [lo21 3:12 3:14 11:8 16:25 4:2 4:8 4:10 relative [21 21:15 second 11] 11:3 16:25 17:4 18:8 4:13 4:18 4:22 18:13 5:2 5:7 5:10 21:17 secrctar!'¢s Iii 18:3 5:14 5:17 5:25 relying 121 14:8 14:23 Segretary 12] 11:6 specifically[il 14:7 13:13 specified [11 21:13 6:3 6:7 6:13 remember[il 14:7 see [11 15:10 spoke iH 11:6 6:16 6:19 6:25 rephrasc [11 3:24 seeing iq 13:18 SQUARE[il 1:16 7:4 7:8 7:15 report Iq 6:19 7:18 7:20 8:3 8:7 8:11 8:13 Rcportcr iq 21:11 send [2] 17:14 17:23 SS[il 21:1 sent[si 4:24 8:13 Staff[il 4:11 8:17 8:22 9:3 REPORTER-NOTARY 111 8:17 15:24 18:14 staff[al 4:13 12:14 9:7 9:9 9:11 1:13 September[al 4:23 12:17 9:13 9:15 9:17 Reporter-Notary 121 5:1 8:9 9:12 stamp vi 11:21 9:19 9:22 9:25 21:10 21:25 10:2 10:18 11:2 11:17 11:24 15:6 start[il 4:8 11:10 11:15 11:18 requil~ [1] 5:18 19:2 11:20 11:24 12:2 required [11 17:14 serve [al 6:7 8:3 stenographically 12:7 12:13 12:17 rescarchcd iq 20:4 10:19 21:9 12:20 12:22 12:24 reserved [11 3:6 servcd fsi 5:18 10:22 STEWART rll 1:22 13:3 13:6 13:11 residc ia/ 6:21 16:10 11:2 16:6 16:7 stipulate [21 10:13 13:18 13:21 13:25 14:12 14:3 14:5 14:15 16:11 service [25] 3:20 stipulated el 3:2 14:20 14:23 15:1 respective[il 3:3 4:5 4:17 4:25 5:4 5:1:5 6:6 stipulating[il 6:5 15:5 15:10 15:18 responded[il 3:21 6:15 6:17 7:9 STIPULATION ill 3:1 15:22 15:24 16:3 response[il 19:24 7:15 11:9 12:3 Streot [21 16:1 16:3 16:5 16:9 16:11 13:7 13:12 16:21 · ', & NATALE Index Page 5 717-540-0220/717-393 -5101 such- We Multi-Pagem such 1~! 21:17 21:7 21:8 21:12 Th~n D] 8:22 toldiq 10:4 10:6 SnmmOn$ [51 4:22 21:15 thou 13] 7:22 8:1 14:18 17:20 5:3 15:6 16:14 Thatt$ [6] 6:4 9:18 11:8 towti iai 15:15 15:16 16:20 10:11 13:24 17:18 Thoro[2] 4:22 8:20 traincdm 17:18 $ttI~ [41 10:5 11:11 20:11 ~[s] 8:4 8:10 transpLr~d 1~] 5:2 13:17 19:8 that'sHsl 4:11 4:19 9:19 11:2 12:17 TRIAL[H 1:9 SWOI~ [2] 3:9 21:8 4:19 5:14 5:17 13:6 14:9 16:10 trial IH 3:6 7:22 9:22 10:6 thcfo'$ [al 10:15 12:5 tfti~ [21 9:4 21:21 10:12 11:11 12:2 15:24 -T- 13:1 16:4 16:5 Trust 1a1 9:21 11:23 TI2] 1:1 3:17 20:4 These 121 7:17 18:25 tnlthftil [1] 17:17 take tH 3:19 THE 121 1:1 10:11 those Iai 14:20 16:25 18:13 tI~[H 3:24 TAKEN IH 1:11 Thc [61 9:10 10:24 twoH] 7:17 13:8 13:25 18:10 They [21 16:11 18:19 takoll iii 21:9 21:13 20:14 thoy [91 6:19 7:22 typ© is] 7:22 17:5 taking H! 21:7 tho H53] 3:3 3:5 11:2 12:7 16:7 17:9 17:i7 18:9 talking [~1 18:18 3:5 3:6 3:14 16:10 18:3 19:2 typewriting 111 21:11 TAMMY 1a1 1:12 3:15 3:15 3:21 19:13 typical [al 16:20 19:12 Tammy [21 21:3 4:5 4:10 4:11 thoy'ro D1 14:13 typically Ia! 15:10 21:25 4:13 4:15 4:16 thillk [5] 4:11 7:12 17:9 18:21 4:23 4:24 5:7 10:15 15:13 16:4 tell [Sl 3:24 4:8 5:8 5:11 5:17 This DI 6:15 6:3 14:17 19:8 6:5 6:21 7:2 tells IH 15:16 7:5 7:15 7:21 this [2oi 3:20 4:6 ultimately [al 8:13 TERM[II 1:4 7:23 7:24 7:25 4:17 5:10 6:21 11:2 16:5 Term IH 3:16 7:25 8:1 8:2 10:4 10:6 10:14 8:3 8:3 8:4 10:20 14:1 14:7 Um-hnm [6] 4:21 ,terlll pi 4:12 8:7 8:15 8:15 14:8 14:10 14:16 7:19 13:20 14:2 testified 1~1 3:9 8:16 8:17 8:18 15:24 16:14 18:8 15:4 18:7 7:12 18:15 8:23 8:24 9:9 19:25 21:18 21:23 treaty [2] 17:13 21:11 testifying [11 14:16 9:10 9:18 9:19 those[si 4:3 7:9 understand 121 3:24 testimony I31 13:22 9:20 9:22 9:22 7:20 7:22 8:5 15:18 21:6 21:21 10:9 10:10 10:11 Through Hi 14:3 understanding tH 17:13 10:11 10:12 10:12 thfotigh Hi 4:16 tip[nj 15:1 15:15 than HI 18:12 10:13 10:21 10:24 15:15 15:19 That[il 7:2 7:18 11:6 11:7 11:7 time 1al 3:6 6:15 8:15 18:9 11:10 11:12 11:15 21:13 US[S] 6:3 14:17 that Ho2] 3:3 3:4 11:20 11:21 11:22 ToH] 17:17 14:18 15:16 19:17 3:21 3:24 4:2 11:24 12:2 12:2 to 1aal 3:5 3:6 118¢[21 4:3 18:21 4:4 4:15 4:22 12:5 12:6 12:7 3:19 3:21 3:21 tisod IH 5:7 4:23 5:2 5:7 12:14 12:18 13:6 3:24 4:3 4:8 5:8 5:12 5:18 13:8 13:9 13:9 4:13 4:17 4:19 -V- 5:19 6:4 6:5 13:10 13:10 13:12 4:24 5:8 5:10 6:7 7:1 7:4 13:12 13:13 13:14 5:22 6:7 6:10 VI1] 1:5 7:5 7:12 8:11 13:15 13:16 13:16 6:17 6:20 6:25 vorify IH 15:14 8:13 8:25 9:4 13:16 13:18 13:19 7:8 7:11 7:23 VOlSti$ [2] 3:17 4:20 9:13 9:21 9:22 13:21 13:25 14:8 7:24 7:25 8:2 9:25 10:2 10:9 14:11 14:11 14:23 8:3 8:4 8:7 10:15 10:18 10:25 15:2 15:5 15:7 8:7 8:11 8:13 -W- 10:25 11:4 11:10 15:7 15:13 15:15 8:17 8:18 9:3 waived[l] 3:4 11:13 11:15 11:25 15:18 15:25 16:6 9:7 9:20 10:4 12:2 12:3 12:13 16:8 16:15 16:15 10:5 10:6 10:6 want [2] 7:11 11:11 12:15 12:17 12:22 16:16 16:20 16:20 10:13 10:18 10:19 Wa8 iai 4:23 5:8 13:5 13:7 13:15 16:21 17:6 17:6 10:19 10:22 11:7 8:13 13:18 13:25 14:3 17:10 17:13 17:15 11:8 11:10 11:11 was[an] 4:22 5:7 14:5 14:7 14:8 17:19 17:23 18:12 11:11 11:22 13:13 5:14 6:7 6:15 14:9 14:I0 14:12 18:19 18:19 18:21 13:17 13:22 13:22 7:4 7:9 7:20 14:12 14:18 14:21 18:23 18:24 19:3 14:1 14:5 14:6 8:10 8:11 9:13 14:24 15:3 15:6 19:5 19:6 19:6 14:17 14:21 15:10 9:14 9:15 10:4 15:7 15:11 15:11 19:8 19:9 19:10 15:24 16:19 16:24 10:6 10:18 10:19 15:13 15:15 15:16 19:12 19:13 19:18 17:3 17:6 17:14 11:15 11:24 12:8 15:22 15:24 16:6 20:4 20:11 21:4 17:15 17:23 18:5 14:10 15:6 15:13 16:15 16:16 16:19 21:5 21:5 21:7 18:13 18:14 18:15 15:24 16:15 16:16 16:19 16:21 17:4 21:8 21:8 21:9 19:3 19:6 19:10 16:16 16:22 19:6 17:14 17:16 18:3 21:11 21:11 21:12 19:23 19:24 21:3 19:9 19:13 19:I5 18:12 18:13 18:16 21:13 21:13 21:16 21:10 21:16 21:8 21:12 18:21 19:4 19:6 21:21 today[~l 3:19 8:19 wasn't[~l 19:16 19:8 19:12 19:13 thoir [11 13:14 14:16 14:18 14:24 Wo[al 3:19 5:1 19:13 19:15 20:2 thom [Sl 4:4 7:10 togothoI [11 8:16 5:4 11:3 15:14 20:7 20:9 21:5 7:13 18:4 19:2 Index Page 6 HUGItliS, ALB 717=54[_02201717=393_5101 Multi-PageTM we- your uU~d~ ¢JUUDHART 19:2 Vt/ITIqESS [3! 2:1 15:10 17:11 17:13 we[91 6:5 6:14 10:11 21:22 20:2 10:5 10:15 10:21 witlless [3] 3:8 11:8 15:14 15:15 21:8 21:21 18:4 work[t! 12:17 we'll it! 18:2 Would [2] 14:5 16:24 Wetll~[H 4:18 would[.l 4:17 7:18 w~k BI 14:20 8:2 8:15 8:17 WEIDNER £tSl 1:22 8:22 11:20 14:17 1:23 2:3 3:11 17:3 19:3 19:16 5:21 5:24 6:9 wouldn't [1] 19:10 6:12 6:24 7:14 wlit 12] 4:22 15:5 10:8 10:16 10:17 12:10 18:15 19:22 writo [1] 19:23 20:9 20:11 writs [1] 13:4 Wcidner 1t1 3:14 wrote 11] 3:21 WEINSTOCK 1~1 1:19 Wcinstock [91 8:12 -y- 8:14 8:17 9:8 Yeah 121 6:3 16:4 9:21 10:19 11:23 17:6 18:14 year PI 4:19 Well i9! 9:5 10:13 ~'cllcd 1tl 19:16 12:5 13:1 13:8 Yes [331 3:13 4:7 13:14 14:15 16:7 5:1 5:9 5:13 18:18 5:20 6:18 7:7 well [21 8:21 17:10 8:6 8:15 9:2 9:14 9:24 11:14 went [2] 13:25 14:6 12:1 12:9 12:16 Wel'¢ itl 11:2 12:19 13:24 14:4 were 18] 8:4 12:3 14:22 14:25 15:9 13:22 16:6 16:7 15:23 16:7 16:23 18:14 18:23 21:9 18:11 19:1 19:19 What [41 4:13 7:20 20:1 20:3 20:6 7:21 13:3 20:8 what [221 4:10 5:2 ~eS [21 7:17 9:6 5:21 6:3 6:17 You [3] 8:7 9:3 6:19 7:9 9:3 14:20 9:17 9:25 10:5 you 166] 3:21 3:23 10:6 10:19 11:15 3:23 4:4 4:5 11:18 13:22 14:6 4:6 4:13 5:11 15:11 15:16 15:18 5:21 5:25 6:3 15:25 17:20 6:9 6:13 6:16 what's pl 6:25 9:9 6:25 7:1 7:8 12:22 7:9 7:15 7:20 wh~ll [6] 9:15 9:18 8:7 9:13 9:17 12:7 15:5 16:14 10:2 10:3 10:4 18:23 10:5 10:6 10:7 10:8 11:20 12:13 whoro [4] 13:17 15:11 12:13 13:1 13:11 15:18 16:5 13:11 13:13 13:22 WHEREOF 111 21:22 14:5 14:7 14:15 whothcf Itl 9:13 14:16 14:17 14:17 which [~1 4:17 5:25 14:18 14:24 15:1 15:2 15:14 16:11 15:5 16:14 16:14 16:19 16:20 16:21 who [31 8:11 9:7 16:24 17:4 17:9 13:9 17:20 17:22 18:12 whyltl 5:7 18:13 18:21 18:23 will [11 20:9 19:5 19:8 19:23 with [21l 4:6 4:8 20:4 6:17 7:9 10:2 ¥OU'1'¢ Itl 19:12 11:6 12:14 13:4 you'/o Is] 4:10 11:10 13:7 13:19 13:25 14:8 14:16 14:23 14:6 14:7 14:11 17:14 17:20 18:5 15:25 17:6 18:19 18:23 19:6 19:9 your its] 3:19 4:4 19:10 4:8 5:2 5:8 7:4 8:8 9:3 within[ii 21:4 10:19 13:21 14:3 717-540-0'220/717-393-5101 ~E Index Page 7 O [GINAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY ROSE MARY KOCH T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, x and : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM Plaintiffs, ' : : : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED x vs. GERALD HENDERSON and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF LINDA WITMER 800 North Second Street November 25, 2002 Harrisburg, PA 2:00 p.m. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed that the reading, signing and sealing of the within transcript is waived. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED and agreed that all objections except a to the form of the question are reserved to the time of trial. LEARY REPORTING 112 West Main Street, Ste. 200 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 (717) 233-2660 Fax (717) 691-7768 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: LAW OF 800 No Harris By: J ( JOHNSO 301 Ma P.O. B Lemoyn By: C FICES OF IRA H. WEINSTOCK rth Second Street burg, PA 17102 OHN B. DOUGHERTY, ESQ. 717) 238-1657 For Plaintiffs N, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER rket Street ox 109 e, PA 17043-0109 · ROY WEIDNER, JR., ESQ. For Defendant 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WITNESS Linda EXHIBIT 1 2 3 Witmer E X H DESCR Fax f depar Lette Dough Offic Lette Weins Proth N D E X EXAMINATION BY Mr. Dougherty Mr. Weidner I B I T S IPTION rom sheriff's tment r from Mr. erty to Post e r from Mr. rock to onotary PAGE 4, 11 PAGE 8 9 17 3 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sworn by examined PROCEEDINGS LINDA WITMER, having been duly Lucinda K. Hoffman, Notary Public, and testified as follows: was MR. DOUGHERTY: We're here today, November 25, 2002, for the deposition of Linda Witmer in the case of Koch versus Henderson and Bible on the defendant's preliminary objections to plaintiff's complaint. BY MR. EXAMINATION DOUGHERTY: Q Please state your A Linda Witmer. Q And employed? A I've Mr. Weinstock for name? Miss Witmer, how are you been a legal many years. secretary for your position at that Q And of 2001, were you A Yes, I was. Q And what was time? back in September and October employed in that capacity? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Legal secretary. Q And just describe duties were in that position? A I answer phones, type pleadings, file pleadings courthouses. you far as that? a pile then I for that what your job open the mail, with A As I open the mail, I put them in for each of the five attorneys. And go through and open that particular pile that attorney and give that pile of mail to attorney for-- Q Is there anything that you work on yourself? A As I go through the mail, only basically for Mr. Weinstock, there are things like bills from arbitrators or American Arbitration, I will pull those off for my own and send them directly to our clients. Q How about with regard to divorce and things like that? A If I file a divorce out of county Q In regard to opening mail, could just elaborate in a little more detail as what your procedure is, what you do with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 and I get the complaint back, I will serve the defendant with it. I will do a cover letter and everything. know what Q Koch case, all with A expiring, a writ of the cover County. Q that was Can you please? A up to the filing costs. Q September A Q I get waivers the next procedure How about with did you have any back, is. you know, I regard to the Rose responsibilities at regard to that case? When it got close to the statute I was told to prepare a praecipe for summons, which I did, and typed up letter and sent it to Cumberland I'm going to show you a document previously marked Witmer Exhibit 3. identify that document for us, It's a cover letter that I typed Cumberland County with the praecipe and fees for the prothonotary, sheriff's , Was that 2001, to Yes. D© you sent out on or your knowledge? about remember receiving any 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 response at all A We check from the Q Do a refund check? A Q A Q A Q in with the A Q recollection, A objections. the sheriff's served with a Q objections filed? A complaint. Q from the sheriff's office? would have gotten a refund sheriff's department. you remember if we did receive Yes. Do you remember when The end of September. Of 20017 2001. Was there anything else refund check? No. What was done, to your after that point? We received preliminary And I was asked to find department if the writ of summons. Before the preliminary were filed, was there a that came in? that was out from defendants were complaint I know there was a rule to file a And then we received preliminary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 objections from the defendant? A Right. Q What did you do after the preliminary objections were served? A I was asked to find out whether or not the defendants were served. Q What did you do? A When I called the department, I was told that they served. And I asked for a return because I did not have one. And faxed a return of services to me. sheriff's were not of service then they for Exhibit Number BY MR. DOUGHERTY: Q I'm going we've marked as Witmer identify that, please? A It's a fax the sheriff's department. Q And what is (Whereupon the document identification as Witmer 1.) document? A It would be to show Exhibit that I was marked Deposition you a document 1. Can you received from included in the return that of services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 for Mr. Q receive service A Q A Q point to A verify, address, used on Henderson Prior or did this with regard No. --that No. the and Mr. to April office to-- Bible. 9 of 2002, did you receive a return of complaint? What steps effect service? We wrote to the guess, asking for which was the same praecipe. were taken at that post office to their current address that we BY MR. that post going to marked as Witmer Um-hum. Can you It's the the document was marked as Witmer Deposition show you a Exhibit 2. document (Whereupon for identification Exhibit Number 2.) DOUGHERTY: Q I'm was A Q A office. identify that, please? letter that went to the Q Did we receive a response from the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 post office? A bottom of Q indicate? A address. Q that. Is that the Yes. There is a notation on the letter. And what does the notation Customer resides at the above What steps were taken at strike There are two pages to that document. correct? Yes. One for each defendant. And is the same response on both taken at that A of those? A Yes . Q What steps were point to effect service? A We contacted the sheriff's department and asked them to make service of the complaint at the addresses. Q And to your recollection, what happened after that? A The sheriff's department tried to serve Lebanon County. And they got a notation from Lebanon County that they did not reside in Lebanon County, that the Palmyra address was a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 Dauphin County address. And we had another fee to pay the sheriff's department in Dauphin County. them to Q Sheriff? A Q effected Office? A no deputize To pay the Cumberland Right. And %o your knowledge, through the Dauphin County Right. MR. DOUGHERTY: further questions. Ail that we had order for County was service Sheriff's right. I have EXAMINATION BY MR. WEIDNER: Q Miss Witmer, mail the September 4, 2001 Exhibit 3? A Yes. Q Did you carry office? A When I leave may mail and put it in the Q And where is did you letter personally comprising it to the post at 5:00, I take mailbox. the mailbox? all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 A The one Q How long secretary? A More Q How handle in a year your office files? A Negligence Q Any kind. A Any kind maybe, I don't know 20 Q Are supposed to serve their filing? A Yes. Q Did at the YMCA. have you been a legal than 25 years. many suits would you say you through this office, suits at suits? of suit, I would estimate to 50. you aware that the sheriff is the writs within 30 days of you do anything to follow up with the sheriff's department within the 30 days after this suit was filed in September 20017 of A When I received the refund check, that it was served. Did you follow up with the though, to ask for a return of Not until I was asked by Mr. I assumed Q sheriff, then? A service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dougherty made. Q that you service? A to find out whether service was Didn't it seem unusual to you got a check without a return of There are don't have to file that Dauphin County does not Q You didn't after getting that A No. Q Didn't the defendants were time? A No. Q Just 13 do anything to make sure properly served at that assumed that because you got a refund check they had been served? A The fact that I didn't get the whole $150 back and I got a refund led me to believe that they made some kind of service. Q And you were had to be served within 30 Correct? A Yes. Q So the first aware that the writ days of issuance. you took any steps to some counties that we return of service for. require one. call the sheriff at all refund check? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 ascertain whether the writ had been served was after the defendants' preliminary objections were filed? A Right. Q And you knew you had a statute of limitations that would run out on or about September 10th of 2001 . Correct? A Right. Q Does your office ever hire investigators? A No. Q Do you ever have to locate people that need to be served with process? A I've used a process server for federal court complaints. There is a company that we use in New Jersey. Q But you've never had anybody actually find a defendant for you so you can get proper service? A No. Q And you're telling us, can you recall, as we sit here today, actually opening the envelope that had the sheriff's refund check in? A I open probably between 50 to 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 five pieces of mail every day. There are attorneys and, you know-- Q You really can't that there was not a return of that check, can you? A There was not a return of service with that check or it would be file. Q Have you ever had misfilings here? tell us today service with in Sure. Could it have been misfiled? Not likely. Is it a possibility? I suppose yes, it would be a 15 the A A possibility. Q mailed the September September A Q A Q A The check 25, 2001. 26th, 20017 Yes, Are Yes, Okay. Yes. 27? I was. you sure of that? I am. I checked. How about September sheriff's department said they back here to this office on Were you here at work on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here. day? Q And how about September 28? A Yes. Q You checked your records here? A I was not on vacation. I was 16 Q Okay. And you open the mail every Yes, I do. MR. WEIDNER: That's all I have. A BY MR. there that the the praecipe have caught REEXAMINATION DOUGHERTY: Q Just a follow-up question. If had been a return of service indicating A follow up and and get a more writing to the Q Is typically do if it wasn't-- A complaint had not been served, would have not been served? Would that your eye? Sure. I would have known to we had to reinstate the complaint current address, which we did by post office. that something that you would something would come in showing I would bring it the attorney's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 attention that was handling the case. And if he informed me to go ahead and file the reinstatement, then I would do it. MR. DOUGHERTY: Nothing further. MR. WEIDNER: Nothing further. (Whereupon the for identification as Exhibit Number 3.) (The deposition p.m.) 17 document was marked Witmer Deposition concluded at 2:10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 CERTIFICATE I, Lucinda K. Hoffman, do hereby certify that the proceedings are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me during the hearing of the foregoing cause, and that this copy is a correct transcript of the same. ~a~c " t Bv¢ommissio~ Lucinda ~-- ~3r-ter Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania My commission expires September 25, 2004 Exhibit A From:~IE~LAND CO. ~-RIFF'$ 0FFIC7172406397 04/09/2002 10:41 ~57 P.001/006 fl. THOMA~ KLINE Sheriff ~DWAI~D L, 8o~ltar OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF One Cou~o~ Square Ca~te. Penn~van~ 1701 I~K)NNY R. ANDERSON Chief Deputy JOOY $, SMITH R~al Estat~ Deputy FACSIMILE TRANSM2TFAL FORM MESSAGE: Office Numl:~' (7IT) 240-6390 FAX Number (717) 240-6397 From: LAND CO. SHERIFF'S OFFICTI72406"d97 04/09/2002 10:41 P. Z/O06 SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT 0F COUNTY C~E NO: 2001-05260 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND KOCH ROSE MARY ET AL · H~NDERSO~ ~EP.~T~ 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 DEFENDANT , to wit: FRNDERSON G~, _RALD but was unable tO locate HSm deputized the.sheriff of L~NON serve the within WRIT OF SUMMON~ in his bailiwick. ~e therefore CoLu~ty, Pennsylvania, to On S__eptember 25th , 2001 , this office was in receipt of ~he attached return from LEBANON Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County ...... SU~arg~' " Dep Lebanon Co 18.00 9.00 10..~0- 52.68 .00 89.68 09/25/2001 IRA WEINSTOCK ~,'..Thomas K~ne Sheriff o~ Cu~be-~l'~5'~ C~n~y Sworn and subscribed to before me this day of A.Di Pro=honorary From:~RLAND CO. SHERIFF'S 0FFIC7172406397 Ozl/O9/2(X)2 10:41 ,f'z57 P.003/006 SHERIFF' S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2001-05260 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.' COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND KOCH ROSE MARY ET AL VS HENDERgON OERALD ET AL ~. Thoma-~ Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, =hat he made a diligent search and. and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: BIBL~ RUSSELL M but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of LEBANON County, Pennsylvania, to serve, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On September 25th , 2001 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from LEBANON Sheriff's Costs': Docketing .Out of County .Su~ha,~ge 6.00 .00 10.~ .... .00 .00 16.00 09/25/2001. IRA WEINSTOCK Sheriff o~ Cumb~'rland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this day of ProthonotarY Fro~:~U~ID CO. SHERIFF'S 0FFIC7172406997 04/09/2002 10:41 ,¢257 P.O04/O~ In The Court of.Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Rose Mary Koch et al VS. .Gerald Hender~o~ e= al SERVE: Gerald Henderson NO. 01 5260 cavil Now, , I, SHE~ OF CUMB~ COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize thc Sheriffof Lebanon County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at. the request and risk of the Sheriff of Cumbefl,~d County. PA . Affidavit of Service Now, ,'20 , at o'clock M. served the by banding to a and r~:lc known to copy of the original thc contents thereof. So aB_sw~, sheriff of County, PA SWorn and subscribed before me thia __ day of COSTS SERViCE MILBAOB AFFIDAVIT Frm:Q.M3~RLAND CO. SHERIFF'S 0FFI07i72406397 04/09/2002 ~0:42 ~257 P.005/006 In The'Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Penmsylvania Role Mary Koch et al V$, Gerald Henderson et al SERVE: Russell M. Bible · No. Ol 5260 civil How, 9/,7._/0~ , I, SHERIFF OF' CUMBERLAND COUNT'Y, PA, do hereby depulize Lh¢ Shrift of Lehan. 0n County ~o execute this Writ, this dcpuiatiou bring made at. the request and risk of the Plaiutiff. ]~OW, Shcr~ of Cumb~'lsnd County, PA Affidavit Of Service , 20 ,, at .... o'clock ---- M. served the upon by h~ding to a and made known to copy of the original the contents thereof. Sworn and subscribed before me this . day of .... 20 Shvriff of. COSTS SERVICE /v/LBAGE AFFIDAVIT County, PA From:OLI RLAND CO. SHERIFF'S 0FFI07172406397 04109120Q2 10:42 #257 P.0061006 SUMMONS No. -01-5260 CIVIL ROSE M~RY KOCH, ET AL vs.. GRRALDHENDE~SON & RUSSELL M. BIBL~ Lebanon, 'PA, September 24, 2001 (P,~I~RN TO CUMBERLAND CO. SHERIFF) DOCK~T PA~E 16852 STAT~ OF PEKNSYLVANIA'l COUNTY OF'LEBANON SSs Kirk Juli~ni, Deputy Sheriff, being duly s~orn according to law, deposes and says that after due and diligent search by h.~m having been made in this bailiwick, and after having exhausted all known facets to locate defendant, as stipulated under Rule of Civil P=oaedure, Rule 430, #good faith effort,".he was unable to f~nd GERALD'H~RD~RSON & RUSS~LLM. BIBLE, ~he within named DEFENDANTS, and .he therefore returns ~NOT FOUND' as to the said GER~?~ H~NDERSON.& RUSSELL M. BIBLE, the within named Defendants. *NOTS: According to Deputy Juliani, the Defendants reside outside of this bailiwick,.most likely liv/ng in Dauphin County, PA. SHERIFF'S COSTS IN ABOV~ PRO~EDINGS Advanced costs paid on 9/12/01 Check No. 33898 Amount 100.00 Costs incurred= Amount ~2.68 Refund~ Check No.10546 Amount 47.32 All Sheriff's Costs shall be due and payable when services are .performed, and it shall be lawful for him to demand and receive from ~he party instituting. ~he proceedings, or any party liable ~or the costs thereof, all unpaid shertff,s fees on Che same before he shall be obligated by /aw to make return thereof. Sec. 2, Act of June 20', 1911, P.L. 1072 Exhibit B ~t~, H. WEINSTOGK WEEDY D. JASON l'v[. WEINSTOGIt JoH~ B. Douo~TV J~rr~r R. S~HOTT Law OFFI(3ES IRA H, WEINSTOCK~ P. C. $~rrE 100 800 N. SECOND STR~.T HA~ms~u~. l~n~s~v~ 1710~ ~ ~v~ 717 ~LEPHONE: a~8- 1657 FAX: (717) 1~38'6691 E-MAIL Ai~DRESs weinstock.law@verizon.net April 11, 2002 Custodian of Records United States Postal Service Palmyra Office 60 South Railroad Street Palmyra, PA 17078 Re: Freedom of Information Act request Dear Sir or Madam: Please be advised that my office represents an individual who has a lawsuit pending against Gerald Henderson. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, we request information regarding any forwarding address for Gerald Henderson. Mr. Henderson's previous address was 392 Dairy Lane, Palmyra, PA 17078. If you require any further information please let me know. Otherwise, thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very .truly yours, JOHN B. DOUGHERTY JBD:rln l~,,. H. ~rv-n4s'rocK Wv. NOV D. Bowie dA~ON ~. WE~ST~K UO~ ~. ~UGBER~ JE~R~ R. SGHOW LAw OFFIGES IRA H. WEINSTOCK~ P. C. SUITE [ 00 800 N. SEGON~ STREET HA~SSU~. F~N~SYLV~W I 7 ! ARF~ Coo~_ 717 TELEPHONE: 238-1657 FAX: (717) a38-6691 E-MAIL ADDREss weinstock.law~verizon.net April 11, 2O02 Custodian of Records United States Postal Service Palmyra Office 60 South Railroad Street Palmyra, PA 17078 Re: Freedom of Information Act request Dear Sir or Madam: Please be advised that my office represents an individual who has a lawsuit pending against Russell Bible. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, we request information regarding any forwarding address for Russell Bible. Mr. Bible's previous address was 392 Dairy Lane, Palmyra, PA 17078. If you require any further information please let me know. Otherwise, thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, · DOUGHERTY JBD:rln Exhibit C JOhN B. dE~rR~r R. S~norr LAw OFFIGES IRA H. WEINSTOCKs' P, (~. surm I00 800 Iq. S~-coi~ Smm~-T ~s,~tmo. I~u~swv~ 1710~ AI~_A OODg 717 Tm~e~o~,~: 23/5-1657 FAX: (717) 213~-6691 E-l~u~. AD~)I~ESS weinstoc}.law~v crizon.net September 4, 2001 Curt Long, Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 .2 DEPOSITION · , ~EXHIBIT I Rose Mary Koch and t. Allen Koch vs. Gerald Henderson and Russell M. Bible Dear Mr. Lon§: Enclosed please find the following documents: A Praeeipe for Writ of Summons; A check in the amount of $45.50 made payable to the Prothonotary; A check in the amount of $150.00 made payable to the Office of the Sheriff; and A self-addressed and stamped envelope. Kindly docket the enclosed Praecipe for Writ of Summons and then take two Writs of Summons and the check for $150.00 to the Sheriff's Department and ask them to make service on the Defendants. Please return a clocked-in copy of the Pmecipe to the undersigned in the self-addressed and stamped envelope which I have provided. If you have any questions or need anything further, please feel free to contact rge. Very U'uly yours, IHW:lsw Enclosures IRA H. WEINSTOCK IN THE COURT OF COI~I~N PLEAS CUMBP_~Id~I~T)- COUNTY, PENNSYLt/ANI A Civil Action - (X) Lay ( ) Equity, Rose Mary Koch and T. Allen Koch, her husband ~ 816 Center Street Enola, PA 17025 Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) : : : : : : : : versus : : : : : : : : Gerald Henderson 392 Dairy Lane Palmyra, PA 17078 and R~ssell~. Bible. 392 Dairy Lane Palmyra, PA 17078 Defendant(s) & Address(es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUI~IONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue writ of summons in the above-captioned action. 2 Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to ( )ATtorney (x)Sheriff Ira H. Weinstock, Esquire IRA H. WEINSTOCKr P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Phone: 717-238-1657 Names/AdOress/ Telephon No. of Attorney Signature of Attor. ney Supreme Court ID No. 01602 Date: 9/4/01 WRIT OF SUMNONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE_ COMHENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: Pr ~thonota ry by Deputy ,here ;f reverse is iL-sued Tc'~' adeJitional information ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs Vo GERALD HENDERSON and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., HESS and OLER, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28t~ day of February, 2003, after careful consideration of Defendants' Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs' Complaint, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the preliminary objection is denied and Defendants are afforded twenty days from the date of this order within which to file an answer to the complaint. John B. Dougherty, Esq. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Attorney for Plaintiffs C. Roy Weidner, Jr., Esq. 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Attorney for Defendants BY THE COURT, JOWesley Oie~,J~r., j. "(J ' 0.3 ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs Vo GERALD HENDERSON and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., HESS and OLER, JJ. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., February 28, 2003. For disposition in this negligence action arising out of an automobile accident is Defendants' Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs' Complaint. The preliminary objection seeks dismissal of the complaint based on Plaintiffs' failure to pursue service in accordance with Lamp v. Heyman~ and its progeny. The matter was argued on January 8, 2003. For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendants' preliminary objection will be denied. STATEMENT OF FACTS On September 10, 1999, Plaintiff Rose Mary Koch was allegedly injured in a two-vehicle accident due to the careless operation of an automobile driven by Defendant Russell M. Bible and negligently entrusted to him by Defendant Gerald Henderson; Plaintiff T. Allen Koch allegedly suffered a loss of consortium as a result of her injuries.2 ~ 469 Pa. 465, 366 A.2d 882 (1976) (adopting rule that praecipe for writ of summons remains effective, for purposes of commencing action, only if plaintiff refrains from course of conduct serving to stall legal machinery). 2 Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed Mar. 27, 2002. Plaintiffs filed a praecipe for writ of summons in this case against Defendants on September 6, 2001,3 thus protecting, at least temporarily, the two- year statute of limitations.4 The address provided by Plaintiffs for each Defendant on the praecipe for writ of summons was 392 Dairy Lane, Palmyra, PA 17078.5 This was the correct address for each Defendant.6 The filing of Plaintiffs' praecipe for writ of summons was accompanied by checks from their counsel to the prothonotary in the amount of $45.50 for the filing fee and to the sheriff in the amount of $150.00 to cover costs of service of the writ of summons on Defendants.7 The cover letter to the prothonotary from the office of Plaintiffs' counsel directed that the applicable check and two copies of the writ of summons be transmitted to the sheriff, and requested that service be made upon Defendants by the sheriff,s Palmyra Borough is a municipality situated entirely in Lebanon County.9 Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, as it developed, not all Palmyra post office addresses are in Lebanon.l° Upon receipt, on September 7, 2001,il of the writ of summons, the Cumberland County Sheriff's office consulted a.reference book utilized for the 3 Plaintiffs' Praecipe for Writ of Summons, filed Sept. 6, 2001. 4 See Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, §2, as amended 42 Pa. C.S. §5524(2) (2002). 5 Plaintiffs' Praecipe for Writ of Summons, filed Sept. 6, 200i. 6 Deposition of Linda Witmer, filed Dec. 23, 2002, ex. 2. 7Id. ex. 3. aid. ex. 2. 9 E.g., Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access System, Pennsylvania Atlas (showing, on map produced in conjunction with agencies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that Palmyra Borough lies within Lebanon County), http://gisl.pasda.psu.edu/Website/PA_Atlas/(last visited February 13, 2003); see also Pa. R.E. 201 (providing that the court may take judicial notice of a fact "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned"). l0 Deposition ofLinda Witmer, filed Dec. 23, 2002, at 10-11. it Deposition of Doris Goodhart, filed Dec. 3, 2002, at 5. 2 purpose of determining the counties in which municipalities are located, and ascertained that Palmyra was in Lebanon County.~2 Accordingly, the Cumberland County Sheriff deputized the Lebanon County Sheriff to serve Defendants with the writ of summons.~3 A "Not Found" return of service, dated September 24, 2001, was thereafter returned by the Lebanon County Sheriff to the Cumberland County Sheriff? A note contained on the return by the Lebanon County deputy sheriff who attempted service stated that "the Defendants reside outside of this bailiwick, most likely living in Dauphin County, PA.''15 The note did not add the critical information that this was because the Palmyra address of Defendants was a Dauphin County address.16 In retrospect, a staff assistant with the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office observed: [M]ost of [the] problem [in this case] lies with [this] Lebanon County return, because the.., return, in my opinion, doesn't stipulate that that address is not in Lebanon County. It just says they're not in Lebanon County .... ~7 In any event, the Cumberland County Sheriff filed the sheriff's return on September 25, 2001,~8 and remitted to Plaintiffs' counsel a balance of $44.32 on the $150.00 deposit for service,iv According to the secretary for Plaintiffs' counsel, the remittance to her office was not accompanied by a copy of the return, 12_Id. at 15. ~3 Id. at 5; id. exs. 1-2. 14 Id. ex. 3. ~5 id' ~6 Id' ~7Id. at 14. la Defendants' Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed Apr. 15, 2002, para. 3; Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant's Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed Apr. 26, 2002, para. 3. ~9 Deposition of Linda Witmer, filed Dec. 23, 2002, at 7; Deposition of Doris Goodhart, filed Dec. 3, 2002, ex. 4. 3 and she assumed (reasonably in the court's view) from the amount of the deposit consumed that service had been effected? On March 6, 2002, counsel for Defendants filed his appearance in the case,2~ and, by praecipe dated March 15, 2002, Defendants' counsel ruled Plaintiffs to file a complaint.22 Plaintiffs' complaint was filed on March 27, 2002.23 Defendants filed the preliminary objection sub judice to Plaintiffs' complaint on April 15, 2002.24 The preliminary objection requested that the court "terminate Plaintiffs' action on account of the passage of the statute of limitations without appropriate service upon Defendants.''2s The basis of the preliminary objection is indicated in Defendants' statement of the question presented: Should service be stricken and the case be dismissed where Plaintiffs failed to effectuate service of the Writ of Summons, failed to immediately and continually reissue the Writ of Summons until service was made, and in hct, did not serve original process until in excess of nine (9) months after the running of the applicable statute of limitations?26 Plaintiffs filed an answer in opposition to the preliminary objection on April 26, 2002.27 20 Deposition ofLinda Witmer, filed Dec. 23, 2002, at 6-7, 12-13.. 2~ Defendants' Praecipe To Enter Appearance, filed Mar. 6, 2002. 22 Defendants' Praecipe To Issue Rule To File Complaint, filed Mar. 18, 2002. The rule was issued by the prothonotary on March 18, 2002. It appears that this action on the part of Defendants does not waive the issue presented herein. SeeKeller v. LaBarre, 225 Pa. Super. 504, 311 A.2d 683 (1973). 23 Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed Mar. 27, 2002. 24 Defendants' Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed Apr. 15, 2002. 25 Id. 26 Brief in Support of Defendants' Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs' Complaint, dated Jan. 7, 2003, at 3. 27 Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant's Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed Apr. 26, 2002. Plaintiffs' answer to the preliminary objections avers, inter alia, with supporting documentation, that as early as August 17, 2001, Defendants' insurer and Plaintiffs' counsel were 4 With the filing of Defendants' preliminary objection, Plaintiffs were alerted for the first time to the fact that service might not have been effected? The secretary for Plaintiffs' counsel contacted the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office, was advised that service had not been made on Defendants, and requested that copies of the return of service be faxed to her? Upon discovering from the faxed return that "the Defendants reside[d] outside of [Lebanon County], most likely in Dauphin County, PA,''3° she sought from the Palmyra office of the United States postal Service, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, forwarding addresses for the Defendants.3~ The response from the Postal Service, dated April 19, 2002, was that neither Defendant had moved from the aforesaid Palmyra address? The secretary then requested the Cumberland County Sheriff to re-attempt service,33 utilizing a reinstated complaint? This time, when the Cumberland County Sheriff deputized the Lebanon County Sheriff for purposes of service, the "Not Found" return of the Lebanon County Sheriff contained the following note, making clear that Defendants' Palmyra address was actually in Dauphin County: engaged in negotiations concerning the case, and that on AUgust 23, 2001, Defendants' insurer acknowledged in writing its understanding that a praecipe for writ of summons would be filed by Plaintiffs' counsel "to protect the statute in this matter." Id., Ex. A, B. Defendants' preliminary objection was listed for argument by Defendants' counsel without an evidentiary record having been made with regard to these averments. Defendants' Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument, filed Dec. 3, 2002. Although an argument can be made that Plaintiffs' allegations should be deemed admitted under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 206.7(c), the facts of the present case are, in the court's view, sufficiently supportive of Plaintiffs' position on the preliminary objection without reference to these additional averments of Plaintiffs that it is not necessary to resolve this question in this opinion. 28 Deposition ofLinda Witmer, filed Dec. 23, 2002, at 7-8, 12-14.. 29Id. at8; id. ex. 1. 3°Id. ex. 1. 3~Id. at. 9; id. ex. 2. 32]d. at 9-10; id. ex. 2. 3318. atl0. 34 Plaintiffs secured reissuance of the complaint on April 26, 2002. Plaintiffs' Praecipe To Reinstate Complaint, filed Apr. 26, 2002. 5 *NOTE: [The Lebanon County deputy sheriff attempting service] checked once again with the Palmyra Post Office, and was informed that the given address of 392 Dairy Lane, Palmyra, is located in Dauphin County. He also checked with Lebanon County Assessment Office who verified that 392 Dairy Lane, Palmyra, is not in Lebanon County.35 The Cumberland County Sheriff thereupon deputized the Dauphin County Sheriff for purposes of service36 of a newly-reinstated complaint,37 resulting in an additional service fee to Plaintiffs? Service upon Defendants by the Dauphin County Sheriff was ultimately effected on May 21, 2002 (Defendant Bible), and May 28, 2002 (Defendant Henderson).39 DISCUSSION The early history of the legal issue presented recounted by Justice, later Chief Justice, Zappala in Philadelphia, 564 Pa. 388, 768 A.2d 1079 (2001). Prior to Lamp [v. Heyman, 469 Pa. 465, 366 A.2d 882 (1976)], and before the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a rule had developed through case law regarding actions commenced by issuance of a writ of summons that allowed the plaintiff to "continue process to keep his cause of action alive" by reissuing the writ within a period of time equivalent to the statute of limitations applicable to the cause of action. The filing of the praecipe within the statute of limitations commenced the action, and reissuance of the writ kept the action alive for another "equivalent period," whether service was made or even attempted. The purpose of the rule identifying the filing of the praecipe as the commencement of the action, without regard to when the prothonotary actually issued the writ or the sheriff served it, was "to free the plaintiff in this case has been Witherspoon v. City of 35 Sheriff's Return, filed June 4, 2002. 36 Id. 37 Plaintiffs secured reissuance of the complaint a second time on May 20, 2002. Praecipe To Reinstate Complaint, filed May 20, 2002. 38 Deposition ofLinda Witmer, filed Dec. 23, 2002, at 11. 39 Sheriff's Return, filed June 4, 2002. Plaintiffs' 6 from the risk that the statute of limitations may bar him if he acts in time, but someone else fails to act in time." Lamp represented a first step toward curbing the potential for abuse inherent in this rule. It had apparently become common for counsel to file a praecipe for writ of summons but instruct the prothonotary not to deliver the writ to the sheriff for service. Acknowledging that this practice was consistent with the letter of the rule.., but not with its purpose, [the Pennsylvania Supreme Court] disapproved the practice and changed the rule prospectively pursuant to [its] supervisory power. [It] stated that in actions instituted after the date of the Lamp decision, "a writ of summons shall remain effective to commence an action only if the plaintiff refrains from a course of conduct which serves to stall in its tracks the legal machinery he has just set in motion." Id. at 393-94, 768 A.2d at 1082. In essence, in Lamp the Pennsylvania Supreme Court "recognized service, or at least a good faith attempt at service, as a kind of condition subsequent that must be fulfilled to complete the commencement of the action begun by filing the praecipe." Id. at 396, 768 A.2d at 1083. This principle was applied by the Court in Ferinacci v. Beaver County Industrial Development Authority, 510 Pa. 589, 511 A.2d 757 (1986), where a four-week lapse by plaintif£s' counsel in instructing and paying the sheriff for service of a writ of summons was not satisfactorily explained. Id. In approving the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint, the Court in Ferinacci stated that, "[i]n each case, where noncompliance with Lamp is alleged, the court must determine in its sound discretion whether a good-faith effort to effectuate notice was made." Id. at 594, 5;11 A.2d at 759 (emphasis added). The principle was again applied in Witherspoon, where service in a case commenced by praecipe for writ of summons was not effected until about nine months after the statute of limitations had run; due to deficiencies in the performance of plaintiff's private process server. 564 Pa. at 390-91,768 A.2d at 7 1080. In concluding that the trial court's action in striking service was a proper exercise of discretion, Justice, later Chief Justice, Zappala stated: [T]he general intent of [Lamp and its progeny] is to allow a plaintiff to commence an action by filing a praecipe even at the very last moment before the limitation period expires and not be penalized because the "official" follow-up activity (issuance of the writ by the prothonotary, service of the writ by the sheriff) is not also completed within the limitation period. [The cases] establish that any failure regarding follow-up activity that is attributable to the plaintiff or his agents, rather than public officials, falls outside this purpose. Id. at 396, 768 A.2d at 1083. Although the proposition that the "equivalent period" doctrine should be replaced with a requirement that "process . . . be immediately and continually reissued until service is made" in cases of the present type was also a subject of discussion in Witherspoon, it does not appear that this proposition commanded a majority of the Court. Id. at 398-407, 768 at 1084-89. In the instant case, the elements of bad faith on the part of a plaintiff's counsel or another person acting as plaintiff's agent that have caused courts effectively to terminate actions commenced by praecipe for writ of summons due to subsequent delays in service are not present. Plaintiffs' counsel did not, as in Lamp, act to stall the legal machinery set in motion, nor did he proceed unreasonably in light of the unique circumstances in the case, which were occasioned by official as opposed to private conduct. See Sanders v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 424 Pa. Super. 372, 376, 622 A.2d 966, 968 (1993); GouM v. Nazareth Hospital, 354 Pa. Super. 248, 252-53, 511 A.2d 855, 858 (1986). Indeed, in the court's view, this case is less an example of bad faith on the part of counsel than of the old aphorism that "the problem with the law is not the law--it's everything else.''4° 40 To the extent that Defendants' position herein depends upon the failure of Plaintiffs to immediately and continually reissue the writs, it is a contention that is as yet unsupported by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Miller v. Philadelphia Geriatric Center, No. 02-CA-1307, 2002 8 For the foregoing reasons, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2003, after careful consideration of Defendants' Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs' Complaint, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the preliminary objection is denied and Defendants are afforded twenty days from the date of this order within which to file an answer to the complaint. BY THE COURT, John B. Dougherty, Esq. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Attorney for Plaintiffs C. Roy Weidner, Jr., Esq. 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Attorney for Defendants s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. WL 1608223 (E.D. Pa. July 15, 2002) (noting that part of lead opinion in Witherspoon stating that, for a writ of summons to toll the limitations period, "process must be immediately and continually reissued until service is made," was supported "only... by two justices" and could not support application of such a rule). DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE HESS I most respectfully disagree with the conclusion reached by my learned colleagues. As noted in Cintas Corp. v. Lee's Cleaning Services, Inc., 700 A.2d 915 (Pa. 1997): Service of process is a mechanism by which a court obtains jurisdiction of a defendant, and therefore, the rules concerning service of process must be strictly followed .... Without valid service, a court lacks personal jurisdiction of a defendant and is powerless to enter judgment against him or her .... Thus, improper service is not merely a procedural defect that can be ignored when a defendant subsequently learns of an action against him or her. Id. at 91'7-918. Lamp v. Heyman, supra, and its progeny require that the tolling effect of the statute of limitations will be extended only to plaintiffs who make a good-faith effort to effectuate service. Otterson v. Jones, 690 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Super. 1997). I am satisfied that good faith is more than the mere absence of bad faith. Our courts have repeatedly held that a demonstration of mistake or inadvertence does not meet the burden of showing good faith for the purpose of compliance with Lamp. See Cahill v. Shults, 643 A.2d 121 (Pa. Super. 1994) and cases cited therein. This rule is not attenuated merely because the court understands why the mistake was made. In this case, the Sheriff's remm not only indicated that service had not been made but suggested the proper county where service "most likely" could be effected. Where the tolling of the statute of limitations is dependent upon good- faith attempts at service, such good faith requires, at a minimum, that counsel examine the Sheriff's return to determine whether or not service was made. Here, counsel simply relied on the mistaken conclusion of a member of the firm's clerical staff. I would grant the defendants' preliminary objection. Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: C. Roy Weidner, Jr. I.D. No. 19530 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attomeys for Defendants ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs GERALD HENDERSON and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Rose Mary Koch and T. Allen Koch c/o Ira H. Weinstock, Esquire Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 AND NOW, this /{~'y of March, 2003, you are hereby notified to plead responsively within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof, or judgment may be entered against you. :210585 5774-389 Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: C. Roy Weidner, Jr. I.D. No. 19530 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attomeys for Defendants ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs GERALD HENDERSON and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, this I(~ day of March, 2003, come Defendants;, through their undersigned attorneys, and answer Plaintiffs' complaint as follows: 1. - 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. After a reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 4. - 5. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. Defendant Russell M. Bible's name is admitted. The remainder of these averments are denied. 6. - 7. Admitted. 8. Denied in Part. Admitted in Part. That Plaintiff Rose Mary Koch had the right of way is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. The remainder of this averment is admitted. 9. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. That the vehicle operated by Defendant Russell M. Bible collided with Plaintiffs' is admitted. The remainder of this averment is denied. 10. Denied in Part. Admitted in Part. The causation of damages claimed is denied generally and ownership of the vehicle by Gerald Henderson is specifically denied. The remainder of this averment is admitted. 11. Denied. This averment is deemed denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 12. - 17. Denied. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE Rose Mary Koch v. Russell M. Bible 18. herein. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. Paragraphs 1 - 17 hereof are incorporated by reference 19.- 20. Denied. These averments are deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 21. - 26. Denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that Plaintiffs' complaint against them be dismissed. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE PER SA Y (SIC) Rose Mary Koch v. Russell M. Bible 27. herein. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. Paragraphs 1 - 26 hereof are incorporated by reference 28. Denied. 29. Denied. This averment is deemed denied as one to which no responsive pleading on the part of Defendants is required. 30. Denied. This averment is deemed denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 31. - 33. Denied. 34. Denied. This averment is deemed denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that Plaintiffs' complaint against them be dismissed. COUNT III Rose Mary Koch v. Gerald Henderson 35. herein. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. Paragraphs 1 - 34 hereof are incorporated by reference 36. - 39. Denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that Plaintiffs' complaint against them be dismissed. COUNT IV- LOSS OF CONSORTIUM T. Allen Koch v. Russell M. Bible and Gerald Henderson 40. herein. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. Paragraphs 1 - 39 hereof are incorporated by reference 41.-42. Denied. After a reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that Plaintiffs' complaint against them be dismissed. NEW MA TTER - MVFRL 43. Defendants are entitled to the restrictions on Plaintiffs' ability to recover damages provided in the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that Plaintiffs' complaint against them be dismissed. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE- STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 44. Paragraphs 1 - 7 of Defendants' preliminary objections are incorporated by reference herein. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that Plaintiffs' complai,nt against them be dismissed. :210585 5774-389 JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER VERIFICATION The undersigned says that the facts set forth in the foregoing are true and correct. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. / '~ Russell M. Bible Dated: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this /',~day of March, 2003, the undersigned does hereby certify that she did this date serve a copy of the foregoing document upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: John B. Doughterty, Esquire Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 :21o585 5774-389 JOHNS;ON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER I~i~;hel~e Hagy ~2' ~ I^R 17 2003 RAYETTE I. (RONK) SLOOP, Plaintiff V. CHADD E. RONK, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2001-6989 CIVIL TERM : IN CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2003, being advised that the matter has been resolved, the Conciliator hereby relinquishes jurisdiction. FOR THE COURT, ~~-emey,~E-sq~'e.~ ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs, GERALD HENDERSON, and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 43. is required. 44. is required. ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER Denied. Defendants' allegation contains a conclusion of law to which no answer To the extent an answer is required, Plaintiffs deny the same. Denied. Defendants' allegation contains a conclusion of law to which no answer To the extent an answer is required, Plaintiffs deny the same. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the.. Defendants jointly and severely in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration under the Rules of Cumberland County together with delay damages pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, lawful interest, punitive damages, costs and any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully Submitted, IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 171t)2 Phone: (717) 238-1657 HN B. DOUGH~RTSO ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 2003, I, John B. Dougherty, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I served the within ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in the post office at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: By First Class Mail: C. Roy Weidner, Jr., Esquire JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 3(t!)HN B,, DOUGHEi~TY ~ ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, VS. Plaintiffs, GERALDINE HENDERSON and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. No. 01-5260 Civil Term CIVIL ACITON - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION TO AMEND COMPLAINT It is stipulated by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants that the caption with regard to the above-captioned matter shall be amended to reflect the name "Geraldine Henderson" as a Defendant. It is further stipulated that any reference in the complaint to "Gerald Henderson" will be amended to reflect the name of "Geraldine Henderson". Attorney for the Defendants JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Jo~fi B. Dbugherty~ [isqu~e Attorney for the Plainti frs IRA H.WEIiNSTOCK, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 17th day of June, 2002, I, John B. Dougherty, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I served the within STIPULATION TO AMEND COMPLAINT this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in the post office at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: By First Class Mail: C. Roy Weidner, Jr., Esquire JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 ('.,~OHN B. DOUGarIER~ IN TI4E COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY KOCH, ET AL VS. HENDERSON, ET AL NO. 015260 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SIYBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 AS a prerequisite to service of a subpoena(s) for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 C ROY WEIDNER, ESQUIRE certifies that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s) with a copy of the subpoena(s) attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena(s) is sought to be serw~d, 2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoena(s) is attached to this certificate, 3. No objection to the subpoena(s) has been received, and 4. The subpoena(s) which will be served is identical to the subpoena(s) which is attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s). Date: 05/07/04 C ROY WEID~ER, ESQUIRE 301 MARKET ST PO BOX 109 LEMOYNE, f~ 17043-0109 717-761-4540 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA PA 19135 (215) 335--3590 INC. By: Kimberl¥ Petrahl File #: M310188 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY KOCH, ET AL VS- HENDERSON, ET AL NO. 015260 TO: JOHN DOUGHERTY, ESQ (PLAINTIFF) NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 DEFENDANT intends to serve a subpoena{s) identical to the one(s) attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made the subpoena may be served. Date: 04/16/04 C ROY WEIDNER, ESQUIRE 301 MARKET ST PO BOX 109 LEMOYNE, PA 17043-0109 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19135 (215) 335-3590 INC. By: Kimberly Petrahl Enc(s): Copy of Counsel File %: M310188 subpoena(s) return card KOCH, ET AL VS. HENDERSON, ET AL File No. SUBPOENA TO PRO~__LCf_ DOOJMENTS (~R THINGS FOR D I SCOVERY PURSUANT TO ,.RULE. 4009.22 TRAVELERS PROP CAS, PO BOX 13485, READING PA 19612-3485 TO: ATTN= ~T,ATM~ DRPT (Name of Person o~ Entity) within twenty (20) days afte~ service of this subpoena, yo~apeo~demed by the court to produce the following doc~nents o~ things: SEE ATTACHED ADDENDI31 MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS(A~e~S~940 DISSTON ST., PHILA., PA You m~y delive~ c~ mail legible copies of the documents o? produce things requested bt this sub--a, t~eth~ with the cemtificate of ~li~ce, ~ the p~ty ~king thi~ r~uest at ~e ad.ess listed ~ve, y~ have the ri~t ~ s~k im advice the rea~on~le cost of preo~ing the ~ies or om~ucing the things s~ght. If y~ fail to p~u~ the ~ts ~ things ce~imed by ~is sub~ema within twenty (20) days aft~ its s~v~ce, the p~ty serving thi~ s~a~Y seek a ~rt order' ~,~eli~ y~ to ~,~ly wi~ it. ~lS ~ WAS I~D AT ~E RE. ST ~ ~ F~L~I~ PER~: ~ ~ ~TDN~R~ ESQ LEMOYNE, PA 17043-0109 TELEPHONE: SUPRE]~ COURT ID # ATTORNEY FOR: 215-335-3212 DEFENDANT M310188-01 DATE: of ~heCourt BY THE COURT: Protl~:x~ota~y/C'~k, Civi,1 D~visl~ (Elf. 1/97) ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA KOCH, ET AL Vs. HENDERSON, ET AL No. 015260 CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: TRAVELERS PROP CAS ANy AND ALL RECORDS, MEDICAL AND OR ACCIDENT CORRESPONDENCE, NOTES, RECEIPTS, BILLS, ETC., AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION PERTAINING TO: NAME: ROSE MARY KOCH ADDRESS: 816 CENTER ST ENOLA PA DATE OF BIRTH: 11/03/45 SSAN: 199349367 ALL POLICY INFORMATION INCLUDING DECLARATION PAGES FOR THE DATE OF LOSS, 9/10/99 AS WELL AS THE ENTIRE CLAIM FILE FOR THE DATE OF LOSS CLAIM #S3B8188 ALL FEES MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO RECORDS BEING FORWARDED. RECORD CUSTODIAN COMPLETE, AND RETURN [ ] ] RECORDSAREATTACHED HERETO:I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best ~f my knowledge~ information and ~ ~ belief all documents or things above mentioned have been proauceQ. NODOCUMENTSAVAILABLE:I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) x-RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date CUMBERLAND M310188-01 Authorized signature for TRAVELERS PROP CAS *** SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE *** KOCH, ET AL Vs. HENDERSON, ET AL O0~TH OF p]~m~'YLVANL% Fi le No. 015260 TO: SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE ~NTS CR THINGS FOR D I SCOVERY PURSUANT TO .RULE.. 5009.22 CONSOLIDATED RE}{AB CO, PO BOX 1719, LANSD3, T.E PA 19446-0827 (Name of Person or Entity) within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, yo~ are ordered by the court to p~oduce the following doc~nentn or things: . SEE AT'[ L'7 q DEN D U M at MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS{A~s~940 DISSTON ST., PHILA., PA you rosy deliver or mail legible copies of the doccr~nts or produce things requested bt this subpoena, together with the certificate of c~npliance, to the pa~ty m~king this request at the address listed above, you have the righ'[ to seek in advance the reasonable cost of prepering the copies or producing the things sougl~t. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days &fter its service, the pa~ty serving this subpoena may seek a court order' ~-x,~elling you to c~','~ly with it. TiM I S SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT ~ REGfJEST OF THE FOLLOW I NG PERSON: NAMe: C ~{OY WEIDNER, ESQ ADDRESS: LEMOYNE, PA 17043-0109 TELEPHONE :, SUPRI31E CO JRT ID # ATTORNEY FOR: 215-335-3212 19530 DEFEND~NT M310188-02 DATE: ~fl /q ~l V - s~al of £he Court BY THE protl~:~notery/~l~/k, Civil Division (Eff. 7/97) ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA KOCH, ET AL VS. HENDERSON, ET AL No. 015260 CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: CONSOLIDATED REPIAB CO ANy AND ALL OFFICE RECORDS, INCLUDING NOTES, CORRESPONDENCE, MEMORANDA, x-RAY REPORTS, HISTORY NOTES, INDEX CARDS AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO ANY EXAMINATION OR TREATMENT RENDERED TO: NAME: ROSE MARY KOCH ADDRESS: 816 CENTER ST ENOLA PA DATE OF BIRTH: 11/03/45 SSAN: 199349367 ICERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. RECORD CUSTODIAN COMPLETE, AND RETURN ] RECORDS AREATTACHEDHERETO: I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. ] NO DOCUMENFSAWAILABLE: I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X-RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XR3kYS have been destroyed Date CUMBERLA/qD M310188-02 Authorized signature for CONSOLIDATED REHAB CO *** SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE *** KOCH, ET AL Vs. HENDERSON, ET AL c0~TH OF p~VANIA COUNTY OF~ : File No. 015260 TO: PRISM, 175 SUBPOENA TO pROCAJCE DO:AJ~ENTS CR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 LANCASTER BLVD BOX 2028, MECHA}~ICSBURG PA 17055 (Name of Pe~so~ oc Entity) within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you a~e ordered by the court to produce the following doctm~nt~ or things: -- SEE A I 'Aq IqEI )DEND u M MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS(A~s~940 DISSTON ST., PEILA., PA You may de]iver or mail legible copies of the docu~ts or produce things requested bt this subpoena, tc~3ethem with the certificate of c(x~D1iance, to the oa~ty making thi~ request at the adcJ~ess listed above, you have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies o~ oroducing ~he things sought. If you fail to produce the docunents or things rec&Jired by this subpoema within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving 'this subpoena may seek a court c~de~' =~,~ell~n9 you to oa','~ly with it. THIS SU~POENAWAS ISSUED AT THE RE(~JESTOF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: C ROY WEIDNER, ESQ LEMOYNE, PA 1"7043-0109 TELEPHONE: SUPREME C~JRT ID # ATTORNEY FOR: 215-335-3212 19530 DEFENDANT M310188-03 Sdal of the Court BY %lie COURT: ProtI~otery~k, civi 1-~ i~s ion - --' -- / / ' ~ty (Eff. 7/97) TO SUBPOENA ADDENDUM KOCH, ET AL Vs. No. 015260 HENDERSON, ET AL CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: PRISM ENTIRE FILE REGARDING THE IME FOR CONSOLIDATED REHABILITATION COMPANY. PERTAINING TO: NAME: ADDRESS: DATE OF BIRTH: SSAN: ROSE MARY KOCH 816 CENTER ST 11/03/45 199349367 ENOLA PA CERTIFIED PHOTOCOP~S WILL BE ACCEPTED ~ LIEU OF YO~ PERSON~ ~PEARANCE. RECORD CUSTODIAN COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] [ ] RECORDSAREATTACHED HERETO:I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best ~f my knowledge{ information and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE:I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X-R3%YS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date CUMBERLAND M310188-03 Authorized signature for PRISM *** SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE *** IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY KOCH, ET AL VS. : HENDERSON, ET AL : NO. 015260 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena(s) for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 C ROY WEIDNER, ESQUIRE certifies that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s) with a copy of the subpoena(s) attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena(s) is sought to be serw~d, 2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoena(s) is attached to this certificate, 3.No objection to the subpoena(s) has been received, and 4. The subpoena(s) which will be served is identical to the subpoena(s) which is attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s). Date: 08/20/04 C ROY WEIDNER, ESQUIRE 301 MARKET ST PO BOX 109 LEMOYNE, PA 17043-0109 717-761-4540 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQUIRIES S]~OULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LE~%L REPRODUCTIONS, INC. 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA PA 19135 (215) 335-3590 File #: M313270 By: ~eor~ina Morrell IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY KOCH, ET AL Vs. HENDERSON, ET AL No. 015260 TO: JOHN DOUGHERTY, ESQ (PLAINTIFF) NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 DEFENDANT intends to serve a subpoena(s) identical to the one(s) attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made the subpoena may be served. Date: 07/30/04 C ROY WEI~NER, ESQUIRE 301 MARKET ST PO BOX 109 LEMOYNE, ~k 17043-0109 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT Enc(s): File #: Copy of subpoena(s) Counsel return card ~313270 INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19135 (215) 335-3590 INC. By: Georgina Morrell KOCH, ET AL VS. HENDERSON, ET AL CO--TH OF PfI~gSYLV~A : Fi le No. TO: SUBPOENA TO PROOLK~ DOOL.II'~S O~ TH I NGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009,22 DR STEHEN SNOKE, 1800 CARLISLE RD, CAMP HILL PA 17011 (Name of Person or Entity) within twenty (20) days after service of this sub~o~%a, you are o~dered by the ~urt to price the roi l~in9 ~t~ ~ thin~s: SEE A AC D ADDE MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS(A~e~s~940 DISSTON ST., PHILA., PA You may deliver c~ mail legible copies of the doc%r~nts o~ produce things requested this subpoena, together with the certificate of ~m~liance, to the pa~ty making thi: request at the address listed above. You have the ri~%t to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or oroducing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things recruited by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving thi.~ subpoena may seek a court orde~- cz~,pellin9 you to c~,~ly with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSLEE) AT THE RE(;[UEST (DE THE F0~LC~ING PERSON: NAJ~[: · ¢' RCY~ W-RTDSTRR. ESQ ADORE,SS: 3 01 ~;[ARKET ~ · TELEPHONE SUPREPE C~URT ATTORNEY FOR LEMOYNE, PA 17043-0109 215-335-3212 19530 DEFENDANT M313270-01 DATE: Seal,of the Court BY ~ COURT: Protl~otary/Cl~k~,, Civil oivisio~ ~ ' ~ty (Elf. 7/97) ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA KOCH, ET AL Vs. HENDERSON, ET AL NO. 015260 CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: DR STEHEN SNOKE . , INCLUDING NOTES, CORRESPONDENCE, L OFFICE RECORDS= ..... CARDS AND ANY OTHER MEMORANu~, ~-~'-~- mm ~ EXAMINATION OR T~'A~ ...... E INFORMATION RELAT£m~ ~v .~-- NAME: ROSE MA~Y KOCH ADDRESS: 816 cENTER ST ENOLA PA DATE OF BIRTH: 11/03/45 SSAN: 199349367 CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU (IF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE' RECOP, D CUSTODIAN COMPLETE AND RETURN r._. ] [ ] , , CHEDHERETO:I hereby certify as cu~todia~ of RECORDSAREATTA _ A~ wled e, informatl?n anQ _ ~ that. to th~ b=~t ~f my ~no ~-~ ~=ve peen produced. belief all ~ocumen~ u~ = NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE:I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X-P~AYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS ihave been destroyed Date CUMBERLAND M313270-01 ~uthorized signature for DR STEHEN SNOKE *** SIGN AND R,ETUKN THIS PAGE *** Johnson, DutTte, Stewart & Weidner By: C. Roy Weidner, ~r. I.D. No. 19530 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs GERALD HENDERSON and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLA~ COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI/~ NO. 01.5260 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DI~,ONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above captioned action settled and ;continued, including all counterclair cmssclaims and joinders of additional parties. IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. ~/~lohn B. I~ough~'rty g/ / JOHNSON, FFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER DISCONTINUANCE CEfFICA TE AND NOW, :238449 5774-389 suit has be~arked a~ abo/~irected. PROTH(, Y ~ Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: C. Roy Weidncr, Jr. I.D. No. 19530 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants ROSE MARY KOCH and T. ALLEN KOCH, her husband, Plaintiffs GERALD HENDERSON and RUSSELL M. BIBLE, Defendants IN 'I'HE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5260 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above captioned action settled and discontinued, including all counterclaims, crossclaims and joinders of additional parties. IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C. ~/)ohn B. boughErty ~ ~ JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER DISCONTINUANCE CERTIFICATE :238449 5774-389 AND NOW, ._,~ suit has been marked as abovf~directed. -PROTHONOTARY ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE // AND NOW, this /~ day of November, 2004, the undersigned does hereby certify that she did this date serve a copy of the foregoing document upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: John B. Dougherty, Esquire Ira H. Weinstock, P.C. 800 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 :238449 5774-389 JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER Mich~lle H. Spongier