Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-2007SIGISMOND BULL, as ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILIA HILLIARD, individually vs. MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHART, DONTAE CHAMBERS, CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI, and SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO:U.z_ ;2 v o 7 ? -72. , : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS To the Prothonotary: Please issue a writ of summons in the above captioned action. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to the Sheriff of Cumberland County for service. Date: APRIL 24, 2002 , Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Supreme Court ID# 81924 (717) 241-6070 WRIT OF SUMMONS To The Above Named Defendants: Matthew Norris, Emmett Lockhart and Dontae Chambers believed to be SCI Camp Hill, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011, Chi Gamma Iota aka XGI at 45 Sunbeam Court, Building 4-2, Shippensburg, PA 17257, and Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania at 1871 Old Main Drive, Shippensburg, PA 17257. YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST WIT T Date: at(- "a 2 y 2-av a, aA2;1 12 LL-4 )a? Prothonotary ° By:. -y==_? L? Deputy 0 ? CD f%,) 0 mr r, - TI "V\ Ir ?? kr? } v ( r ' q C. tv ?;:n ? v\ a Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Steven C. Gould Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-8035 SIGISMOND BULL, as . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILLIA HILLIARD, individually ENTRY OF APPEARANCE V. MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHARD, DONTAE CHAMBERS, SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA Defendants Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO. 02-2007 Civil Term Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER Attorney General By: STEVEN C. GOULD ID 80156 Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial DATED: June 3, 2002 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing Entry of Appearance upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Emmett Lockhart 155 South Hanover Street SCI - Camp Hill Carlisle, PA 17013 2500 Lisburn Road (717) 241-6070 P.O. Box 8837 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Camp Hill, PA 17011 Chi-Gamma Lota wVa XGI Dontae Chambers 45 Sunbeam Court, Building 4-2 SCI - Camp Hill Shippensburg, PA 17257 2500 Lisburn Road P.O. Box 8837 Matthew Norris Camp Hill, PA 17011 SCI - Camp Hill 2500 Lisburn Road P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17011 i By: STEVEN C. GOULD 16 #80156 Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15'h Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial DATED: June 3, 2002 ? ? c? C' r?,? ,, ?? -?1 '.r-? - c.' i ?.1 ti ? SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-02007 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BULL SIGISMOND ET AL VS NORRIS MATTHEW DAWN KELL , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA the DEFENDANT , at 1158:00 HOURS, on the 30th day of April , 2002 at 1871 OLD MAIN DRIVE SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 by handing to BARBERA BOYER, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service 13.80 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 29.80 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 3 U( day of .? o26vdL A. D. 'P othonotary T? So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 05/16/2002 ROMINGER & BAYLEY By: 1 3wj?m ? - VAL Deputy Sheriff CASE NO: 2002-02007 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BULL SIGISMOND ET AL VS NORRIS MATTHEW DAWN KELL , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon CHI GAMMA IOTA AKA XGI the DEFENDANT , at 1213:00 HOURS, on the 30th day of April , 2002 at 45 SUNBEAM COURT BUILDING 4-2 SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 by handing to MATT HENRICH, MEMBER OF CHI GAMMA a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service 13.80 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 29.80 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 3ndk- day of t A. D. Prothonotary So Answers: ? j.?- R. Thomas Kline 05/16/2002 ROMINGER & BAYLEY By: 0.t U Yl 4 I? a Deputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-02007 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BULL SIGISMOND ET AL VS NORRIS MATTHEW DAWN KELL Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon CHAMBERS the DEFENDANT , at 0945:00 HOURS, on the 1st day of May , 2002 at SCI CAMP HILL 2500 LISBURN ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 DONTAE CHAMBERS by handing to a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service 9.66 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 25.66 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 3.tc( day of lu o4V A.D. othonotary So Answers: y i R. Thomas Kline ! 05/16/2002 ROMINGER & BAYLEY By: p 0.tt7 Y1 d Vak_ Deputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-02007 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BULL SIGISMOND ET AL VS NORRIS MATTHEW CHARD SMITH , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon LOCKHART EMMETT the DEFENDANT , at 0945:00 HOURS, on the 8th day of May , 2002 at SCI CAMP HILL 2500 LISBURN ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to EMMETT LOCKHART a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Additional Comments CLEARFIELD COUNTY HOUTZDALE, HOWEVER Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service 9.66 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep Clearfield Co 26.04 60.70 Sworn and Subscribed to before By: me this 3,u1 day of ?, ` o2zwd A.D. fPTthonotary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 05/16/2002 ROMINGER SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2002-02007 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BULL SIGISMOND ET AL VS NORRIS MATTHEW 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: NORRIS MATTHEW but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of ALLEGHENY County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On May 16th , 2002 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from ALLEGHENY Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep Allegheny Co 28.00 Notary 3.00 6a-00 05/16/2002 ROMINGER & BAYLEY Sworn and subscribed to before me this -J td, day of So answers: R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County 01/ppL A. D. Prothonotiry Return this form to Cumberland County Sheriff's office. In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Sigismond Bull et al vs. Matthew Norris et al SERVE: Matthew Norris No 02 2007 civil Now, April 26, 2002 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Allegheny County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. A S i`tl NocR t- ?y?? .c ? ' Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, MAI \ ST 2082. , at o'clock M. served the withil upon at C by handing to _ a :rsCP-YX 9 copy of the original and made known to ZZ/ /y the contents thereof. So answers, NOTARIAL SEAL Sheriff Shs,!a R_ O'Brien Notary pi Luc Cih!,Ypi sburgh Coun^,--' Sheriff M4 corrmiss on ?jxpims June 200' Sworn and subscribed before me this _ day of MAY 1, 102002 COSTS SERVICE _ MILEAGE _ AFFIDAVIT County, PA . ' Return this form to Cumberland County Sheriff's office. In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Sigismond Bull et al VS. Matthew Norris et al SERVE: Ehuett Lockhart No 02 2007 civil Now, April 26, 2002 I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Clearfield County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Now, within upon at by handing to Affidavit of Service 120 1 at a and made known to o'clock M. served the copy of the original So answers, the contents thereof. Sheriff of Swom and subscribed before me this day of 120 , COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE _ AFFIDAVIT County, PA In The Court of Common Pleas of C l'd County, Pennsylvania Sheriff Docket # 12454 BULL, SIGISMOND 02.207 CIVIL TERM VS. NORRIS, MATTHEW al PRAECIPE & WRIT OF SUMMONS SHERIFF RETURNS NOW MAY 1, 2002 AFTER DILIGENT SEARCH IN MY BAILIWICK I RETURN THE WITHIN PRAECIPE & WRIT OF SUMMONS "NOT FOUND" AS TO EMMETT LOCKHART, DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT WAS TRANSPORTED TO SCI CAMP HILL 4/30/02. Return Costs Cost Description 26.04 SHFF. HAWKINS PAID BY: CUMBERLAND CO. SHFF. Sworn to Before Me This So Answers, arlL ay Of &2102 . Ha 'ns fstrAA' WILLIAM A. SHAW Sheriff Prothonotaqq?My Commission ExpNeS 1slMonday inJan. 2006 Cleadield Co., Clearfield. PA Page I of 1 Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 151 Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Steven C. Gould Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-8035 SIGISMOND BULL, as : IN THE COURT M UUMMVN rLrA3 yr ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILLIA HILLIARD, individually v. Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHARD, DONTAE CHAMBERS, SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO. 02-2007 Civil Term PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT Please issue a Rule upon Plaintiffs, Sigismond Bull, as administrator of the Estate of Sydney Sigismond Bull, Sigismond Bull, individually, and Cecillia Hilliard, individually, to file a Complaint against the Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of Rule or suffer entry of judgment non pros. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER eneral By: 9 STEVEN C. GOULD Deputy Attorney General DATED: June 7, 2002 Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Steven C. Gould Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-8035 SIGISMOND BULL, as : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILLIA HILLIARD, individually v. Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHARD, DONTAE CHAMBERS, SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO. 02-2007 Civil Term RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO: SIGISMOND BULL, as Administrator of the Estate of SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILLIA HILLIARD, individually C/O Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Bayley 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 A Rule is hereby entered upon you to file a Complaint in the above matter against the Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, within twenty (20) days of service hereof or suffer judgment of non pros. r Prothonotary DATED: dt'.)C- l of ZW Aa - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing Praecipe For Rule to File Complaint upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Emmett Lockhart, ET2960 Rominger & Bayley SCI at Houtzdale 155 South Hanover Street P.O. Box 1000 Carlisle, PA 17013 Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000 (717) 241-6070 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Dontae Chambers, EX3912 SCI at Coal Township Chi-Gamma Lota a/k/a XGI One Kelly Drive 45 Sunbeam Court, Building 4-2 Coal Township, PA 17866-1020 Shippensburg, PA 17257 Matthew Norris, ES4644 SCI at Pittsburgh P.O. Box 99901 Pittsburgh, PA 15233 By: STEVEN C. GOULD ID #80156 Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15`h Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial DATED: June 7, 2002 N 7 ? rn Z - -r3 C Q o ri 5" N tam Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 SIGISMOND BULL, as ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILLIA HILLIARD, individually Plaintiffs V. MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHARD, DONTAE CHAMBERS, SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA Defendants Steven C. Gould Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-8035 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO. 02-2007 Civil Term CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON JUNE 12, 2002, I served the executed Rule to File Complaint, upon the person(a) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Chi-Gamma Lota a/k/a XGI 45 Sunbeam Court, Building 4-2 Shippensburg, PA 17257 Emmett Lockart, ET2960 SCI at Houtzdale P.O. Box 1000 Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000 Matthew Norris, ES4644 SCI at Pittsburgh P.O. Box 99901 Pittsburgh, PA 15233 BY Dontae Chambers, EX3912 SCI at Coal Township One Kelly Drive Coal Township, PA 17866-1020 STEVEN C. GOULD #86156 DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL DATED: JUNE 12, 2002 C N T mm 7i Z i2 - : i7? _ JJ [[ (n F' W 7 C N ? C? zz/zz vs Case No. 1J - d do7 Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: 9N/176f,CSZ - intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name / l L fjPtl?()? f? Sign Name Date: Attorney for 1? ZaX2? /7 Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901.° Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(6) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that mle continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. ra ? o l1? N b GJ SIGISMOND BULL,as ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILIA HILLIARD, individually vs. MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHART, DONTAE CHAMBERS, CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI, and SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO: 2002 -2007 : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following Complaint, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 249-3166 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. i SIGISMOND BULL,as ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILIA HILLIARD, individually vs. MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHART, DONTAE CHAMBERS, CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI, and SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW :NO: 2002 -2007 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the Plaintiffs, Sigismond Bull as Administrator of the Estate of Sydney Sigismond Bull, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard, through their attorney, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, and for cause action against the Defendants sets forth the following: 1. Plaintiff is Sigismond Bull as Administrator of the Estate of Sydney Sigismond Bull, duly appointed by the Register of Wills of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on April 25, 2000, and he brings these actions under and by virtue of Section 8301 (Wrongful Death) and 8302 (Survival Action) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 101 et seq. 2. Plaintiffs, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia are adult individuals living and residing at 10314 Ravenwood View Lane, Houston, TX 77075. 3. Defendant, Matthew Norris is an individual, who is believed to be serving time at SCIC Graterford, P.O. Box 246, Route 29, Graterford, PA 19426. 4. Defendant, Emmett Lockhart is an individual, who is believed to be serving time at SCIC Houtzdale, P.O. Box 1000, Houtzdale, PA 16698. 5. Defendant, Dontae Chambers is an individual, who is believed to be serving time at SCIC Coal Township, 1 Kelley Drive, Coal Township, PA 17866. 6. Defendant, CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI is a fraternity located or formerly at 45 Sunbeam Court, Building 4-2, Shippensburg, PA 17257 7. Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania is an educational institute within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (hereinafter referred to as "Ship") and maintains an office/campus at 1871 Old Main Drive, Shippensburg. 8. The decedent Sydney Sigismond Bull was, at all times relevant to this action, a resident of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, residing at 20 Britton Road, Apartment M, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 9. At the time of his death on April 25, 2000, decedent, Sydney Sigismond Bull, was twenty-three, having been born on August 19, 1976. 10. Decedent did not, in his lifetime, bring an action against the Defendants for the injuries causing his death. 11. On or about April 24, 2007 to April 25, 2007, the decedent entered a vehicle with Defendants, Matthew Norris, Emmett Lockhart and Dontae Chambers. 12. After entering the vehicle, Defendant Matthew Norris produced a shotgun and pointed it at decedent for the remaining trip. 13. Defendants Matthew Norris, Emmett Lockhart and Dontae Chambers and decedent reached an area along a mountain road and parked the car in a pull-off area. 14. Decedent was held at gunpoint by Defendant, Matthew Norris and forced to walk 20 to 30 feet into the wooded area. 15. The Defendant Matthew Norris then pointed the shotgun into decedent's face, at which time the barrel of the shotgun was only 2 or 3 feet from decedent's face as decedent began pleading for his life. 16. Then the Defendant Matthew Norris shot decedent in the face, at which he fell backwards on his back. 17. Then defendant Emmett Lockhart took the gas can, which he brought along and poured the gasoline on decedent's body. 18. Following this defendant Matthew Norris threw lit matches onto decedent's body, which burned decedent's body. 19. All of these actions were the result of a conspiracy and agreement between Norris, Lockhart, and Chambers. COUNT ONE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. MATTHEW NORRIS ASSAULT & BATTERY/INTENTIONAL HOMOCIDE 20. Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 21. Defendant Matthew Norris did restrain and threaten Decedent with a deadly weapon and place him in extreme dear of imminent, physical harm and death. 22. Defendant, Matthew Norris, did intentionally, knowingly, and / or recklessly cause the death of decedent. 23. As the direct result of the wrongful acts as described above, plaintiff suffered injuries, including but not limited to a traumatic injuries to the body and head, and other injuries which may be discovered at a later time, all or some of which caused his death. 24. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts, Defendant, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the events and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. 26. The actions of Defendant were shocking and outrageous, and of such a wanton and willful nature and character that punitive damages apply. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against defendant and for plaintiff for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $20,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs, as well as punitive damages in excess of the amount of $500,000,000.00. COUNT TWO WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. MATTHEW NORRIS NEGLIGENCE 27. Paragraphs 1 through 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 28. The negligence of defendant consisted of (a) failing to protect decedent against and from the actions of the other conspiring defendants; (b) failing to render aid and assitance; (c) allowing decedent to be placed in jeopardy of life and limb when he reasonably knew his compatriots were dangerous and violent, and intended decedent harm and ill will. 29. As the direct result of defendant's negligence, plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries, including death, as more fully described above. 30. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid events, Defendant, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the events and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against defendant and for plaintiff in an amount in excess of $20,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT THREE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. EMMETT LOCKHART ASSAULT & BATTERYANTENTIONAL HOMOCIDE 32. Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 33. Defendant Emmett Lockhart did restrain and threaten Decedent with a deadly weapon and place him in extreme dear of imminent, physical harm and death. 34. Defendant, Emmett Lockhart, did intentionally, knowingly, and / or recklessly cause the death of decedent. 35. As the direct result of the wrongful acts as described above, plaintiff suffered injuries, including but not limited to a traumatic injuries to the body and head, and other injuries which may be discovered at a later time, all or some of which caused his death. 36. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts, Defendant, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the events and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 38. The actions of Defendant were shocking and outrageous, and of such a wanton and willful nature and character that punitive damages apply. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against defendant and for plaintiff for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $20,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs, as well as punitive damages in excess of the amount of $500,000,000.00. COUNT FOUR WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. EMMETT LOCKHART NEGLIGENCE 39. Paragraphs 1 through 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 40. The negligence of defendant consisted of (a) (failing to protect decedent against and from the actions of the other conspiring defendants; (b) failing to render aid and assitance; (c) allowing decedent to be placed in jeopardy of life and limb when he reasonably knew his compatriots were dangerous and violent, and intended decedent harm and ill will. 41. As the direct result of defendant's negligence, plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries as more fully described above. 42. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services' of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 43. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid events, Defendant, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the collision and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against defendant and for plaintiff in an amount in excess of $20,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT FIVE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. DONTAE CHAMBERS ASSAULT & BATTERYANTENTIONAL HOMOCIDE 44. Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 45. Defendant Dontae Chambers did restrain and threaten Decedent with a deadly weapon and place him in extreme dear of imminent, physical harm and death. 46. Defendant, Dontae Chambers, did intentionally, knowingly, and / or recklessly cause the death of decedent. 47. As the direct result of the wrongful acts as described above, plaintiff suffered injuries, including but not limited to a traumatic injuries to the body and head, and other injuries which may be discovered at a later time, all or some of which caused his death. 48. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 49. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts, Defendant, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the events and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 50. The actions of Defendant were shocking and outrageous, and of such a wanton and willful nature and character that punitive damages apply. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against defendant and for plaintiff for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $20,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs, as well as punitive damages in excess of the amount of $500,000,000.00. COUNT SIX WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. DONTAE CHAMBERS NEGLIGENCE 51. Paragraphs 1 through 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 52. The negligence of defendant consisted of (a) failing to protect decedent against and from the actions of the other conspiring defendants; (b) failing to render aid and assitance; (c) allowing decedent to be placed in jeopardy of life and limb when he reasonably knew his compatriots were dangerous and violent, and intended decedent harm and ill will. 53. As the direct result of defendant's negligence, plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries, including death, as more fully described above. 54. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid events, Defendant, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the events and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against defendant and for plaintiff in an amount in excess of $20,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT SEVEN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI, A FATERNITY CHAPTER LOCATED AT SHIPPENSBURG PENNSYLVANIA NEGLIGENCE 56. Paragraphs 1 through 40 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 57. Defendant had a duty Plaintiff. 58. The negligence of defendant consisted of: (a) failing to protect its members from the bad acts of other members and associates; (b) admitting members of known dangerous propensities; (c) not properly checking and vetting the background of members and those who associate with the group of members; (d) not effectuating a policy to control the use of drugs and alcohol amongst the members and associates; (e) failing to promulgate policies to protect the members from the criminal acts of third parties; 59. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 60. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid collision, Defendant, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the events and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Sigismond Bull as Administrator of the Estate of Sydney Sigismond Bull, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard, demands judgment against the Defendants, in an amount excess of the mandatory arbitration limits and costs of suit. COUNT EIGHT WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. NORRIS, LOCKHART & CHAMBERS CIVIL CONSPIRACY 61. The previous paragraphs are incorporated herein. 62. All of these actions were the result of a conspiracy and agreement between Norris, Lockhart, and Chambers. 63. This civil conspiracy to cause harm to decedent makes the defendants jointly and severally liable. 64. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 65. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid events, Defendants, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the events and the time of death; r B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. 66. The conspiracy and the acts carried out in furtherance thereof was wanton, cruel, and done with a willful disregard for the value of human life, and as such it was so outrageous as that punitive damages apply. 67. The nature of the acts are such that damages in the liquidated amount of $1,500,000,000.00 is the minimally appropriate and satisfactory verdict. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered both individually and jointly and severally against defendants Lockhart, Chambers, and Norris and for plaintiff for damages, both compensatory and punitive, in a liquidated amount of $1,500,000,000.00 Respectfully Submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Date: 5.17 2) 2 G a 7 BY: --'2 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney I.D. #81924 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 09-14-'07 11:41 FROM-ROMINGER & ASSOC SIGISMOND BULL,as ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILIA HILLIARD, individually vs. MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHART, DONTAE CHAMBERS, CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI, and SHIPPENSBUR.G UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA 7172416878 T-688 P021/021 F-755 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO: 2002 -2007 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I verify that the statements matte in this complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: 09?i9p? tate SIGISMOND BULL,as : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILIA HILLIARD, individually vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW :NO: 2002 -2007 MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHART, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DONTAE CHAMBERS, CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI, and SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the Complaint upon the following by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, , at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Steven Gould, Esquire Torts and Litigation 15'' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorney for Shippensburg University CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI 45 Sunbeam Court, Building 4-2 Shippensburg, PA 17257 Matthew T. Norris/#ES4644 (Address of record) SCIC Graterford P.O. Box 246, Route 29 Graterford, PA 19426 Matthew T. Norris/#ES4644 (believed to be current location) SCIC Huntingdon 1100 Pike Street Huntingdon, PA 16654-1112 Emmett Lockhart/#ET2960 (Address of record and believed to be current location) SCIC Houtzdale P.O. Box 1000 Houtzdale, PA 16698 Dontae Chambers/#EX3912 (Address of record and believed to be current location) SCIC Coal Township 1 Kelley Drive Coal Township, PA 17866 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Dated: ?P Z GO Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Appellant C'? ?"?-a Ca O w <q? ! o , 4C-) { rn IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PA CIVIL ACTION SIGISMOND BULL V. MATTHEW NORRIS CIVIL ACTION NO.2002-2007 COMPLAINT ANSWER/REPLY AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO AND NOW comes Matthew Timothy Norris, secured party and authorized agent/fiduciary for the defendant and transmitting utility MATTHEW TIMOTHY NORRIS hereby enters an appearance pro se. ANSWER MATTHEW NORRIS answers the complaint of Sigismond Bull as follows: Paragraphs referenced by number from the original complaint. 1. Admitted: 2. Respondent has no actual knowledge of their whereabouts. 3. Denied, I reside at SCI Huntingdon 1100 Pike St Huntingdon PA, 16654. 4-7. Admitted 11. Denied. Strict proof therof is demanded for trial. 12. Denied. Strict proof is demanded for trial. 13. Denied. Strict proof is demanded for trial. 14. Denied. Strict proof is demanded for trial. 15. Denied. Strict proof is demanded for trial. 16. Denied. Strict proof is demanded for trial. 17. Denied. Strict proof is demanded for trial. 18. Denied. Strict proof is demanded for trial. 19. Denied. Strict proof is demanded for trial. 20. Denied. 21. Denied. 22. Denied. 23. Denied. 24. Denied. The respondent avers that funeral expenses upon information and belief were already awarded through criminal trial judgements. Respondent Norris is unaware of any services the Plaintiff's were receiving from the decedent. 25. Denied. 26. Denied. 27. Denied 28. Denied. 29. Denied. 30. Denied. 31. Denied. 61. Denied. 62. Denied. 63. Denied. 64. Denied. 65. Denied. 66. Denied. 67. Denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 68. Respondent NORRIS reserves the right to assert any additional defenses which may appear during the course of this matter. All allegations are denied regarding the commission of the crimes and liability of the Respondent for damages. Upon information and belief the decedant's only revenue derived from illegal distribution of narcotics, this was his career and the respondent can't be expected to be liable for those sums. WHEREFORE, Respondent hereby demands a jury trial. VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of law and 18 Pa.Cons.Stat. sec 4904 relating to uns orn fals'fication to authorities. Signature cc:/ Rominger 155 South Hanover St. Carlisle PA, 17013 ?? o O ?„ C_ rn Steven C. Gould Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct Dial 717-783-8035 SIGISMOND BULL, as : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILLIA HILLIARD, individually Plaintiffs V. MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHARD, DONTAE CHAMBERS, SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO. 02-2007 Civil Term NOTICE TO PLEAD . TO PLAINTIFFS: YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED to respond to the within New Matter within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR. Attorney- eneral ?l By: STEVEN C. GOULD, ID #80156 Senior Deputy Attorney General DATED: November 6, 2007 Steven C. Gould Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct Dial 717-783-8035 SIGISMOND BULL, as ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILLIA HILLIARD, individually Plaintiffs V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHARD, DONTAE CHAMBERS, SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED :NO. 02-2007 Civil Term DEFENDANT, SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania (hereinafter, "Commonwealth Defendant"), by and through the Office of Attorney General, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint: 1. Denied. The allegations set forth in Paragraph I of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of Paragraph I could be construed as factual allegations, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Denied. The averments of this paragraph arp directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 3 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 4. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 4 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief As to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 5. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, ¦ , accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 5 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. 7. Admitted. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 11 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 12 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 13 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 14 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 15 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 16 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 17 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 18 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 19 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT ONE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. MATTHEW NORRIS ASSAULT & BATTERY/INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE 20. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 21.-26. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT TWO WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. MATTHEW NORRIS NEGLIGENCE 27. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 28.-31. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT THREE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. EMMETT LOCKHART ASSAULT & BATTERYANTENTIONAL HOMICIDE 32. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 33.-38. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT FOUR WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. EMMETT LOCKHART NEGLIGENCE 39. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 40.43. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT FIVE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. DONTAE CHAMBERS ASSAULT & BATTERY/INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE 44. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 45.-50. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT SIX WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. DONTAE CHAMBERS NEGLIGENCE 51. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 52.-55. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT SEVEN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGL, A FATERNITY CHAPTER LOCATED AT SHIPPENSBURG PENNSYLVANIA NEGLIGENCE 56. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 40 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 57.-60. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT EIGHT WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. NORRIS, LOCKHART & CHAMBERS CIVIL CONSPIRACY 61. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to the previous paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 62-67. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. NEW MATTER The Commonwealth Defendant hereby raises the following New Matter: 68. The present action is controlled by the provisions of 1 Pa. C. S. §2310 and Act No. 1980-142, set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §§8501, et seq., which Acts are incorporated herein and pled by reference. The Commonwealth Defendant asserts all the defenses contained therein. 69. Liability on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant is specifically denied. 70. The Commonwealth Defendant is specifically entitled to the defenses set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §8524, which section is incorporated herein and pled by reference. 71. The Commonwealth Defendant invokes any and all common law defenses available to it pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §8524. 72. The Commonwealth Defendant is immune from suit, and therefore Plaintiffs' action is barred. 73. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the Commonwealth Defendant. 74. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action against the Commonwealth Defendant. 75. This action is not within any of the exceptions to immunity as set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §8522, and therefore is barred. 76. Should liability be found on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant, the amounts and types of damages recoverable in the present action are limited and controlled by 42 Pa. C.S. §8528. 77. The Judicial Code at 42 Pa. C.S. §5522(a), which section is incorporated herein and pled by reference, provides that the Commonwealth and the Attorney General must have received written notice of intent to sue within six (6) months from the date the cause of action accrues. In the absence of such notice, this action is barred. 78. The Commonwealth Defendant had no duty with respect to Plaintiffs' decedent under these facts. 79. Punitive damages are not recoverable against the Commonwealth Defendant. 80. Funeral, burial and estate administration expenses are not recoverable against the Commonwealth Defendant. 81. This action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 82. All affirmative defenses under Pa.R.C.P. 1030 are asserted and incorporated by reference as if set forth herein at length. 83. Plaintiffs' decedent's injuries and resulting death, as alleged, were caused by other persons or parties which were contributory and/or intervening, superseding causes of Plaintiffs decedent's death. 84. The Commonwealth Defendant is not responsible for injuries caused by the criminal acts of third parties. 85. Plaintiffs alleged damages and/or losses were caused by the actions or inactions of other persons or entities and accordingly, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §7102 is a bar to recovery against the Commonwealth Defendant; or, in the alternative, the Commonwealth Defendant avers that any recovery arising from this action must be diminished in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 86. The Commonwealth Defendant is immune from claims alleging intentional tort. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR. Atto Gener By: Steven C. Gould, I.D. #80156 Senior Deputy Attorney General DATED: November 6, 2007 VERIFICATION I, Steven C. Gould, Esquire hereby verify that I am counsel for the Commonwealth Defendant, in the foregoing action, and also verify that the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that I am subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities for any false statements knowingly made herein. DATED: November 6, 2007 By: STEVEN C. GOULD, ID #80156 Senior Deputy Attorney General CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the Commonwealth Defendant's Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Chi-Gamma Lota a/k/a XGI 45 Sunbeam Court, Building 4-2 Shippensburg, PA 17257 Matthew Norris, ES4644 SCI at Pittsburgh P.O. Box 99901 Pittsburgh, PA 15233 Emmett Lockhart, ET2960 SCI at Houtzdale P.O. Box 1000 Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000 Dontae Chambers, EX3912 SCI at Coal Township One Kelly Drive Coal Township, PA 17866-1020 Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial By: .- STEVEN C. GOULD ID #80156 Senior Deputy Attorney General DATED: November 6, 2007 • 0 • ? -rgt' btf 2T 6F CbntiM ot1 FLEM C'vm D37 f2tAA1D el-doU Y PA WROIGrVE ?MfffK tjUiL Aa(OAI AID. aaoa- afso`7 ?-- v Mlv fEW -rtra qT doRRI5 kero-L? e,515' rO -- Cat (,u-ho of ret.,LP4 o-f- k7 s o-.,s jx-r5 A-Z) -HQ- (8^Nln ti ! G Pi f"? /1P ?'??f (-Z ?,Q.?? LS I e{ti o^T C=rte} ke, k"e- j nug4s ?ea,vc 4-o t&rmcf suA Pt2c?;ca ? uPOn C??Qc r? lae, d4 no-+ t/IC- c9?5(y YKvrde,r' k dAy, Cab , c?e?,??. or 5-24 1 ?j194/ D,) ?i,?l?r??? Q +`?- ( ffLC?d-nq f TY ?L l??lY? t MaAtJ Avn3 3p t ) 5-x-3 L..} F Gl N SIGISMOND BULL,as ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILIA HILLIARD, individually vs. MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHART, DONTAE CHAMBERS, CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI, and SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW :NO: 2002 -2007 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER TO NEW MATTER AND NOW come the Plaintiff's, Sigismond Bull as Administrator of the Estate of Sydney Sigismond Bull, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard, through their attorney, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, and avers as follows: 68. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 69. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 70. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 71. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 72. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. l 73. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 74. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 75. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 76. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 77. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 78. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 79. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 80. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 81. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 82. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial . 83. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 84. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 85. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 86. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against all defendants. Respectfully Submitted, Rominger & Associates Date: December 3, 2009 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Plaintiffs SIGISMOND BULL,as : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILIA HILLIARD, individually vs. MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHART, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO: 2002 -2007 : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DONTAE CHAMBERS, CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI, and SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the Complaint upon the following by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid,, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Steven Gould, Esquire Torts and Litigation 15`h Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorney for Shippensburg University CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI 45 Sunbeam Court, Building 4-2 Shippensburg, PA 17257 Matthew T. Norris/#ES4644 SCIC Graterford P.O. Box 246, Route 29 Graterford, PA 19426 (Address of record) Emmett Lockhart/4ET2960 SCIC Houtzdale P.O. Box 1000 Houtzdale, PA 16698 (Address of Record and believed to be current location) Matthew T. Norris/#ES4644 SCIC Huntingdon 1100 Pike Street Huntingdon, PA 16654-1112 (Believed to be current location) Dontae Chambers/#EX3912 SCIC Coal Township 1 Kelley Drive Coal Township, PA 17866 (Address of Record and believed to be current location) Respectfully Submitted, Rominger & Associates Date: December 3, 2009 r Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Plaintiffs RJEJ i cy e7?7 72' 2009 DE -3 af-. 2: 16 r. Steven C. Gould Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct Dial: 717-783-3105 E-Mail: sgouldkattomey eneral.gov SIGISMOND BULL, as ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILLIA HILLIARD, individually Plaintiffs V. MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHARD, DONTAE CHAMBERS SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA Defendants OF TH NARY 2010 JAN 4 AM 8.2 5 Ct. `_"?- COUNTY P'EN1INSYWAM4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO.02-2007 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND NOW, comes the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania (hereinafter, "Shippensburg University"), by and through its counsel, the Office of Attorney General, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, 1034 et seq., and Cumberland County Local Rule 1034(a), and hereby files this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and in support thereof avers, as follows: 1. On April 24, 2002, Plaintiffs commenced this action against Shippensburg University and other defendants by filing a Writ of Summons in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. After being ruled to file a complaint, on September 21, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint. (A copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A") 3. On or about November 6, 2007, Shippensburg University filed their Answer and New Matter asserting the protection of sovereign immunity and affirmatively stating that Plaintiffs' Complaint failed to state a cause of action and/or claims against them. (A copy of Shippensburg University's Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit `B"). 4. On December 3, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their Answer to the Shippensburg University's New Matter. (A copy of Plaintiffs' Answer to New Matter is attached hereto as Exhibit "C"). 5. The pleadings between Plaintiffs and Shippensburg University are closed. 6. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiffs' action stems from the April 24, 2000, murder of Sydney Bull (hereinafter, "Decedent"). 7. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, on or about April 24, 2000 [sic] to April 25, 2000 [sic], Decedent was transported in a vehicle at gunpoint by Defendants, Matthew Norris, Emmett Lockhart and Dontae Chambers to a wooded area. (See, Complaint, ¶s 11, 12 & 14). 8. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Decedent was shot in the face by Defendant, Matthew Norris. (See, Complaint, ¶ 16). 9. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendant Lockhart took a gas can and poured gasoline on Decedent's body. (See, Complaint, ¶ 17). 10. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendant Matthew Norris threw lit matches on Decedent's body. (See, Complaint, ¶ 18). 2 11. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Decedent's murder was the result of a conspiracy and agreement between Defendants, Matthew Norris, Emmett Lockhart, and Dontae Chambers. (See, Complaint, ¶ 19). 12. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendant Matthew Norris is serving time at SCI-Graterford for the murder of Decedent. (See, Complaint, ¶ 3).1 13. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendant Emmett Lockhart, is serving time at SCI-Houtzdale for the murder of Decedent. (See, Complaint, ¶ 4).2 14. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendant Dontae Chambers is serving time at SCI-Coal Township for the murder of Decedent. (See, Complaint, 15).3 15. At all relevant times hereto, Shippensburg University, was a "Commonwealth Party" within the meaning of Section 8501 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §8501. 16. As a Commonwealth party, Shippensburg University is immune from suit except as specifically waived by the General Assembly. See, 1 Pa.C.S. §2310; See also, 42 Pa.C.S. §8501 et seq. 17. Before sovereign immunity will be waived, Section 8522(a) requires the Plaintiffs first to show that Shippensburg University owed either a common law or statutory duty. See, 42 Pa.C.S. §8522(a). ` Shippensburg University, believes that Defendant, Matthew Norris, was convicted on or about July 11, 2001, of First Degree Murder in connection with Decedent's death and is currently serving life in prison at SCI-Greene. 2 Shippensburg University, believes that Defendant, Emmett Lockhart, was convicted on or about August 17, 2001, of First Degree Murder in connection with Decedent's death and is currently serving life in prison. 3 Shippensburg University, believes that Defendant, Dontae Chambers, was convicted on or about February 22, 2002, of Second Degree Murder in connection with Decedent's death and is currently serving life in prison. 3 18. If the Plaintiffs are able to establish that Shippensburg University had a common law or statutory duty, in order to state a cause of action against Shippensburg University, Plaintiffs must next prove that Shippensburg University acted negligently and such acts complained of fall within one of the exceptions of sovereign immunity set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. §8522(b)(1)-(9). 19. In the instant actions, Shippensburg University had no duty recognized by law with respect to Plaintiffs' Decedent. 20. In the instant action, no claim has been raised against Shippensburg University. 21. Plaintiffs' Complaint is devoid of any negligence on the part of Shippensburg University. (See, Complaint). 22. The only reference to Shippensburg University is contained Paragraph 7, in which Plaintiffs simply identify Shippensburg University as an educational institute. Specifically, Paragraph 7 reads as follows: "Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, is an educational institute within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (hereinafter referred to as "Ship") and maintains an office/campus at 1871 Old Main Drive, Shippensburg." (See, Complaint, ¶ 7). 23. Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs had pled negligent allegations against the Shippensburg University, Plaintiffs' action is not within any of the exceptions to immunity as set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. §8522(b)(1)-(9), and therefore is barred. 24. Rule 1034 of the Pennsylvania's Rules of Civil Procedure allows any party to move for Judgment on the Pleadings "[a]fter the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings". See, Pa.R.C.P. 1034(a). 4 25. Before filing this Motion, counsel for Shippensburg University contacted Plaintiffs' counsel and was advised that Plaintiffs do not oppose Shippensburg University's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant its motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and mark the above-captioned matter "discontinued and ended, with prejudice," only as to Shippensburg University. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Steven C. Gould, 115 980 6 Senior Deputy Attorne General DATED: January 5, 2010 5 '? ?. 5 r ?, V?7? y/, ?, V SIGISMOND BULL,as ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILIA HILLIARD, individually vs. MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHART, DONTAE CHAMBERS, CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI, and SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RECEIVED OffirF )f Attorney Genera! EP 4 207 CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO: 2002 -2007 Torts Lip'fatim a JURY TRIAL DEMANDED jz= s" ac r . ' NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following Complaint, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 249-3166 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. 4r N I SIGISMOND BULL,as ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILIA HILLIARD, individually vs. MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHART, DONTAE CHAMBERS, CHI GAMMA IOTA aka. XGI, and SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW :NO: 2002 -2007 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the Plaintiffs, Sigismond Bull as Administrator of the Estate of Sydney Sigismond Bull, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard, through their attorney, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, and for cause action against the Defendants sets forth the following: 1. Plaintiff is Sigismond Bull as Administrator of the Estate of Sydney Sigismond Bull, duly appointed by the Register of Wills of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on April 25, 2000, and he brings these actions under and by virtue of Section 8301 (Wrongful Death) and 8302 (Survival Action) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 101 et seq. 2. Plaintiffs, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia are adult individuals living and residing at 10314 Ravenwood View Lane, Houston, TX 77075. 3. Defendant, Matthew Norris is an individual, who is believed to be serving time at SCIC Graterford, P.O. Box 246, Route 29, Graterford, PA 19426. 4. Defendant, Emmett Lockhart is an individual, who is believed to be serving time at SCIC Houtzdale, P.O. Box 1000, Houtzdale, PA 16698. 5. Defendant, Dontae Chambers is an individual, who is believed to be serving time at SCIC Coal Township, 1 Kelley Drive, Coal Township, PA 17866. 6. Defendant, CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI is a fraternity located or formerly at 45 Sunbeam Court, Building 4-2, Shippensburg, PA 17257 7. Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania is an educational institute within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (hereinafter referred to as "Ship") and maintains an office/campus at 1871 Old Main Drive, Shippensburg. 8. The decedent Sydney Sigismond Bull was, at all times relevant to this action, a resident of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, residing at 20 Britton Road, Apartment M, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 9. At the time of his death on April 25, 2000, decedent, Sydney Sigismond Bull, was twenty-three, having been born on August 19, 1976. 10. Decedent did not, in his lifetime, bring an action against the Defendants for the injuries causing his death. 11. On or about April 24, 2007 to April 25, 2007, the decedent entered a vehicle with Defendants, Matthew Norris, Emmett Lockhart and Dontae Chambers. 12. After entering the vehicle, Defendant Matthew Norris produced a shotgun and pointed it at decedent for the remaining trip. 13. Defendants Matthew Norris, Emmett Lockhart and Dontae Chambers and decedent reached an area along a mountain road and parked the car in a pull-off area. 14. Decedent was held at gunpoint by Defendant, Matthew Norris and forced to walk 20 to 30 feet into the wooded area. 15. The Defendant Matthew Norris then pointed the shotgun into decedent's face, at which time the barrel of the shotgun was only 2 or 3 feet from decedent's face as decedent began pleading for his life. 16. Then the Defendant Matthew Norris shot decedent in the face, at which he fell backwards on his back. 17. Then defendant Emmett Lockhart took the gas can, which he brought along and poured the gasoline on decedent's body. 18. Following this defendant Matthew Norris threw lit matches onto decedent's body, which burned decedent's body. 19. All of these actions were the result of a conspiracy and agreement between Norris, Lockhart, and Chambers. COUNT ONE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. MATTHEW NORRIS ASSAULT & BATTERY/INTENTIONAL HOMOCIDE 20. Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 21. Defendant Matthew Norris did restrain and threaten Decedent with a deadly weapon and place him in extreme dear of imminent, physical harm and death. 22. Defendant, Matthew Norris, did intentionally, knowingly, and / or recklessly cause the death of decedent. { 23. As the direct result of the wrongful acts as described above, plaintiff suffered injuries, including but not limited to a traumatic injuries to the body and head, and other injuries which may be discovered at a later time, all or some of which caused his death. 24. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts, Defendant, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the events and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. # t t I 26. The actions of Defendant were shocking and outrageous, and of such a wanton and willful nature and character that punitive damages apply. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against defendant and for plaintiff for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $20,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs, as well as punitive damages in excess of the amount of $500,000,000.00. COUNT TWO WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. MATTHEW NORRIS NEGLIGENCE 27. Paragraphs 1 through 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 28. The negligence of defendant consisted of (a) failing to protect decedent against and from the actions of the other conspiring defendants; (b) failing to render aid and assitance; (c) allowing decedent to be placed in jeopardy of life and limb when he reasonably knew his compatriots were dangerous and violent, and intended decedent harm and ill will. 29. As the direct result of defendant's negligence, plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries, including death, as more fully described above. 30, As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid events, Defendant, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the events and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against defendant and for plaintiff in an amount in excess of $20,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT THREE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. EMMETT LOCKHART ASSAULT & BATTERYANTENTIONAL HOMOCIDE 32. Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 33. Defendant Emmett Lockhart did restrain and threaten Decedent with a deadly weapon and place him in extreme dear of imminent, physical harm and death. 34. Defendant, Emmett Lockhart, did intentionally, knowingly, and / or recklessly cause the death of decedent. 35. As the direct result of the wrongful acts as described above, plaintiff suffered injuries, including but not limited to a traumatic injuries to the body and head, and other injuries which may be discovered at a later time, all or some of which caused his death. 36. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts, Defendant, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the events and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's fixture earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 38. The actions of Defendant were shocking and outrageous, and of such a wanton and willful nature and character that punitive damages apply. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against defendant and for plaintiff for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $20,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs, as well as punitive damages in excess of the amount of $500,000,000.00. COUNT FOUR WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. EMMETT LOCKHART NEGLIGENCE 39. Paragraphs 1 through 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 40. The negligence of defendant consisted of (a) (failing to protect decedent against and from the actions of the other conspiring defendants; (b) failing to render aid and assitance; (c) allowing decedent to be placed in jeopardy of life and limb when he reasonably knew his compatriots were dangerous and violent, and intended decedent harm and ill will. 41. As the direct result of defendant's negligence, plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries as more fully described above. 42. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 43. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid events, Defendant, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the collision and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against defendant and for plaintiff in an amount in excess of $20,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT FIVE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. DONTAE CHAMBERS ASSAULT & BATTERY/INTENTIONAL HOMOCIDE 44. Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 45. Defendant Dontae Chambers did restrain and threaten Decedent with a deadly weapon and place him in extreme dear of imminent, physical harm and death. 46. Defendant, Dontae Chambers, did intentionally, knowingly, and / or recklessly cause the death of decedent. 47. As the direct result of the wrongful acts as described above, plaintiff suffered injuries, including but not limited to a traumatic injuries to the body and head, and other injuries which may be discovered at a later time, all or some of which caused his death. 48. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 49. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts, Defendant, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the events and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 50. The actions of Defendant were shocking and outrageous, and of such a wanton and willful nature and character that punitive damages apply. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against defendant and for plaintiff for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $20,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs, as well as punitive damages in excess of the amount of $500,000,000.00. COUNT SIX WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. DONTAE CHAMBERS NEGLIGENCE 51. Paragraphs 1 through 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 52. The negligence of defendant consisted of. (a) failing to protect decedent against and from the actions of the other conspiring defendants; (b) failing to render aid and assitance; (c) allowing decedent to be placed in jeopardy of life and limb when he reasonably knew his compatriots were dangerous and violent, and intended decedent harm and ill will. 53. As the direct result of defendant's negligence, plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries, including death, as more fully described above. 54. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid events, Defendant, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the events and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against defendant and for plaintiff in an amount in excess of $20,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. 1 COUNT SEVEN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI, A FATERNITY CHAPTER LOCATED AT SHIPPENSBURG PENNSYLVANIA NEGLIGENCE 56. Paragraphs 1 through 40 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 57. Defendant had a duty Plaintiff. 58. The negligence of defendant consisted of: (a) failing to protect its members from the bad acts of other members and associates; (b) admitting members of known dangerous propensities; (c) not properly checking and vetting the background of members and those who associate with the group of members; (d) not effectuating a policy to control the use of drugs and alcohol amongst the members and associates; (e) failing to promulgate policies to protect the members from the criminal acts of third parties; 59. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; x 3 I r B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 60. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid collision, Defendant, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the events and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Sigismond Bull as Administrator of the Estate of Sydney Sigismond Bull, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard, demands judgment against the Defendants, in an amount excess of the mandatory arbitration limits and costs of suit. i !1 COUNT EIGHT WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. NORRIS, LOCKHART & CHAMBERS CIVIL CONSPIRACY 61. The previous paragraphs are incorporated herein. 62. All of these actions were the result of a conspiracy and agreement between Norris, Lockhart, and Chambers. 63. This civil conspiracy to cause harm to decedent makes the defendants jointly and severally liable. 64. As a result of the decedent's death and for the Wrongful Death herein, defendant is liable for the following damages: A. Funeral expenses for decedent; B. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; C. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard; and D. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. 65. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid events, Defendants, pursuant to the Survival action herein, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: A. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the events and the time of death; B. Decedent's pain and suffering from the time of his injuries and the time of death; C. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; D. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and E. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. 66. The conspiracy and the acts carried out in furtherance thereof was wanton, cruel, and done with a willful disregard for the value of human life, and as such it was so outrageous as that punitive damages apply. 67. The nature of the acts are such that damages in the liquidated amount of $1,500,000,000.00 is the minimally appropriate and satisfactory verdict. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered both individually and jointly and severally against defendants Lockhart, Chambers, and Norris and for plaintiff for damages, both compensatory and punitive, in a liquidated amount of $1,500,000,000.00 Respectfully Submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Date: 15Z/ 9 j Z c, o 7 BY: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney I.D. #81924 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 % , SIGISMOND BULL,as IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILIA HILLIARD, individually vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW :NO. 2002 -2007 MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHART, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DONTAE CHAMBERS, CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI, and SHIPPENS13URG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat_ § 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: 0//? tate .. ! SIGISMOND BULL,as : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILIA HILLIARD, individually vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO: 2002 -2007 MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHART, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DONTAE CHAMBERS, CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI, and SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the Complaint upon the following by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, , at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Steven Gould, Esquire Torts and Litigation 15"' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorney for Shippensburg University CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI 45 Sunbeam Court, Building 4-2 Shippensburg, PA 17257 Matthew T. Norris/#ES4644 (Address of record) SCIC Graterford P.O. Box 246, Route 29 Graterford, PA 19426 Matthew T. Norris/#ES4644 (believed to be current location) SCIC Huntingdon 1100 Pike Street Huntingdon, PA 16654-1112 Emmett Lockhart/#ET2960 (Address of record and believed to be current location) SCIC Houtzdale P.O. Box 1000 Houtzdale, PA 16698 Dontae Chambers/#EX3912 (Address of record and believed to be current location) SCIC Coal Township 1 Kelley Drive Coal Township, PA 17866 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Dated: /e 7 / 2 DO Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Appellant ?? ?. / `? ?. Steven C. Gould Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct Dial 717-783-8035 SIGISMOND BULL, as : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILLIA HILLIARD, individually Plaintiffs V. : CIVIL ACTION- LAW MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHARD, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DONTAE CHAMBERS, SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA Defendants :NO. 02-2007 Civil Term DEFENDANT, SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania (hereinafter, "Commonwealth Defendant"), by and through the Office of Attorney General, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint: 1. Denied. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 1 could be construed as factual allegations, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 3 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 4. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 4 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 5. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 5 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. 7. Admitted. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 11 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 12 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. w$ 13. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 13 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 14 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 15 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 16 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another parry, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 17 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 18 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the answering Commonwealth Defendant. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 19 could be construed as factual allegations directed at the Commonwealth Defendant, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT ONE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. MATTHEW NORRIS ASSAULT & BATTERY/INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE 20. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 21.-26. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT TWO WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. MATTHEW NORRIS NEGLIGENCE 27. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 28.-31. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University. of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT THREE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. EMMETT LOCKHART ASSAULT & BATTERY/INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE 32. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 31-38. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT FOUR WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. EMMETT LOCKHART NEGLIGENCE 39. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 40.-43. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT FIVE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. DONTAE CHAMBERS ASSAULT & BATTERY/INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE 44. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 45.-50. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT SIX WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. DONTAE CHAMBERS NEGLIGENCE 51. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 52.-55. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT SEVEN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGL, A FATERNITY CHAPTER LOCATED AT SHIPPENSBURG PENNSYLVANIA NEGLIGENCE 56. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 40 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 57.-60. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. 7 COUNT EIGHT WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND SURVIVOR ACTION v. NORRIS, LOCKHART & CHAMBERS CIVIL CONSPIRACY 61. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to the previous paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 62-67. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, respectfully request that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. NEW MATTER The Commonwealth Defendant hereby raises the following New Matter: 68. The present action is controlled by the provisions of 1 Pa. C. S. §2310 and Act No. 1980-142, set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §§8501, et seq., which Acts are incorporated herein and pled by reference. The Commonwealth Defendant asserts all the defenses contained therein. 69. Liability on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant is specifically denied. 70. The Commonwealth Defendant is specifically entitled to the defenses set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §8524, which section is incorporated herein and pled by reference. 71. The Commonwealth Defendant invokes any and all common law defenses available to it pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §8524. 72. The Commonwealth Defendant is immune from suit, and therefore Plaintiffs' action is barred. 73. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the Commonwealth Defendant. 74. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action against the Commonwealth Defendant. 75. This action is not within any of the exceptions to immunity as set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §8522, and therefore is barred. 76. Should liability be found on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant, the amounts and types of damages recoverable in the present action are limited and controlled by 42 Pa. C.S. §8528. 77. The Judicial Code at 42 Pa. C.S. §5522(a), which section is incorporated herein and pled by reference, provides that the Commonwealth and the Attorney General must have received written notice of intent to sue within six (6) months from the date the cause of action accrues. In the absence of such notice, this action is barred. 78. The Commonwealth Defendant had no duty with respect to Plaintiffs' decedent under these facts. 79. Punitive damages are not recoverable against the Commonwealth Defendant. 80. Funeral, burial and estate administration expenses are not recoverable against the Commonwealth Defendant. 81. This action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 82. All affirmative defenses under Pa.R.C.P. 1030 are asserted and incorporated by reference as if set forth herein at length. 83. Plaintiffs' decedent's injuries and resulting death, as alleged, were caused by other persons or parties which were contributory and/or intervening, superseding causes of Plaintiffs decedent's death. 84. The Commonwealth Defendant is not responsible for injuries caused by the criminal acts of third parties. 85. Plaintiffs alleged damages and/or losses were caused by the actions or inactions of other persons or entities and accordingly, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §7102 is a bar to recovery against the Commonwealth Defendant; or, in the alternative, the Commonwealth Defendant avers that any recovery arising from this action must be diminished in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 86. The Commonwealth Defendant is immune from claims alleging intentional tort. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR. Attorney' General . ?4 Jr ^ i ?r ! By: -- Steven C. Gould, I.D. #80156 Senior Deputy Attorney General DATED: November 6, 2007 VERIFICATION I, Steven C. Gould, Esquire hereby verify that I am counsel for the Commonwealth Defendant, in the foregoing action, and also verify that the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that I am subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities for any false statements knowingly made herein. DATED: November 6, 2007 By:.? STEVEN C. GOULD, ID #80156 Senior Deputy Attorney General CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the Commonwealth Defendant's Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Chi-Gamma Lota a/k/a XGI 45 Sunbeam Court, Building 4-2 Shippensburg, PA 17257 Matthew Norris, ES4644 SCI at Pittsburgh P.O. Box 99901 Pittsburgh, PA 15233 Emmett Lockhart, ET2960 SCI at Houtzdale P.O. Box 1000 Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000 Dontae Chambers, EX3912 SCI at Coal Township One Kelly Drive Coal Township, PA 17866-1020 Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial -. r Y:.,• STEVEN C. GOULD ID #80156 Senior Deputy Attorney General DATED: November 6, 2007 l„/ ?k SIGISMOND BULL,as : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENN SYLVANIA OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILIA HILLIARD, individually vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO: 2002 -2007 MATTHEW NORRIS, l EMMETT LOCKHART, : JURY g MANDED t = DONTAE CHAMBERS, AtbOtftBy ' ' CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI, and SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of DEC 0 7 2009 PENNSYLVANIA ; Torts L ti t = y r_' -' ANSWER TO NEW MATTER R ti AND NOW come the Plaintiffs, Sigismond Bull as Administrator of the Estate of Sydney Sigismond Bull, Sigismond Bull and Cecilia Hilliard, through their attorney, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, and avers as follows: 68. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 69. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 70. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 71. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 72. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 73. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the v extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 74. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 75. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 76. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 77. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 78. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 79. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 80. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 81. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 82. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 83. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 84. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 85. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer: To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 86. This allegation is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the allegations are denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against all defendants. Respectfully Submitted, Rominger & Associates Date: December 3, 2009 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Plaintiffs SIGISMOND BULL,as : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 1 ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILIA HILLIARD, individually vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW :NO: 2002 -2007 MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHART, DONTAE CHAMBERS, CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI, and SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the Complaint upon the following by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, , at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Steven Gould, Esquire Torts and Litigation 15`h Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorney for Shippensburg University Matthew T. Norris/#ES4644 SCIC Graterford P.O. Box 246, Route 29 Graterford, PA 19426 (Address of record) Emmett Lockhart/#ET2960 SCIC Houtzdale P.O. Box 1000 Houtzdale, PA 16698 (Address of Record and believed to be current location) CHI GAMMA IOTA aka XGI 45 Sunbeam Court, Building 4-2 Shippensburg, PA 17257 Matthew T. Norris/#ES4644 SCIC Huntingdon 1100 Pike Street Huntingdon, PA 16654-1112 (Believed to be current location) Dontae Chambers/#EX3912 SCIC Coal Township I Kelley Drive Coal Township, PA 17866 (Address of Record and believed to be current location) Respectfully Submitted, Rominger & Associates Date: December 3, 2009 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving Defendant, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) Chi-Gamma Lota a/k/a XGI 45 Sunbeam Court, Building 4-2 Shippensburg, PA 17257 Matthew Norris, ES4644 SCI at Greene 175 Progress Drive Waynesburg, 15370 Emmett Lockhart, ET2960 SCI at Houtzdale P.O. BOX 1000 209 Institution Drive Houtzdale, PA 16698 Dontae Chambers, EX3912 SCI at Coal Township One Kelly Drive Coal Township, PA 17866 Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial DATED: January 5, 2010 STEVEN C. GOULD, IZ #80156 Senior Deputy Attorney General CA/ AL. A FILED-OFFICE PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT *"E 'POMM OTAW TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: 2019 JAN -8 AM 8: 24 Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court.C'UMBEIIiLA D COUNly ONNOSY.vANIa SIGISMOND BULL, as IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILLIA HILLIARD, individually Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT LOCKHARD, DONTAE CHAMBERS SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO.02-2007 CIVIL TERM State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial defendant's demurrer to Complaint, etc.): Defendant Shippensbura University's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 2. Identify counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiff: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Whare 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (b) for defendant: Steven C. Gould, Esquire Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: February 17, 2010 however Defendant Shippensburg_University will be seeking, approval of the Court to argue this Motion only on briefs. By: Steven C. Gould, I.D. #801Val Senior Deputy Attorney Ge Attorney for the Commonwealth Defendant Dated: January 5, 2010 I SIGISMOND BULL, as IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ESTATE OF SYDNEY SIGISMOND BULL, SIGISMOND BULL, individually, and CECILLIA HILLIARD, individually, Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW a NO. 02-2007 CIVIL C, VS. t r • 4' ? T MATTHEW NORRIS, EMMETT _ - w ? ,F LOCKHARD, DONTAE -, CHAMBERS, SHIPPENSBURG t= =`T UNIVERSITY OF ; PENNSYLVANIA, Defendants IN RE: MOTION OF SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BEFORE HESS. P.J. ORDER AND NOW, this /3` day of April, 2010, it appearing that the plaintiffs' complaint is devoid of any allegations that would entitle plaintiffs to relief against Shippensburg University, the motion of Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. BY THE COURT, I Karl E. Rominger, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Steven C. Gould, Esquire Sr. Deputy Attorney General atthew Norris ES4644 SCI Greene 175 Progress Drive Waynesburg, PA 15370 '.--fmmett Lockhart, ET2960 SCI Houtzdale P. O. Box 1000 209 Institution Drive Houtzdale, PA 16698 tae Chambers, EX3912 SCI Coal Township One Kelly Drive Coal Township, PA 17866 Arn