The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About95-01761 1 ! d .' ~ . - i , -7 ."'," E: Q) p J d - ~ r - . ;,~i:'1 .:-.:~t~ '_::.:~;,~ ." ",{, ., ..>~'j ,,,- ,hr, ~\~~ ',,".,i \,:,::~ ; ;'~~:: ;'~~ - , : ~~~~. , --.;",-., .:,c"'- '<. SOLOMON 5 DiPIERO, P.C. By: Andrew E. DiPiero, Jr., Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 34671 Suite 1301, Constitution Place 325 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Attorney for Plaintiffs (215) 922-7000 CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband and wife 2008 North Beaver Street York, PA 17404 , . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION No. 15 17ft.r {J u'; l-cJl-v,,,,--, . . . . . . . . v. . . AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY c/o Prentice-Hall Corporation Systems, Inc. 100 Pine Street HarriSburg, PA 17108 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Civil Action Summons in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in connection with the above-captioned action and forward the Summons to the Sheriff of Cumberland County who will, in turn, forward the Summons to the Sheriff of Dauphin County for deputized service of process on Defendant. SOLOMON & DiPIERO, P.C. By: c; I.....: \::) . ) ~ rn '\"') .... ...a r,... .L _. ~j ~:;~. :. :'[: . 'c~ -, .-'....#...,. , L ',; ,~. -~, ~' :~:~~: ....~ U~ ..... "" a !.0 l'- ~ '" ~ - :C a- vo :r ("') '- ~. ---:.\ ~ Q\ ~~,;:j) "" ~ -. ~ .... j 0 M . .... Z OJ ... .... '.-l ~ ":~Ol '" m 0 .S !I ..., .... ..... 0\ '8 OJ l~~~; III ~~ j I If ,:::l I ,::; ~ If ~i 6 .~ et!:.... ~ U '.-l ceo ::I' .... '.-l.s I .... ~j! IS~ .a! ii~~~ I '" r-. , 0 .... ....:I: J~ :::l I .:!j ii Ifl ~ .::; I 0\ 681 .-l ~Ifl' ~ U ~ ~I'< I I :! I I i , I i I' , I i I I ! '" , SHERItt'S RETURN CASE NO: 1995-01761 P COMMONWEALTH Ot PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY Ot CUMBERLAND HOKE CHRISTIAN ET AL VS, AMERICAN TELEPHONE ET AL R. Thomas KlinE to law. says. that he made named defendant. to wit: , Sheriff. who being duly sworn according diligent search and inquiry for the within AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY but was unable to locate deputized the sheriff of to serve the within Them in his bailiwick, He therefore DAUPHIN WRIT Ot SUMMONS County, Pennsylvania, On April 18th. 1995 . this office was in receipt of Pennsylvania, the attached return from DAUPHIN County. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge DAUPHIN COUNTY So answers: ~'/ ~>~ ?"~_ :'/h~ /"& ~.~;GJ' ..-::; . ......' . nomas ~ne. Sner11f 18,00 9,00 2,00 22,50 $~1,50 ANDREW DIPIERO JR 04/18/1995 Sworn and subscribed to before me this .J. ,,-do. day of nn.," , 19 q{ A,D, q,..... ~. ~D%d ~ rot ono aI'y " , , ~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNA: COUNTY OF DAUPHIN: SHERIFF'S RETURN NO, 95-1761 PAGE 197 AND NOW: April 14, 1995 ,lit 9:15 AM, SERVED TilE UPON WITHIN StMlONS American Telephone & Telegraph Company BY PERSONALLY HANDING TO Lisa Davidson, Corp. Spec. and person in charge at time of service A TRUE ATTESTED COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SUtfllNS AND MAKING KNOWN TO Him THE CONTENTS THEREOF AT Prentice Hall 100 Pine St., Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Penna, SO ANSWERS ,t.[}. .c/,~ W~ ?{."'~ SHERIF~~~A~PHIN COUNTY, PENNA BY ~~~:M DEPUTY SHERIFF Sworn and subscribed to Jtr~hi~.14p:::;i1 PROTHONOTARY 19 95 SHERIFF'S COST $ SolA while engaged in his employment as an Air Traffic Controller at the Capitol City Airport. 3. Subsequent to filing the initial lawsuit against L " Plantronics, Santa Cruz, Audio Professional Hearing Aid Center and Paul Knaub, the Plaintiffs filed two subsequent actions: one action against Denro, Inc., the manufacturer of the communications console that was located in the control tower of the Capitol City Airport at the time of the aforementioned incident involving Christian Hoke; and, another action against AT&T which was responsible for the landline communications into the control tower at the time of the I I' , ' ~ ! I' I: I, incident. 4. The alleged factual issues will be based upon the same incident. 5, The witnesses with respect to liability issues and damages in the three above-captioned lawsuits will be the same. 6. Plaintiffs aver that it would be in the interest of all parties, as well as in the interest of judicial economy, for the three above-captioned lawsuits to be consolidated for all discovery, pretrial and trial purposes, WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court issue an Order consolidating the above three cases for all discovery, pretrial and trial purposes. SOLOMON & DiPIERO, P.C. By: Andrew E. DiPiero Attorney for PI · [ I ! I ! I i I CHRISTIAN HOKE and I BETH HOKE, husband and wife IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION - LAW NO. 95-1761 v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim for relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. COURT ADMINISTRATOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE, FOURTH FLOOR 1 COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA 17013 Telephone: (717) 240-6200 RUTTER , DiPIERO By: Andrew E. DiPiero. Jr., Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 34671 The Curtis Center, Suite 750 601 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Attorney for Plaintiffs (215) 925-9200 CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband and wife 627 Roosevelt Avenue York, PA 17404 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. CIVIL ACTION No. 95-1761-Civil Term AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY c/o Prentice-Hall Corporation Systems, Inc. 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17108 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Christian Hoke and Beth Hoke, husband and wife, by their attorneys, RUTTER & DiPIERO, claim of Defendant American Telephone and Telegraph Company sums in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) upon causes of action whereof the following is a statement: 1. Plaintiffs Christian Hoke and Beth Hoke are individual citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant American Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereinafter referred to as "AT&T") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with an address for service of process at Prentice-Hall Corporation Systems, Inc., 100 Pine Street, Harrisburg, PA 17108. 3. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant AT&T regularly conducted business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 4. At all times pertinent to the subject matter of this Complaint, Defendant AT&T was in the business of owning, operating, controlling and maintaining telecommunications equipment and land lines such as those which were used to transmit signals to and from the control tower at the Capitol City Airport in April of 1993. 5. At all times pertinent to the subject matter of this Complaint, Defendant AT&T owned, operated, controlled and maintained all of the telecommunications equipment and land lines which were used to transmit signals to and from the control tower at the Capitol city Airport in April of 1993. 6. On or about April 8, 1993, Plaintiff Christian Hoke was engaged in his employment as an air traffic control specialist at the Capitol city Airport in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. 7. At the aforesaid time and place, and while engaged in his employment as an air traffic control specialist, Plaintiff Christian Hoke was wearing a Starset II headset, which was equipped with a custom earpiece, and was in the process of communicating with an aircraft while simultaneously on the land line when a very loud noise blasted over the ICSS communications system and through the telecommunications console manufactured by Denro and into his right ear causing him immediate sharp pain in his right ear and neck and other injuries and damages which will be described hereinbelow. 2 COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE Christian Hoke v. AT&T 8. Paragraphs 1 through 7 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth at length. 9. The incident described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint was caused by the carelessness and negligence of the Defendant, both generally and in the following particular respects: a. Failing properly to maintain and control the land line communications equipment (hereinafter "the product") in a reasonably safe condition; b. Allowing dangerously high levels of sound to be transmitted without notice across the land line communications system; c. Failing to give adequate and sufficient warnings as to the transmission of unreasonably loud sounds over the land line communications system; d. Failing properly to test, inspect and/or maintain the land line communication system; e. Designing, fabricating, manufacturing, selling, . distributing and/or supplying the product in a defective and dangerous condition; f. Failing to supply the product in a form which was adequate and safe for its intended use; g. Failing to give adequate and sufficient warnings as to the reasonably foreseeable defects in the product, as to the reasonable, foreseeable accidents that could occur in the use or 3 operation of the product, and as to the reasonably foreseeable dangers attendant in the use and operation of the product~ h. Failing to provide proper instructions so that the ultimate user and/or consumer would have sufficient information to operate the product in a safe manner~ 1. Failing to provide the product with adequate safety features including, but not limited to, a noise filter and/or noise suppressing device which would guard against loud noises and otherwise protect the user of the product from injury~ j. Failing properly to test and/or to inspect the product to determine whether it could be used without injury by those persons who would ultimately operate the product~ and k. Placing an unsafe product into the stream of commerce. 10. As the direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendant, Plaintiff Christian Hoke sustained severe and disabling injuries to the bones, muscles, blood vessels, tissues, tendons and nervous system of his body includinq, but not limited to, profound sensorineural hearing loss of the right ear, which is permanent in nature, headaches and neck pain, together with a severe shock to his nerves and nervous system, some or all of which injuries are permanent in nature. 11. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant as described in the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint, Plaintiff Christian Hoke has been required in the past and may continue to be required in the future to expend large sums of money 4 and to incur monetary obligations to provide medicines, medical care, hospitalization, and other treatment for his injuries. 12. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant as described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff Christian Hoke has suffered and will continue to suffer excruciating and agonizing aches, pains, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment as well as limitation and restriction of his usual activities, pursuits and pleasures. 13. As the direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant as described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff Christian Hoke has been prevented from attending to his usual daily duties and occupations and has suffered a consequent loss of earnings and earnings capacity. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Christian Hoke claims of Defendant a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), together with lawful interest thereon, costs of suit and damages for delay, and brings this action to recover same. COUNT II - STRICT LIABILITY Christian Hoke v. AT&T 14. Paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth at length. 15. Defendant AT&T was at all times relevant hereto, and presently is, engaged in the business of designing, fabricating, manufacturing, selling, distributing andlor supplying products of the type used by Plaintiff Christian Hoke as set forth herein. 5 16. At the time that Defendant AT&T designed, manufactured, sold, distributed and/or supplied the product (the land line communications system), it was in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to the ultimate purchaser and to the ultimate user and/or consumer, including Plaintiff Christian Hoke. 17. The product was at all times expected by Defendant to reach, and did in fact reach, the ultimate user and/or consumer, including Plaintiff Christian Hoke, without substantial change in the condition in which it was designed, manufactured, sold, supplied and/or distributed by Defendant. 18. By designing, manufacturing, selling, supplying and/or distributing the product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the ultimate user and/or consumer, including Plaintiff Christian Hoke, Defendant is strictly liable pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, S402A. 19. As the direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendant, Plaintiff Christian Hoke sustained severe and disabling injuries to the bones, muscles, blood vessels, tissues, tendons and nervous system of his body including, but not limited to, profound sensorineural hearing loss of the right ear, which is permanent in nature, headaches and neck pain, together with a severe shock to his nerves and nervous system, some or all of which injuries are permanent in nature. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant as described in the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint, Plaintiff Christian Hoke has been required in the past and may continue to be 6 required in the future to expend large sums of money and to incur monetary obligations to provide medicines, medical care, hospitalization, and other treatment for his injuries. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant as described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff Christian Hoke has suffered and will continue to suffer excruciating and agonizing aches, pains, mental anguish, humiliation and embarrassment, as well as a limitation and restriction of his usual activities, pursuits and pleasures. 22. As the direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant as described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff Christian Hoke has been prevented from attending to his usual daily duties and occupations and has suffered a consequent loss of earnings and earnings capacity. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Christian Hoke claims of Defendant a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), together with lawful interest thereon, costs of suit and damages for delay, and brings this action to recover same. COUNT III - MISREPRESENTATION Christian Hoke v. AT&T 23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth at length. 24. Plaintiff Christian Hoke justifiably relied upon the representations made by Defendant AT&T, both express and implied, concerning the quality and character of the product. 7 25. Defendant AT&T is strictly liable to Plaintiff Christian Hoke pursuant to Section 402B of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in that it misrepresented material facts concerning the character and dangers of the use of the product referred to in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint. 26. As the direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendant, Plaintiff Christian Hoke sustained severe and disabling injuries to the bones, muscles, blood vessels, tissues, tendons and nervous system of his body including, but not limited to, profound sensorineural hearing loss of the right ear, which is permanent in nature, headaches and neck pain, together with a severe shock to his nerves and nervous system, some or all of which injuries are permanent in nature. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant as described in the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint, Plaintiff Christian Hoke has been required in the past and may continue to be required in the future to expend large sums of money and to incur monetary obligations to provide medicines, medical care, hospitalization, and other treatment for his injuries. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant as described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff Christian Hoke has suffered and will continue to suffer excruciating and agonizing aches, pains, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment as well as limitation and restriction of his usual activities, pursuits and pleasures. 8 29. As the direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant as described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff Christian Hoke has been prevented from attending to his usual daily duties and occupations and has suffered a consequent loss of earnings and earnings capacity. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Christian Hoke claims of Defendant a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), together with lawful interest thereon, costs of suit and damages for delay, and brings this action to recover same. COUNT IV - BREACH OF WARRANTY Christian Hoke v. AT&T 30. Paragraphs 1 through 29 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth at length. 31. At the time the product was sold and ultimately used by Plaintiff Christian Hoke, the Defendant did expressly and/or impliedly warrant and/or guarantee the product (i.e., the land line communications system) to be safe, merchantable, and fit for its ordinary purpose and/or its intended use. 32. At the time the product was sold and ultimately used by Plaintiff Christian Hoke, it was not of merchantable quality, nor was it fit for its ordinary purpose and/or intended use. 33. As the direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendant, Plaintiff Christian Hoke sustained severe and disabling injuries to the bones, muscles, blood vessels, tissues, tendons and nervous system of his body including, but not limited to, profound 9 'f I :1 sensorineural hearing loss of the right ear, which is permanent in nature, headaches and neck pain, together with a severe shock to his nerves and nervous system, some or all of which injuries are permanent in nature. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant as described in the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint, Plaintiff Christian Hoke has been required in the past and may continue to be required in the future to expend large sums of money and to incur monetary obligations to provide medicines, medical care, hospitalization, and other treatment for his injuries. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant as described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff Christian Hoke has suffered and will continue to suffer excruciating and agonizing aches, pains, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment as well as limitation and restriction of his usual activities, pursuits and pleasures. 36. As the direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant as described in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint, Plaintiff Christian Hoke has been prevented from attending to his usual daily duties and occupations and has suffered a consequent loss of earnings and earnings capacity. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Christian Hoke claims of Defendant a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), together with lawful interest thereon, costs of suit and damages for delay, and brings this action to recover same. 10 i ' c j ~ I , i I ! I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is tu certify that copies of the foregoing document have been served on the following persons by mailing copies of same via United States First Class Mail on ~O~. J , 1995 addressed as follows: KAREN S. COATES, ESQUIRE THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 NORTH FRONT STREET, 6TH FLOOR P. O. BOX 999 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, ESQUIRE METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 NORTH FRONT STREET P. O. BOX 5950 HARRISBURG, PA 17110-0950 THOMAS W. HELD, CLAIM REPRESENTATIVE (INSURANCE FOR AT&T) WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY 1700 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1100 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 JOHN M. WILLIS, ESQUIRE McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN 1700 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3000 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-3930 RUTTER & DiPIERO '1"'1 . 'CclqNI.';"'1 _I far _.......... '.10 wIIh 10 receive the .~_ 3....1Ild~. following ..Nlcel (lor lIIl 111 '::::;.._IIld-.onthl__allhlofonnI01holWOClllrolumtl1l. 1m"'): i It: ._tI1IIlonnlOthlfronIalthlmollploco..,onthl_W__nat 1. C AddIlllH'IAddr811 I,. .=-_R..,pt/loQWltld"onthlmollploco-..thI__. 2. C RNIrIcIId Delivery ti .11lIRolunRocllpl...._I.wl1omthl___...thI_ J illi ~~- Add,...edJPj 4a. I ":~poI1maIle'loriH. ! i . "f).I-r"",..... Z _ 7J-7- P-2-7-1 ro ~ ; : 'I ~ e""r.:1 4b.SINlceTypl I' : dD 011I." He:..., "f.,I.-4<. ~ . ,i.",.~ . 0 ReglllIllId )!If ClrUftlld i: 1" (" . (J' v 0 Exp.... Md 0 IllIUrId ' i 1#"0 ()~ ~b 0 RltunRlcllplfotMlldlllldto 0 COD .. : : II-tt."('r ,OJ"_ I7ID/'- 7.DI'1 0IlIva7:r:'L 1\:\3 f 5. RlCllved By: (Prlnl NImtI) 8. Add_'. Add.... (Only" flqUNlId I: . MId ,.. ,. peJd) ~ ' !l X !.1 PS Fonn 3811. +, I I I) - . =" PLAINTIFF'S ~EXHIBIT ~ RUTTER & DiPIERO By: Andrew E. DiPiero. Jr., Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 34671 The Curtis Center, Suite 750 601 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Attorney for Plaintiffs (215) 925-9200 CHRISTIAN HOKE and . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . BETH HOKE, husband and wife . OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY . . . v. . No. 95-1761 - Civil Term . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND . . TELEGRAPH COMPANY . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED . PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute and append the Verification of Christian Hoke to Plaintiffs' Complaint in place of the Verification executed by Andrew E. DiPiero, Jr., Esquire. RUTTER & DiPIERO By: Andrew E. DiPiero, Attorney for Plain VERIFICATION j f I hereby verify that all the statements in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 54904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 3. Admitted in part, denied in part. Answering Defendant admits that AT&T Corp. conducts business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As to all remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations advanced as, but not limited to, the alleged times are not sufficiently identified or defined. 4. -5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations advanced as, but not limited to, the alleged telecommunications equipment, landlines and times are not sufficiently identified or defined. 6. -7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations advanced. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE Christian Hoke v. AT&T 8. Answering Defendant incorporates herein its answers to Paragraphs 1-7 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 9. Denied. The allegations advanced are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further, Answering Defendant denies all allegations advanced. To the contrary, Answering Defendant exercised due care at all times material hereto, breached no warranties, did not manufacture, design or sell a defective product, is not liable to Plaintiffs under any theory 2 clleged, and did not cause Plaintiffs' injuries and/or damages as alleged. As to all remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations advanced as, but not limited to, the alleged land line communication system and times have not been sufficiently identi- fied or defined. 10.-13. Denied. The allegations advanced are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further, Answering Defendant denies all allegations advanced. To the contrary, Answering Defendant exercised due care at all times material hereto, breached no warranties, did not manufacture, design or sell a defective product, is not liable to Plaintiffs under any theory alleged, and did not cause Plaintiffs' injuries and/or damages as alleged. As to all remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations advanced. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies any liability to any party to this action and demands judgment in its favor, together with costs. COUNT II - STRICT LIABILITY Christian Hoke v. AT&T 14. Answering Defendant incorporates herein its answers to Paragraphs 1-13 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 3 " law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further, , I I , i I !. 15.-18. Denied. The allegations advanced are conclusions of To the Answering Defendant denies all allegations advanced. To the contrary, Answering Defendant did not design, fabricate, manufac- ture, sell, distribute and/or supply a defective product. Further, as to any remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations advanced as, but not limited to, the alleged products and times are not sufficiently identified or defined. 19.-22. Denied. The allegations advanced are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Answering Defendant denies all allegations advanced. Further, contrary, Answering Defendant breached no warranties, did not design, fabricate, manufacture, sell, distribute and/or supply a defective product, did not cause Plaintiff's injuries and/or damages as alleged, and is not liable to Plaintiff under any theory alleged. Further, as to all remaining allegations, after reason- able investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations advanced. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies any liability to any party to this action and demands judgment in its favor, together with costs. 4 , " COUNT XII - MISREPRESENTATXON To the 23. Answering Defendant incorporates herein its answers to Paragraphs 1-22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 24.-25. Denied. The allegations advanced are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further, as to all remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations advanced as, but not limited to, the alleged product and the alleged misrepre- sentations have not been sufficiently identified or defined. 26.-29. Denied. The allegations advanced are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Answering Defendant denies all allegations advanced. Further, contrary, Answering Defendant breached no warranties, did not design, fabricate, manufacture, sell, distribute and/or supply a defective product, made no misrepresentations to Plaintiff, did not cause Plaintiff's injuries and/or damages as alleged, and is not liable to Plaintiff under any theory alleged. As to all remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations advanced. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies any liability to any party to this action and demands judgment in its favor, together with costs. 5 COUNT IV - BREACH OF WARRANTY 30. Answering Defendant incorporates herein its answers to Paragraphs 1-30 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 31.-32. Denied. The allegations advanced are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further, Answering Defendant denies all allegations advanced. To the contrary, Answering Defendant breached no warranties, did not design, fabricate, manufacture, sell, distribute and/or supply a defective product, did not cause Plaintiff's injuries and/or damages as alleged, and is not liable to Plaintiff under any theory alleged. Further, as to all remaining allegations, after reason- able investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations advanced as, but not limited to, the alleged product and times are not sufficiently identified or defined. 33.-36. Denied. The allegations advanced are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further, Answering Defendant denies all allegations advanced. To the contrary, Answering Defendant breached no warranties, did not design, fabricate, manufacture, sell, distribute and/or supply a defective product, did not cause Plaintiff's injuries and/or damages as alleged, and is not liable to Plaintiff under any theory alleged. As to all remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations advanced. 6 WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies any liability to any party to this action and demands judgment in its favor, together with costs. COUNT V 37. Answering Defendant incorporates herein its answers to Paragraphs 1-36 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 38. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belip.f as to the truth of the allegations advanced as, but not limited to, the alleged times have not been sufficiently identified or defined. 39. Denied. The allegations advanced are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further, Answering Defendant denies all allegations advanced and did not cause Plaintiff's injuries and/or damages as alleged. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies any liability to any party to this action and demands judgment in its favor, together with costs. NEW MATTER 40. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 41. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff Christian Hoke's contributory and/or comparative negli- gence. 7 42. plaintiffs' claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff Christian Hoke's voluntary assumption of a known risk. 43. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations. 44. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of repose. 45. All causes of action based on breach of contract are barred by Plaintiffs' failure to provide timely notice of the alleged breach. 46. All causes of action based on misrepresentation are barred by Plaintiffs' failure to plead them with sufficient specificity. 47. If the alleged product is proven to have been designed, manufactured and/or distributed by Answering Defendant, then the alleged product may have been abused or misused. 48. If the alleged product is proven to have been designed, manufactured or distributed by Answering Defendant, then the alleged product may have been substantially changed since designed, manufactured or distributed. 49. If the alleged product is proven to have been designed, manufactured, or distributed by Answering Defendant, then the alleged product was not defective and was safe for its intended use at the time it left Answering Defendant's care, custody and/or control. 50. If the alleged product is proven to have been designed, manufactured or distributed by Answering Defendant, then Plaintiff- 8 's claims may be barred by failure to give timely notice of the alleged breaches of warranty. 51. If the alleged product is proven to have been designed, manufactured, or distributed by Answering Defendant, then Answering Defendant breached no warranty, express or implied, concerning such product. 52. If the alleged product is proven to have been designed, manufactured or distributed by Answering Defendant, and Answering Defendant is proven to have extended any warranties, either express or implied, then Plaintiff's claims may be barred, conditioned and/or limited by the terms of any warranties, express or implied. 53. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by any applicable tariffs. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies any liability to any party to this action and demands judgment in its favor, together with costs. KELLY, McLAUGHLIN & FOSTER 11_ \,~\~<' Datedl ~ 9 V E R I FIe A T I 0 N THOMAS P. BRACAGItIA, ESQUIRE, hereby states that he is the attorney for Defendant AT&T Corp. (incorrectly identified as American Telephone & Telegraph Company) in the foregoing matter, that he is authorized to make this Verification, and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 PA.C.S. ~4904 relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: KELLY, ~cLAUGHLIN & FOSTER BYI THOMAS P. BRACAGLIA, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 32330 1700 Atlantic Building 260 South Broad Street philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney for AT&T Corp., incorrectly identified as American Telephone & Telegraph Company IN THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION - LAW CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, . NO. 95-1761 . husband and wife, Plaintiffs . . v. . . AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, . . Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THOMAS P. BRACAGLIA hereby certifies that he has served a true and correct copy of the attached Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint upon all counsel listed below via United States overnight mail, postage prepaid, this 18th day of December, 1995. Andrew E. DiPiero, Jr., Esquire THOMAS B. RUTTER, P.C. The Curtis Center, Suite 750 601 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106-3307 iT. - ~ U) ~ 8 ::3 ~Q C)~ ff~~ ()..~ --= ~ ~F ()~J C en :'.:0- f~;; ,. 1';". ..:J% rr: t~ '.~ c. ~:;;a ,...!.,Il' r= 1.>' t;';:u.. c..:, L1. In r..": _I 0 U' U N m t; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..!~U1> z .... ~ 0 i:::! :I < < Iii % E ~ : ~ i!~~~ >= <: 8 UI ~ ~ ,,0 OJ _ II D N :5 i 0. 8 ~ I~ in !j "'l'''''."", "'"'~'I" . ~ (~rmo. .n . I' '''\ .~~~ ~ ,"~: :',', ';',;"" .. . , RUTTER & DiPIERO By: -Andrew E. DiPiero, Jr., Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 34671 The Curtis Center, Suite 750 601 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Attorney for Plaintiffs (215) 925-9200 CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband and wife COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY No. 95-1761-Civil Term civil Action v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO THE NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT AT&T CORPORATION Plaintiffs Christian Hoke and Beth Hoke, husband and wife, hereby respond to Defendant's New Matter as follows: 40. - 53. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraphs 40 through 53 are conclusions of law to which no further reply is required at this time. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests that judgment be entered in their favor as requested in Plaintiffs' Complaint. RUTTER & DIPIERO BY: . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing document have been served on the following persons by mailing copies of same via united States First Class Mail on December 20, 1995, addressed as follows: Thomas P. Bracaglia, Esquire Kelly, McLaughlin & Foster 1700 Atlantic Building 260 south Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 BY. ndrew E. DiPier Attorney for Pl ~ 1-- wi'-.~ -r- o c.; u. ti:t4 r~ ~ u. o \D ..:r .. M n: E; Z :-:l..... Q':; '-~ ~~ 8~~ ~i.l.~ I"'"~ F'z IRl:J L',:Oo. 8 .......;.L:. _.0 N U 11.!' CJ In en /.:;', CHRISTIAN HOKE and : B~H HOKE, husband and wife, : Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . ;, PLANTRONICS SANTA CRUZ and : AUDIO PROFESSIONAL HEARING : AID CENTER and PAUL R. KNAUB,: Defendants : 3455 CIVIL 1993 CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband and wife, : Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . . . v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . AMERICAN TELEPHONE and TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendants . . . ;~5-1761 CIVIL TERM CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband and Plaintiffs . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA wife, : . . . . v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : DEHRO, INC., Defendant . . : 95-1776 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of December, 1995, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' praecipes listing for argument Plaintiffs' Motion for Consolidation of Actions, Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Defendant Plantronics, Santa cruz, To Produce Documents Pursuant to Rule 4009 of the Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure, Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Defendant Plantronics, Santa Cruz, To Produce a Corporate Designee To Testify at a Deposition Pursuant to Rule 4007.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure, and Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel More Specific Answers to Interrogatories Addressed to Defendant Plantronics, Santa cruz, Pursuant to Rules 4005 and 4006 of the Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure, and it appearing that this matter was withdrawn from the argument court . list by Plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to a letter to the court administrator, these matters are stricken from the argument court list, and they will be disposed of by the undersigned judge. By the Court, . J I ANDREW E. DiPIERO, JR., ESQUIRE Suite 750 The Curtis Center 601 Walnut street Philadelphia, PA 19106 For the Plaintiffs (") ...n (") S o. -.0. ~~J '- :;j ::.'"' [11fl1 ::4:: ;';; :rJ ,/-~ I ....,Fn [j~:~ N '6 " t~~ \.J -0 :~J'-I' ;:;(-) ..... 0~ ..,~ ) .......0 Cf? 0111 ::C>C -~ ~l :::::i w ~ .... U1 KAREN S. COATES, ESQUIRE 305 North Front Street 6th Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 For Defendant Plantronics Santa Cruz EVELYN W. REICHMAN, ESQUIRE 1700 Atlantic Building 260 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 For Defendant American Telephone and Telegraph Company JAYSON R. WOLFGANG, ESQUIRE 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 For Defendants AUdio Professional Hearing Aid Center and Paul R. Knaub JOHN M. WILLIS, ESQUIRE 1700 Market Street suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103-3930 For Defendant Denro, Inc. Court Administrator wcy ~nl""J:..t 1/.2/91e. "J, ;po - , . I O( I (; I /Vr' '.- CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband and plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . wife, : . . . . v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . PLAHTRONICS SANTA CRUZ and : AUDIO PROFESSIONAL HEARING : AID CENTER and PAUL R. KNAUB,: Defendants : 3455 CIVIL 1993 ------------------- CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband and plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . wife, : . . v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . AMERICAN TELEPHONE and TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendants :~1761 CIVIL TERM ------------------- CHRISTIAN HOKE and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BETH HOKE, husband and wife, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA plaintiffs . . v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . DENRO, INC., Defendant : 95-1776 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of December, 1995, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for consolidation of Actions (filed October 24, 1995), and with the concurrence of counsel for Audio Professional Hearing Aid Center and Paul R. Knaub, and counsel for Denro, Inc., and over the objection of counsel for Defendant Plantronics Santa cruz, and counsel for Defendant AT&T Corp., identified in the caption as American Telephone and Telegraph company, the Plaintiffs' motion is granted, and all papers in the actions at Nos. 3455 CIVIL 1993, 95-1761 CIVIL TERM, and 95-1776 CIVIL TERM shall be consolidated at No. 3455 CIVIL 1993. >- E:; a; ..:r ~ ;::: C:J ::)<; II,Q O~, C.).", <)~ wc. c: :> '-:r n~:.J ~c~ '" :;~(;::; t~_ ::J " filLl-. I ffii{] --'... -. .... u.: ~( -:;: , ,C}::J.. f' -, --; .. .:- u.. 1.0 ..) 0 "'I U - . , (j! I ( / /I\, I \ (_ CmRISTIAN HOKE ana BETH HOKE, husbana ana wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . . . v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . PLAHTRONICS SANTA CRUZ ana : AUDIO PROFESSIONAL HEARING : AID CENTER ana PAUL R. KNAUB,: Defendants 3455 CIVIL 1993 CHRISTIAN HOKE ana BETH HOKE, husbana ana Plaintiffs . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA wife, : . . : v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW AMERICAN TELEPHONE and TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendants . . : A-1761 CIVIL TERM CHRISTIAN HOKE ana BETH HOKE, husbana ana Plaintiffs . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA wife, : . . . . v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW DENRO, INC., Defendant . . 95-1776 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CONFERENCE A conference was hela in the chambers of the unaersigned juage on Friaay, December 22, 1995, at 1:30 p.m., at which time Anarew E. DiPiero, Jr., Esquire, appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Karen S. Coates, Esquire, appearea on behalf of Defenaant Plantronics Santa Cruz, Evelyn W. Reichman, Esquire, appeared on behalf of AT&T Corp. (American Telephone ana Telegraph company in caption), ana Jayson R. Wolfgang, Esquire, appeared on behalf of Audio Professional Hearing Aia Center ana Paul R. Knaub, ana in anticipation of which conference counsel for Denro, Inc., John M. Willis, Esquire, sent a letter to the Court aatea December 15, 1995, inaicating that his client did not oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for Consoliaation. At the conference, the following motions and other matters were disposed of pursuant to separate Orders of Court of even date herewith: Defendant Plantronics' Motion To Compel Plaintiff To Submit to Physical Examination; Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Defendant Plantronics, Santa cruz, To Produce a Corporate Designee To Testify at a Deposition Pursuant to Rule 4007.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure; Plaintiffs' Motion To strike Praecipe Listing Case for Trial; Plaintiffs' Motion for consolidation of Actions; Plaintiffs' praecipes listing certain matters for argument (specifically, Plaintiffs' Motion for Consolidation of Actions, Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Defendant Plantronics, Santa Cruz, To Produce Documents Pursuant to Rule 4009 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Defendant Plantronics, Santa Cruz, To Produce a Corporate Designee To Testify at Deposition Pursuant to Rule 4007.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel More Specific Answers to Interrogatories Addressed to Defendant Plantronics, Santa cruz, Pursuant to Rules 4005 and 4006 of the Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure); Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel More Specific Answers to Interrogatories Addressed to Defendant Plantronics, Santa cruz, Pursuant to Rule 4005 and 4006 of the Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure; and Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Defendant Plantronics, Santa Cruz, To Produce Documents Pursuant to Rule 4009 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. >- ('\J r;: ~ ..;r 1- ,- ~~1 c':.; :;.~ ( [:5 - Os: 1__, 0: u~;: 6r ......::-. '.'5= 8~ ,'J ;." - }. ~'Cf) ";...". , -)j:'; fiL':! z J'" .;;.; : r; t.u r-- ...-: ~u.. -. -, :"... \D S 0 0> u .---' . - RUTTER & DiPIERO By: Andrew E. DiPiero, Jr., Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 34671 The Curtis Center, suite 750 601 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215)925-9200 Attorney for Plaintiffs CHRISTIAN HOKE and . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . BETH HOKE, husband and wife . OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY . . . v. No. 3455 Civil, 1993 : PLANTRONICS SANTA CRUZ . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . 3.nd : AUDIO PROFESSIONAL HEARING . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED . AID CENTER and . . PAUL R. KNAUB . . CHRISTIAN HOKE and . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . BETH HOKE, husband and wife . OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY . . ./ . v. . No. 95-1761 - Civil Term . : CIVIL ACTION - LAW AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND : TELEGRAPH COMPANY : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CHRISTIAN HOKE and . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . BETH HOKE, husband and wife : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY . . v. . No. 95-1776 - Civil Term . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . DENRO, INC. . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED . S TIP U L A T ION AND NOW, this 21~1 day of r e l.,~ 0 ~ , 1996, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the Federal Aviation Administration is hereby authorized to release the Star Set II headset which is referenced in Plaintiffs' Complaints to Plaintiffs' counsel Andrew E. DiPiero, Jr. It is hereby further agreed that counsel for Plaintiff OR.'9/uOJ.L .c?Lul JJfS.r CL'~ t /993 (;) /J..I /9'" Christian Hoke may submit the headset to an independent expert for non-destructive testing and at the completion of same, each and any of the parties hereto may likewise inspect the headset and/or engage in non-destructive testing of the headset. TH By Kare Attorney for Defendant, Plantronics Santa Cruz METTE, EVANS AND WOODSIDE McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN By By G2uws h istopher C John M. Willis Attorney for n t, Attorney for Defendant, Audio Professional earing Denro, Inc. Aid Center and Paul R. Knaub KELLy, MCLAUGHLIN & FOSTER By - Bracaglia or Defendant, AT&T . I ~ ;:p~..t t.>!Nlqf., CHRISTIAN HOKE and . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . BETH HOKE, husband & wife . CUMBERLAND COUNTY . v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . PLANTRONICS SANTA CRUZ . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED . and AUDIO PROFESSIONAL HEARING : No. 93-3455 CIVIL, 1993 AID CENTER . . and . . PAUL R. KNAUB . . ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 14th day of June, 1996, upon consideration of the attached stipulation of counsel dated June 12, 1996, the stipulation is approved and its terms are entered as an order of court. BY THE COURT, J. js Andrew E. DiPiero, Jr., Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs Jayson Wolfgang, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Audio Professional Hearing Aid Center and Paul R. Knaub Evelyn Reichman, Esq. Attorney for Defendant AT & T Karen S. Coates, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Plantronics Santa Cruz John M. willis, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Denro, Inc. ~ ~ '/I,.,l_ b/''Ilq~. ..A. ~ McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C. BY: John M. Willis Identification No.: 71857 1700 Market street suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 246-2100 CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband & wife v. PLANTRONICS SANTA CRUZ and AUDIO PROFESSIONAL HEARING AID CENTER and PAUL R. KNAUB CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband and wife v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband and wife v. DENRO, INC. Attorney for Defendant Denro, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No. 93-3455 CIVIL, 1993 I I I I I COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMSERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED I I No. 95-1761 - CIVIL TERM . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW I I I I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No. 95-1776 - CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW THE JOINDER COMPLAINT AGAINST ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, PLANTRONICS SANTA CRUZ, AUDIO PROFESSIONAL HEARING AID CENTER AND PAUL R. KNAUB PURSUANT TO Pa.Civ.R.P. 22521b) Kindly withdraw the Joinder Complaint which was filed on behalf of defendant Denro, Inc. on December 28, 1995 naming American Telephone and Telegraph Company, P1antronics Santa Cruz, r Audio professional Hearing Aid Center and Paul R. Knaub as additional defendants. McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C. BY: 02 LLil{;S John M. Willis Attorney for Defendant Denro, Inc. DATE: ..iv.N~ 21 l'f'l" 2 rr, r-- ~ <' (""; .' .. :~ , i .~ (-~ i7t ~.., (:1; r ~;;~ [f:' -" ~'~I :.l~j .... r- .~~1 .....J( ('': -~ ~-, u:', ' - , #,G1 ~- -'i 1 c.. U.. '-.Cl __,'J 0 t.T' .J " McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C. BY: John M. Willis Identification No.: 71857 1700 Market street Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 246-2100 CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband & wife v. PLANTRONICS SANTA CRUZ and AUDIO PROFESSIONAL HEARING AID CENTER and PAUL R. KNAUB CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband and wife v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband and wife v. DENRO, INC. Attorney for Defendant Denro, Inc. . . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . . . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No. 93-3455 CIVIL, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY . . . . . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : V' No. 95-1761 - CIVIL TERM . . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No. 95-1776 - CIVIL TERM . . REPLY OP DEPENDANT DENRO, XNC. TO NEW HATTER PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.p. 2252141 OP DEPENDANT PLANTRONICS SANTA CRUZ Defendant Denro, Inc., by and through its attorneys, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C., hereby files this Reply to the New Matter pursuant to Pa.R.C.p. 2252(d) of defendant Plantronics Santa Cruz as follows: . , LAW OFFICES OF RUTTER & DIPIERO By: Andrew E. DiPiero, Jr. Identification No. 34671 The Curtis Center, Suite 750 601 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 925-9200 Attorney for Plaintiffs CHRISTIAN HOKE and . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . BETH HOKE, husband and wife . OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY . . CIVIL ACTION . . . v. . No. 95-1761-Civil Term . : AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND . . TELEGRAPH COMPANY . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED . 1. PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. By way of further answer during the 2. 3. 4-6. referenced telephone conversations, the undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs explained the reasons for the delay in filing the answers which in large part depended upon documents which had not yet been received from the moving party, Defendant, AT&T. In any event, Plaintiffs' counsel offered to file answers which would be of limited significance due to the lack of documents presently in possession of Plaintiffs' counsel. In any event, the answers have since been filed. On December 31, 1996, Plaintiff served Defendant with Plaintiffs' Answers to Defendant's Interrogatories (see cover letter and written answers which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A"); and, on January 15, 1997, Plaintiff served Defendant with a Response to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents (see cover letter of same date along with Plaintiffs' formal response which had been marked Exhibit "8"). 7. See 4, 5 and 6. 8. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant has suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay in receiving Plaintiffs' discovery materials. 9. The requested discovery has been supplied. See Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto. 10. Denied. The requested Sanction is excessive and inappropriate in as much as the requested information has been supplied. LAW OFFICES OF RUTTER & DIPIERO BY / Andrew E. Di Attorney for I I 2 I] ! L,...... OII.C(_~ RUTTER & DIPIERO THOMAS B. RU", TER ANDReW c. OIPleRO, ..H~.. SUi'll: 750 THe CURTl!i Ct;;'Htn 601 WALNUT STRCCT PHILAOCLPHU'. PENNSYLVANIA 19106- 3307 SUITC 340, LOSCH PLAIA 121 PROConCS5 AVCNUe. p, 0.00)0; 1010 POTTsvILLe, Poll .7001 17171 622-7300 LISA H. SCHWARTZ. LL M .- JOEL M, ~ADS . WALTE.R MICHAEL DINOA 0" COUNSEL '21SI VZ&-V200 TCLCCOPICR 121&1 VZ6 - '660 ' . ALSO IoIIEloIItlEA N.... eAA . ALSO IoIIEMIlIEA WASH, DC OAR December 31, 1996 Frank Nofer, Esquire Kelly, McLaughlin & Foster 1700 Atlantic Building 260 S. Broad street Philadelphia, PA 19102-5092 RE: Hoke v. AT&T CCP-Cumberland County, No. 95-1761 Our File No. 5l05.00X Dear Mr. Nofer: Enclosed herewith are Plaintiffs' Answers to your client's Interrogatories. Under the circumstances, I am requesting that you withdraw your Motion to Compel which you recently filed with the Court. I look forward to your reply and thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF RUTTER & DiPIERO By~~4era ADP:tk Enclosure cc: Karen S. Coates, Esquire John R. Sparks, Jr., Esquire John M. Willis, Esquire .. " IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY P~SYLVAN:IA CHRISTIAN HOltE . CIVIL ACTION . and BETH HOltE, h/w : : v. : NO. . . AMERXCAN TELEPHONE and . . TELEGRAPH COMPANY . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED . CONTENTION AND. EXPERT rNTERROGATORIES OF DEFENDANT. AT&T CORPORATION. ADDREPSED TO PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFFS' ANSWERS These Interrogatories of Defendant, AT&T, Corp. (hereinafter AT&T), are to be answered under oath pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure. These Interrogatories are deemed to be continuing in nature and any information secured after answering these Interrogatories is to be supplied by Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 1. With regard to the allegations advanced in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs' Complaint that Defendant, AT&T, owned, operated, controlled and/or maintained telecommunications equipment and land lines at the Capitol City Airport in April 1993, set forth the following: (a) The identity of each piece of telecommunications equipment which you contend was owned, operated, controlled and/or maintained by AT&T; Plaintiff contends that AT&T owned, operated, controlled and maintained any and all telecommunication lines, i.e., telephone landlines. 1 7(;016.1 (b) All facts known to you upon which these contentions are based; See Deposition transcript of Gordon A: Simmons taken 3/26/96; more specifically pages 17, 20, 22, 29, 92~ 93, 94, 95, 110, 133, 167, 16B. 169, 170, 171, 172 and dcposition transcript of Plaintiff Christian Hoke. (c) The names and addresses of all individuals known to you having knowledge of these alleged facts and/or contentions; Sec answer to Interrogatory # lb. (d) Identify'and produce all'documents kncwn to you evidencing these alleged facts and/or contentions. The deposition transcripts referred to in Interrogatory 1 have been supplied. 2. With regard to the allegations advanced in Paragraph 9 (a) o~ Plaintiffs' Complaint that AT&T failed to properly maintain and control the land line communications equipment in a reasonably safe condition, set forth the following: (al All facts known to you upon which these contentions are based; This would be best answered by an expert. Plaintiffs have.not yet determined the identities of those persons who will testify as expert witnesses. At such time as Plaintiffs: do ascertain the identiti~s of those persons who will testify as expert witnesses, thic answer w111 be supplemented. (bl The names and addresses of all individuals known to you having knowledge of these alleged facts and/or contentions; Moreover Defendant AT&T has not yet provided any documents to Plainti, regarding the installation, maintenance and condition of the landlille: Discovery is continuing. 2 "08<<..1 (c) Identify and produce all documents known to you evidencing these alleged facts and/or contentions. 3. With regard to the allegations advanced in Paragraph 9 (b) of Plaintiffs' Complaint that AT&T allowed dange=ously high levels of sound to be transmitted without notice across the land line communications ~ystem, set forth the following: (a) All facts known to you upon which these contentions are I)ased; See answer to Interrogatory #'1 and 2{a}. (b) The names and addresses of all individuals known to you having knowledge of these alleged facts and/or contentions; " .. (c) Identify and produce all documents known to you evidencing these alleged facts and/or contentions. .. .. 4. With regard to the allegations advanced in Paragraph 9 (c) of Plaintiffs' Complaint that AT&T failed to give adequate and sufficient warnings as to the transmission of unreasonably loud sounds over the land line communications system, set forth the following: 3 1/.Cft, 1 (a) All facts known to you upon which these contentions are based; See answer to Interrogatory #2(a). (b) The names and addresses of all individuals known to you having knowledge of these alleged facts and/or contentions; .. .. (e) Identify and produce all documents known to you evidencing these alleged facts and/or contentions, .. .. (d) The exact warnings which you contend should have been provided. .. .. 5. With regard to the allegations advanced in Paragraph 9 (d) of Plaintiffs' Complaint that AT&T failed to properly test, inspect and/or maintain the land line communication system, set forth the following: (a) All facts known to you upon which these contentions are based; See answer to Interrogatory #2(a). (b) The names and addresses of all individuals known to you having knowledge of these alleged facts and/or contentions; .. .. 4 7HH.l .. (c) Identify and produce all documents known to you evidencing these alleged facts and/or contentions. .. .. 6. With regard to the allegations advanced in Paragraph 9 (e) of Plaintiffs' Complaint that AT&T designed, fabricated, manufac- tured, sold, distributed and/or supplied the product in a defective and dangerous condition, set forth the following: (a) The identity of the specific product that AT&T designed, fabricated, manufactured, sold, distributea and/or supplied in a defective and dangerous condition, ~ answer to Interrogatory #1. (b) All facts known to you upon which these contentions are based; .. .. (c) The names and addresses of all individuals known to you having knowledge of these alleged facts and/or contentions; .. .. (d) Identify and produce all documents known to you evidencing these alleged facts and/or contentions. .. .. 7, With regard to the allegations advanced in Paragraph 9 (f) of Plaintiffs' Complaint that AT&T failed to supply the product in .. .. s 76086.1 ,0 : neck pain, and severe shock to this nerves and nervous system, provide the following: (a) All facts known to you upon which these contentions are based; See Plaintiff's medical records which have been supplied and Plaintiff's deposition testimony regarding same. (b) The names and addresses of.all individuals known to you having knowledge of these alleged facts and/or contentions; . . (c) Identify and produce all documents and/or medical records known to you evidencing these alleged facts and/or contentions; . . (d) The amount of those medical bills which have been paid and the person or entity which made each payment; . . (e) Provide the name and address of every medical practitioner and every medical institution at which you have been treated for all alleged injuries and the nature and dates of all such treatment, . . 1J 1C:Gf6.; (e) Produce your state and federal income tax returns for each year since 1989. 15. With reference to the.allegations advanced in Paragraphs 12, 21, 28 and 35 of Plaintiff's Complaint that Christian Hoke has restriction of his usual activities, pursuits and pleasures, as the direct and proximate result pf the conduct of Defendant, provide the, following: In summary, Christian Hoke's employment as an air~raffic controller was terminated as a result of the hearing impairment and injuries he suffered in the incident referred to in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Also, see Plaintiff's 'deposition test;,mor (a) All facts known to you upon which tnese contentions . .' arc based; See answer to Interrogatory #15. (b) The names and addresses of all individuals known to you having knowledge of these alleged facts and/or contentions; " " (c) Identify and produce all documents known to you evidencing these alleged facts and/or contentions, " " 16. 11ith reierence to the allegations advanced in Paragraphs 13, 22, 29 and 36 of Plaintiff's Complaint that Christian Hoke has been prevented from attending to his usual daily duties and 13 11;011(,. J not of merchantable quality, nor was it fit for its ordinary purpose and/or intended use, provide the following: See answer to Interrogatory # 2(a). (a) Identify each product allegedly designed, manufac- tured, sold distributed or supplied to AT&T; " II (b) All facts known to you upon which these contentions are based; .. .. (c) The names and addresses of all individuals known to you having knowledge of these alleged facts and/or contentions; .. .. (d) Identify and produce all documents known to you evidencing these alleged facts and/or contentions; .. .. (e) The manner in which each alleged product was defective. .. .. 20. With reference to the allegations advanced in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiff' s Complaint that Plaint iff Beth Hoke has been 17 ,,.,08C.,1 depri ved of the society, companionship and consortium 01 her husband as the direct and proximate result of the alleged careless- , ness and negligence of Defendaut, provide'the following: As a result of Plaintiff Christian Hok~'s hearing impairment and job termination additional undue stress was experienced by Christian Hoke and a~so upon the marital relationshir: ~laintiffs separated in Jul~ of 94: divorced.8/23/95. (a A1:s. tacts -Itnow to you upon wl1icn tbese conl:ent10ns , 0 are based; (b) The names and addresses of all individuals known to you ha"i'lg kn~wledge of these nll,~'d facts and/or contentions: Both plaintiffs. (c) Identify and produce all documents known to you evidencing these alleged facts and/or contentions. EXPERT INTERROGATORIES 21. State the name and home and business addresses 'of all persons you expect to call as expert witnesses at the trial of the . above-captioned 'matter, Fredrik Lindgren, ~h.~. 19 Valley View prive P.O. Box 272 Spencer, MA 015fi2,Pla1nt1fforeserves the,r1ght to supplcmcnt this answcr in accordancc with Pa.R.C.P. 22. For cach person named ill answcr to Intcrrogatory No. 21, set forth his occupation. whcther hc specializes in any particular field, nnd if so, hi:::; arciI or areas of specialization. 113 'nou..1 23. For each person named in answer to Interrogatory No. 21, set forth the following: ~ answer to Interrogatory #21. (a) the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; .. .. (b) the substance of the facts to which the expert is expected to testify; .. .. (c) the substance of the opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; and .. 00 (d) a summary of the grounds for each opinion of the expert including, but not limited to, any textual material upon which the expert witness will rely. For any such texts, please identify the name of the text, the author, the edition, the year of publication and the page or pages of said text to be relied upon. (NOTE: If the person or persons listed in answer to-Interrogatory No. 25, has provided you with a report which provides all of the 1Y "H{,t. . , . (d) a description of all physical evidence, objects, test results, special reports, photographs, movies, videotapes, plans or other tangible objects, drawings, sketches or other documents identified in subsection (al reviewed or examined by each such expert; and .. .. (e) ,any locations, sites or facilitie!3 visited by the expert. " " KELLY, McLAUGHLIN & FOSTER IJ , Date: ~4,ht THOMAS P. BRACAGLIA, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, AT&T Corporation 1700 Atlantic Building 260 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Da te: (2.. J ~ I ) 1 Ie. . I I LAW OFFICES OF RUTTER & DI PIERO By:~[IJ0L ANDREW E. DiPIE , JR. Attorney for Pl intiffs ~! '6DtH, .1 i I I ~ ~ m ~ III i I t I t LAW OrnCl:!\ RUTTER & DIPIERO THOMAS B. RUTTER ANDREW E. DIPIERO, ....R.. L.IIlA A. SCHWARTZ, l.L..... .. ....OCL .... CADS. SUITE 750 THE CURTIS CENTER 601 WALNUT STREET PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA IVloe- 3307 12151 0215-8200 TELECOPIEA , 21151 82ft -Ieeg SUITE 3"0, LOSCH PLAZA III PROQRESS AVENUE P.o. BOlli 1010 POTTSVILLe, PA 17801 '717) e'I'.7300 WALTER MICHAEL. DINDA 0,. cou"'SCL. . ALeo fo4ll"'.E" ........ II." . ALSO fo4EIo4I1Il" WASH, DC IIA" Janwuy IS, 1997 Via Hand Deliverv Thomas P. Bracaglia, Esquire Kelly, MeLaugbli1! & Foster 1700 Atlantic Building 260 South Broad Street Philadelphill:- PA 19102 Re: Hoke v. Plantronics, et al. CCP-Cumberland County, No. 3455 Civil 1993 Our File No. 5105 Dear Mr. Bmcaglia: Enclosed please find Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant, AT&T Corpomtion's Request for Production of Documents in the above-referenced matter. Should you have any question with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF RUTIER & DIPIERO BY: C).Oln Th Q~ Debm M. Piela, Paralegal \dmp Enclosure cc: Karen S. Coates, Esquire John R. Sparks, Jr., Esquire John M. Willis, Esquire (w/enclosures) Dated: /1 (. 7' 7 6).:;Z~'J~~'/O Andrew E. DiPiero, Ji Attorney for Plaintifl1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant AT&T Corporation's Request for Production of Documents have been served on the following individual via Hand Delivery and/or U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on January IS, 1997, addressed as follows: John M, Willis, Esquire McKissock & HoffQl"n 1700 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103,3930 (U.S. Mail) Karen S. Coates, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street, 6th Floor P. 0, Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (U.S. Mail) Jayson Wolfgang, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. 0, Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (U.S. Mail) Thomas P. Bmcaglia, Esquire Kelly, McLaughlin & Foster 1700 Atlantic Building 260 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102-5092 (Hand Delivery) VERIFICATION I hereby verify that all the statements in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knOWledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made'subject to the penalties of 18 Pat C.S.A. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. LAW OFFICE OF RUTTER & DiPIERO By: Andrew E. DiPiero, Jr., Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 34671 The Curtis Center, Suite 750 601 Walnut Street Attorney for Plaintiffs Philadelphia, PA 19106-3307 (215) 925-9200 CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband and wife COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. No. 95-1761 - Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT AT&T'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY' Defendant AT&T has recently filed a Supplemental Memorandum of Law in support of its Motion to Compel Discovery and contained in its Supplemental Motion is the contention that Plaintiff only recently forwarded a formal Request for Production of Documents in this matter. (Defendant's Exhibit "A") This allegation is accurate. However, by way of further background and explanation Plaintiff submits the following information for the Court's consideration: The subject incident occurred in the control tower of the Capital City Airport which is owned, managed and operated by the Federal Aviation Administration. The basic theory of Plaintiff's case is that excessively loud tones were transmitted through the telecommunication system which system consisted of, inter Blis, 3 major components: the landlines which are owned and maintained by AT&T; the telecommunications console which is designed, manufactured, sold and installed by Defendant Denro, Inc.; and the communications headset which the Plaintiff was wearing at the time of the incident which was manufactured and sold by Defendant Plantronics. In the instant case, the plaintiff is unable to provide more specific Answers to Defendant AT&T contention Interrogatories for the following reasons: The FAA's attorneys have not yet made a decision as to what, if any, documents they will release to the undersigned in connection with this litigation. Moreover, counsel for the FAA and the undersigned have recently spoken via telephone and the undersigned has been advised that a decision has not yet been made as to what information the FAA will release and what witnesses it will make available for deposition testimony. Accordingly, since the FAA is not bound by the jurisdiction and authority of this Court, the plaintiff and the undersigned are at the mercy of the FAA with regard to this issue. The plaintiff does not have any of the FAA's records regarding the installation, repair, complaints, etc. pertaining to the land lines which provided communication to the control tower. In addition, the formal Requests for production of Documents that were only recently sent to Defendants, Denro and AT&T were sent after a telephone discussion which occurred several months earlier between the undersigned and counsel for AT&T during which in the undersigned advised counsel for AT&T that Plaintiff had no documents at this time relating to the landlines owned and maintained by AT&T. plaintiffs have however produced all information in Plaintiffs' possession, including responses to formal requests for documents, Answers to Interrogatories and Plaintiff Christian Hoke has submitted himself to two (2) separate oral depositions. Plaintiffs have responded to all discovery requests in good faith including this request by AT&T, however, there is no additional information in Plaintiffs possession at this time that is responsive to Defendant AT&T's contention Interrogatories. Obviously, this may change after we receive a response to our formal Request for Production of Documents which has been served upon Oenro and AT&T. Likewise, more specific information may become available after the FAA makes its decision as to whether it will release relevant documents and the extent to which they will permit their employees to testify at deposition. Plaintiff would be pleased to respond to any inquiry or concern that the Court may have regarding this matter. WHEREFORE, based upon all of the foregoing reasons, and in view of the fact that Plaintiff has answered the contention Interrogatories to the best of his ability, the Defendant AT&T's Motion to Compel should be denied. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF RUTTER & DIPIERO BY: >~ (l, 0: L;; .. , . r"J IJ,,' .~ C,t- p,:, f.',j , , y, - ') (~I - ;. L.:' - , c ,. CJ Li L. f - u- " r-- ., U i.f' :j , ,...-.-.. CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband and wife, Plaintiffs v. PLANTRONICS SANTA CRUZ, AUDIO PROFESSIONAL HEARING AID CENTER, and PAUL R. KNAUB, Defendants . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . . . . . NO. 93-3455 CIVIL TERM * * * * CHRISTIAN HOKE and . . BETH HOKE, husband : and wife, Plaintiffs . . . . v. : AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND : TELEGRAPH COMPANY, . . Defendants . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 95-1761 CIVIL TERM ,/' "* * * * CHRISTIAN HOKE and BETH HOKE, husband and wifp., Plaintif~s v. DENRO, INC., Defendants . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . : : . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . . . 1111, NO. 95~7&1 CIVIL TERM : AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT Z. , tl. day of December, 1997, upon cons~deration of Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Defendant Plantronics, Santa Cruz, to Return the Communication Headset and All Related Documents to Plaintiff, a Rule is issued upon the Defendants to show cauue why the relief requested should not be granted. .. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service. BY THE COURT, Andrew E. DiPiero, Jr., Esq. Suite 750 The Curtis Center 601 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106-3307 Attorney for Plaintiffs Thomas P. Bracaglia, Esq. Frank S. Nofer, Esq. 1700 Atlantic Building 260 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102-5092 Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Corp. Karen S. Coates, Esq. 305 North Front Street Sixth Floor, P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Defendant Plantronics Santa Cruz John R. Sparks, Jr., Esq. 237 North Prince Street Lancaster, PA 17603 Attorney for Defendants Audio Professional Hearing Aid Center and Paul Knaub John M. Willis, Esq. 1700 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-3930 Attorney for Defendant Denro, Inc. :rc c...~ 'l>t.<\.~l 1:1./31/1')' ;.6? ~ U') C ..:> " .~: lU~:? .) - :.}~t; - !~.. ::r.: i );t r:.: ...~ '-',:::; ,.. '"P;;r.. c'-: \.0 ;," (,) u "'l .., ~~:~ Ifl' . ~ >J,~u ..t- ::, f~ -, :,:L a... t5 ,.... :J CTt u Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the above captioned matter. LAW OFFICES OF RUITER & DIPIERO By' ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter my appearance of behalf of the Plaintiffs in the above captioned matter. BY: Dated: to .) '7 . n \It, UI.'J \\1 \JIOSX\larJ............ CHRISTIAN HOKE and . . BETH HOKE, husband . . and wife, . . Plaintiffs . . . . v. . . PLANTRONICS SANTA CRUZ, . . AUDIO PROFESSIONAL HEARING . . AID CENTER, and PAUL R. : KNAUB, : Defendants . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 93-3455 CIVIL TERM * * * * CHRISTIAN HOKE and . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . BETH HOKE, husband . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . and wife, Plaintiffs . . . . v. . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, 95-1761 CIVIL TERM........ Defendants . NO. . * * * * CHRISTIAN HOKE and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BETH HOKE, husband CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA and wife, Plaintiffs : v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : DENRO, INC. , . I ?'1(, . Defendants NO. 95-~ CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT 2 1 ~ day of January, 1998, upon relation of Plaintiffs' counsel that Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Return of Communication Headset and Related Documents may be deemed moot, the Rule issued in response to the said motion is discharged and the motion is DEEMED MOOT. Andrew E. DiPiero, Jr., Esq. Suite 750 The Curtis Center 601 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106-3307 Attorney for Plaintiffs 1~ ,.30,'lr u-/u..:. ~ ~ BY THE COURT, Thomas P. Bracaglia, Esq. Frank S. Nofer, Esq. 1700 Atlantic Building 260 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102-5092 Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Corp. Karen S. Coates, Esq. 305 North Front Street Sixth Floor, P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Defendant Plantronics Santa Cruz John R. Sparks, Jr., Esq. 237 North Prince Street Lancaster, PA 17603 Attorney for Defendants Audio Professional Hearing Aid Center and Paul Knaub John M. Willis, Esq. 1700 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-3930 Attorney for Defendant Denro, Inc. :rc MaKZSSOCK , HOFFMAN, P.C. BY: J. Bruce McKissock Identification No. 13036 BY: Ingrid B. Hopkinson Identification No. 76002 1700 Market street, suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 246-2100 Attorneys for Defendant Denro, Inc. CHRZSTZAN HOKE AND BETH HOKE, husband and wife, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY . . . . . . JURY TRIAL DEMANDBD vs. . . PLANTRONICS SANTA CRUZ AND AUDIO PROFESSIONAL HEARING AID CENTER AND PAUL R. KNAUB CIVIL ACTION NO. 3455 OF 1993 : . . CHRISTIAN HOKE AND BETH HOKE, husband and wife, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY . . vs. . . ./ AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-1761 . . CHRISTIAN HOKE AND BETH HOKE, husband and wife, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY . . VB. . . CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-1776 DENRO, INC. . . cons. At. No. 3455 of 1993 PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAWAL CASE FROM ARGUMENT LI~ ~O THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please withdraw the Motion for summary Judgment filed on behalf of Defendant, Denro, Inc. in the above-captioned matters from the Argument List of october 7, 1998. McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C. BY:~~~E~~~i~sSOCK INGRID B. HOPKINSON Attorneys for Defendant Denro, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SBRVICB I, INGRID B. HOPKINSON, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that on this 22nd day of September, 1998 a true and correct copy of Defendant Denro, Inc.'s Praecipe to Withdraw Motion for Summary Judgment from Argument List has been served upon the following counsel via United States, First Class Mail: Robert N. Hann, Esq. Kolsby, Gordon, Robin, Shore & Rothweiler One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Karen S. Coates, Esq. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street 6th Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 John R. Sparks, Jr., Esq. Post & Shell, P.C. 237 North Prince Street Lancaster, PA 17603 IN~li~ ;!B 't~O-~KINSON