HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-00292
l
7/1Omal, 7~omal & :Jfa/~,.
'.7lllll,,",'1' all'aw
. -
. ('....
301 HORTH rROHT ITRIIT
" 0, lOX ggg
HARRIUURG, M,17101
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, Individually :
and trading as SEW WITH US SEWING I
CENTER and DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO and :
SHARON A. SILVA, Individually and :
trading as SEW WITH US SEWING :
CENTER, a Pennsylvania partnership,:
Plaintiffs :
:
IN THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS
OP CUMBERLAND CO., PENNA
.
NO. 1 b - J q J.. CuX.e T ~""-"
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
.
.
USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP., and:
CHARLES USLANDER,
Successor-In-Interest to
Uslander/Eide Associates Corp.,
Defendants
I JURY TRIAL DEMANDBD
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please issue Writs of Summone in the above-captioned civil
action upon the following entities and persons:
Uslander/Eide Associates Corp.
6007 West Pickens
Chicago, Illinois
Charles Us lander
Successor-in-interest to Uslander/Eide Associates Corp.
6007 West Pickens
Chicago, Illinois
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
By:
arcello
Attar y I.D. No. 36510
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1710B
(717) 255-723B
Attorney for Plaintiffs
l'...-...9
1 ~~ olol:l--
~Q
(,~ N .,. ~ ~ '-'l~
.C' C'I \:; 'di :l-t'rl
? .'.
UJQ :it :-;) -"
cY - Q': ~-\
\iF l.,,):;;4
\:(: u.. O~~
~~~ ~~
CTl :-',:'-'! e. \
- <:)
'-- . .'>
u:tl,~ . ' ,.;...1 C,)~ e-
,,. '.',".; i:-
I" .--.) :::t- L.)
II. ,,", ~:l ~
LJ r.,' U ~
~
OFFICE OF PROTHONOTARY
Cumberland County, Carlisle. PA 17013
Dale 111:" r'i "il'l;
_~. " (f. -',
This Is to notlly you that
J') 1" I ~ {' f ,f r-- { I;' /' I Ie I II
.U"rl'(': f:~~,J"I_) "":. ,;', I VS. /, '!i .",."II-d\" I~t,)
, '-1 /'J'" ,i ~ . I
No. '/:1,. .-,:;~~".."I '11). ;?ql r,,'
Listed lor Argument on ('p,. I:) )1/,)1
Cumberland County Argument Court Rules 21 0.1 through 21 0.14 shall be strictly
enforced. lithe Issue was listed lor prior argument you must re.li e your brief as
per Local Rule 210.11. /7. ~
~ng
PROTHONOTARY
f.,rf
,
has been
....,J.
,
.
M,
, .
.
.,
,
I
,
\ '
I
~
" ,j
\
. ,
: .
.
t . -4'.:'. .
" .. .f
.... :
~.
"
':~ , to
,I" ~. t
~\., ...
. "
',: I
,
','
,
:F
".
,
I
-,.' -.,.;
,
I,
....I.
,
E
g
...
';j
~
- -' ',,<,~
C'_ ,\ II) :,^\/Iu nO , \
1~,I'l"., ~I ~ " L LI'::>
-- r4 h ...; (~tJr"\_=-
J,,^, \ Ij-(<o/': l_f ii, ("
.lID G-ran~' BUl/eli';!;
P-{.I-sh':-oh Fh /5 ./f- ~393 nrl For Bf-ttm i:"d
u. Returnt<lo"
[Re~~nCd For 88ttc~Adjress
..,...,<"..;.""',.....;.,<".;"oi........t.~.,..._.
,
" ,
I
I
\
I
. '. ~
.
," .'t. ,', J J
. ,'~
. . J . I
~,
..
. ~ .<-vc.,...." .~-.~,....~""-;~;.>.. .",' ~,...._~, '<:-A.'<l":"...,,;,.->;,',,,,~._,M'''-
.,.. , l'
~ i
I I
, .
.
"\J < ."'_
,
I
,
.
.
',' I
I
.
I I
'." .
,t:
. 1 I
", ~
. -.' -;.'
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
Deborah C. Esposito. Ind. ani t/a Sew
With Us Sewing Center ani Deborah C.
Esposito and Sharon A. Silva, Ind. ani
t/a Sew With Us Sewing Center, a
Pennsylvania partnership
Court of Commoll Pleas
VI.
No. __~_~:??~_C;!Y..iJ:_r~.!!!______________ 19____
III ___________~~y:!!._~!=~_:___~____________
Uslander/Eide Associates Corp., ani
Charles Us1ander. Successor-In-Interest
to Uslander/Eide Associates Corp.
6007 West Pickens
Chicago, Illinois
To _!1.!!~l~-!l!t~~~~-.Qml-.-..-!:I!!!-Charles Uslander
You are hereby notified tha I
._~~::_~_!=_'__~J~~J.j:.!?J!mJ~~-l\-.-J?.u.'&..-1rn.._-V.!:!-~-l!~t!t_!!l!_~9..9ID!=!1!.:___
the Plaintiffs hllvecommenced an action in _____________C;;!y.u._~_t;.:iQl1_hIM________________________
against you which you are required 10 deCend or a default judgmenl may be entered againsl you.
(SEAL)
Ilale ____J~_l~______________ 19_~6
Lawrence E. Welker
.------------------p~ih~~~t;~--------.---------
By __a~~i-Af1.'::--(~.-21!t-e:~kL-----
Ilepuly
~""",..,
/<-''''&';'-<- +-- I I
~ . ~.-'~ +-~._..~. -," .
..
...
J
J Ill. i~ . I I
iij~' i~~ ,
I
... I I
ml 'ol ! . I
,
E~ii !. .S I
, i.... :
j Ji i ~ ~IF
~, ~l
Ul !:1 d!
tl i' 1'( j~ .", ... l<
NI 0' ~~ lfob
I
~I ! .~ lj , ~ ~.~
. . 'E 8 , ~~j~f
,
,
I jm, It ,
I
~ I fC.,o t
I
-0' f"oo
to-tr1Q.. _
.,.
. ,.
~:;HEh'rFF':': EF'~l-'f'.n
'i. '
i'.~" r: F 1 LI,
I.' . . ~
, ,1\ ; ~.
t:/,~:E liD: 199G.00:~I:::; p
COMMONWEALTH OF FENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLANO
t::iU'.C 1 J~~_ r>.fJl.9R I~-':L~_._____.___._
V3.
1&.Lllr:l[)~R/ErrIE ,\SSOC CORL
R~__. :tho I~:.;J ~.. K,.~..tD!t.__._ _ __ .___ ____,____
Shell1-f or [Ieputy ShQI-iff of
CUMP.EHLAHD Cotlnt.y, Pf:lonnsylvanl-a, whfJ b(;....lfltJ duly ::.;worn acc()rdJog tlJ law,
;c.' r """ . ho:' WIt h i n nam'Jd (lj:FEIWA tlJL..1I.~!"_Ml['F"li.,!'"JiM1J..E~__~\.1C_t;;_=-Ul.:--ll':lLLQ__ _.___'
b", Unl t.(.d ~,tat,?s Cel~t):t led Mall ros.~:]qe pr-epald. on th":.! ~t~ da,' ot
FecI..'.!_:~U:__. _13"'",__. 'J'-UQf\:Q.Q. HOUR":'. a'- c::;7 JI~lRnl FOREST
Q6.!Lf'!~R Ii,_ .l!-~c';'l.] 9.L. ___ ___________m____. _ ,_. _,___ ___._____________
" truC' and attested Ct'f'}' of the' att'JctHoj _wB.tl--'JL~lJ.tll!l)ll~__.
Th.:.. r..:~t'Jr'ned J~..;;>(",Plpt~ Ctit'rj ''';If;'> 31iJn.-'!d hy VICTOR~A A
on ..:;; 1~/_Lg9~.
Sh~rlff's Costs:
[Ir:l\-:ket i og
Service
Afi~davlt
Surcharge
c.*-=,'rtified mail
~;o 'H":7r/~ / _ _ ~?
-~-- -~1_",-_";-(,,';:-^ ~~_.."..,
R--1:..L.------- '"1----.- ----rr--
. i nomas .. l.ne, 1~C' 1.4.l
"'.00
. l~C
.00
:.00
2.5:
;:;, (~. :,.: THOMAS THmIAc;
;J,'( 5""- ,).~ i:: 111 ~1'36
~ ,)">,0 If
Sworn ,;;H,d :;ub[iC"rib~q, t.el be-for r:> tno?
th12 .It""",L day ,:,f ..7.:lot",,,-}
I ".!lJ..~_=- ,\,'[1. - - . ---,-
___~~~ C~/MS WJ!:'i-'.._____.. ___
,- rrot.nonctHr :'-
ArHi HAFER
.---'
"
,
~~~HEF:l FF'
r-.i.::TUh1i
i.I"':' ~ r' r Fl' i'! 1\ I :_
CASE flD: 1996-00292 P
rOMM0NWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
r:';!'.:!J.?:-lT2..J'E.J1.PRAH C._________
VS,
U~Ljlm'H!!_'~) [IE ASSOC c;:or/P
P._,-1'h!,~m""s.; KIln'"
, Sher~!f or Deputy Sheriff of
vho being du],y sworn accordlflg to law,
CUMBERLAND County.
P~nnsyl..,ania,
',"r'.'.',1 the' within nam",d t;>.EFJ;:JjQAlLT.L...I.!$.l"blj[~!,;Rn::_H'E~$_SOCIATES CORP
by UflltJ'.rl States Cert.lf1~d M:]il po.;t.;:)g(' prt!ra~d. on the 8tb_
----.--'
day I)f
E ~kr_~.;~ f_}:_~._~' _J_'?S!..~_,
"I. 1..tl?J.0:~.~ HOURS. .,1. <;';CZ_Ji9-lU!LfOE.J;:dI_________..
9}di PI,!,,,, ..Jb..6~;).~:z
" tru'3 and aU.,,'sted copy oi the attii'=hed ~.W_f:LLL.QL_.?Ul1I'!QJJ.S
The- r('tunlC'd receipt card "as siqn>?d t'i' V)CTJ1RJ.6_A-._._.
(l!l ._~!J.;3./1.~~.2_~_.
Shprlff"s Costo:
rl(_~I'v.et.ing
S~.?rvice
Affld.JVlt
'3urr:rl;1rQp.
certi.flf.~d mail
Sf) ancw"~:>rs: .
- /-:' ...-
~~'1' /, /'" /..-</:
./ ~~"-d''c ,/2~
P.{lhorla8..-'KI1.~rlt~--51ler 1 t f -
18.00
. "l~
.00
4.00
2.5:2
~':T..r:-"'52-THOMAS THOMAS
02/21/1996
MID HAFER
~w('r" and sub.3cr 1 ~'Z.l..~ :;f ore me
; 8 L. 1-<-. lJ:~'b~ay o1~_ ------.
.3,,__
~ C)..{l..L--Wot1M ;, ~h'f /Q(!Ti--------
.II
, '" 96-292 Civil Term
It,. Complete ~1fM , and/or 2 fOf ,ddiUoMl..rvk:...
I_ Complete itemI 3. and 4, . b. I
. Print your name and add,... on lh1 II..,,,,, of thlt 'Qfm .0 IMI WI can
fetum thlt Clld to you.
. An........ f..m'o '110 ".... of.1Io _...... .. on.1Io bock II ..... D Add........ Add,... .
don not permit.
I . Wrtt,''RlturnRecelptRequnted''Drtthen\lllplKebetowtheartlcllnumbef 2. 0 R'ltrlcted Celivery I
. Ttw R,turn RK_ willlhow 10 wham the trtJcll WI' drive," and IhI dl'l
i NItve,td, Consult allma.'er for f...
t ciillA~~=:d'l'll. :~Il'her, Succeasor- t4~._ Artl~. 'iu2'~' 559 447 fi
Inter,;,st, to Uslllnder/Eirle 4b. S.,vlc.Typ. i
l\asOC1l1tes Corp. D RogllI.,.d D In.u,.d
927 North Forest i!C.rtlfled Dcoo .l!'
Ollk"Pl'lrk, IL 60302 De-pl...M.iI DR.turnR.colptlo, 1
7. Dot. ol~ilv.,., / ~
-L.-/2-'7-o I
B. Addr....... Addl... (Only If ,.qu.lled 'I
.nd I.. I. p.ldl ~
~
I .110 with to ,.cllvl the
following ."vle.. Hor an ..tll
'HI:
1.
cc
6.
t nnJUlFATlCAF..II-u r--
,.:
.11 E .
"Ii . Complete hlml , and/or Z for Idd/tIOnII HfYIceI.
I :~~...;:: ~-;:.~; ~ ~IOV;"~ ~' ~~', '0"" .. '110. w. .on ~
I . An,th thi. 'ann to the from of the m.atplece, or on the beck I' .~ce 0 AddreIl8.1. Add.... j
doe. not PlnnIt.
-I . Wrtt'''Rttumlll~ReQUllted''onthrtrMlpieceNlowthlartic''numbltf 2. 0 Rlltrlcted Delivery I
. ThI R,turn ~ wll thow to whom the 8ttide w.. dthertd and tM d.l.
i delIwred. . Conlult 11m,.1.r for f...
1 3. Artlcl. Add'...... 10: 4.. Artlcl. Numbe,
i Uslander/Eide Associlltes Co p. Z 126 559 446 fi
e 927 North Fores t 4b. S.,.lc. Typ. i
II Oak PlIrk, IL 60302 DR.glll.lld D'n.ul.d
DJ. C.,tlfled [l COD .l!'
D E.p'... M.iI D R'Mn R.c.lpt '0' 1
7. Dot. 0!'p.1I..,., ~
't... ( ?1~ I
B. Add,....... Add,... (Only II ,.qu..t.d 'I
.nd I.. I. p.ldl ~
I .110 wl.h to IIc.I.. tho
following IOrvlc.. Clor In ..".
fool:
1.
il
Slgnotu,. lAdd'......
<:
.lI
....a.CIl'O:.-.714 .DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
.,
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO,
Individually and trading as
SEW WITH US SEWING CENTER and
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO and SHARON
A. SILVA, Individually and
trading as SEW WITH US SEWING
CENTER, a pennsylvania
partnership,
plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 96-292 - CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES
CORP., and CHARLES USLANDER,
successor-In-Interest to
Uslander/Eide Associates
Corp.,
Defendants
AND NOW, this
ORDER OP COURT
day of
, 1998, the
Motion to Consolidate is granted and the above-captioned case is
consolidated with those and consolidated by the Order of Court of
september 26, 1997.
BY THE COURT:
J.
-..
"if:
i;,?
lU',">
~,.:~ l"
U: ~;
'1':
(,'
u.~ .~
;;...'(:
t.
\
I'.
()
Cl
..;:J
(~.:
(~;
~j...
;'.'
.'<::'..
""'oj
l;"l
\
(--,
LL
w.-
ee
tJ'
"
,.
-;:'i
()
~
~ E
~~E
~ 1 ~
;::s ~ ~
'-1 ~ 0
i ~ i
~
.
E !
. 'I
~ ~
.. Ii
i
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Individually and trading as CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
SEW WITH US SEWING CENTER and
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO and SHARON NO. 96-292 - CIVIL TERM
A. SILVA, Individually and
trading as SEW WITH US SEWING CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CENTER, a Pennsylvania
partnership, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs
v.
USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES
CORP., and CHARLES USLANDER,
Successor-In-Interest to
Uslander/Eide Associates
Corp.,
Defendants
AND NOW, this
10"
RULE
day of February, 199B, a Rule is
hereby issued to show cause why this action should not be
consolidated with the other actions arising from this collapse
pursuant to the Order of Court dated September 26, 1997.
Rule returnable within
'2-0
days of services.
BY THE
J.
,.'
. .
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO,
Individually and trading as
SEW WITH US SEWING CENTER and
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO and SHARON
A. SILVA, Individually and
trading as SEW WITH US SEWING
CENTER, a Pennsylvania
partnership,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 96-292 - CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES
CORP., and CHARLES USLANDER,
Successor-In-Interest to
Uslander/Eide Associates
Corp.,
Defendants
PLAINTIFFS' PETITION TO CONSOLIDATE
1. Plaintiffs commenced this action with regard to a
building collapse.
2. There are several other actions arising from this same
collapse which have been brought before the Court of Common Pleas
of Cumberland County.
3. Those actions were consolidated for the purposes of Pre-
Trial proceedings pursuant to the Order of September 26, 1997 of
Judge Kevin A. Hess.
4. This action arises out of the same incident or accident
and should be consolidated for said purposes.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request this Honorable Court issue an
Order consolidating this action with those consolidated by the
Court's Order of September 26, 1997.
~'."~ ",""",. I 'ce
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP
By:
~~
s B. Marcello, Esquire
orth Front Street
Post Office Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 1710B-0999
(717) 255-723B
,-,.
MECHANICS BURG OVEN, INC., I
et al, I
Plaintiffs I
I
V I
I
IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al, I
Defendants I
I
V I
I
ROTHSCHILD ARCHITECTS, I
et al, I
Add1. Defendants I
I
I
FRANCES PRIBULSKY, et al, I
Plaintiffs I
I
V I
I
IRENE B. KERMISCH, et ai, I
Defendant. I
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, et all
Plaintiffs I
I
V I
I
IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al, I
Defendants I
MARIA STRICKLER, et al, I
Plaintiffs I
I
V I
I
IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al, I
Defendants I
RANDY CLARK, et al, I
Plaintiffs I
I
V I
I
IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al, I
Defendants
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO. et all
Plaintiff I
I
V I
I
IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al I
.-
eCT 0 2 1997
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
96-0171 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
96-0272 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
96-0271 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
95-73B5 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
95-7384 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
95-0311 CIVIL TERM
v
FRANCES PRIBULSKY. et a1 I
Plaintiffs I
I
V I
I
IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al
Defendants
CIPRIANO and JOSEPHINE
ARENA, et al
Plaintiffs
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"-'"
V
BRIDGESTONE, FIRESTONE,
INC., et al
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
95-0314 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OP
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
97-0002 CIVIL TERM
IN REI MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 1997, this
matter having been called for hearing, the within motion to
consolidate is granted, and the above-captioned cases are
consolidated for the purpose of pretrial proceedings without
prejUdice to any subsequent motion to consolidate the matters
for trial on the questions of liability and/or damages.
Douglas Marcello, Esquire
Daniel M. Taylor, Jr., Esquire
Par the Plaintiffs
Michael A. Parrell, Esquire
Par Ker.misch, et al
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Por Cory Construction
Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire
Par Sam Cooperman & Gerald Berg
By the
Court,
4Jl
Hess, J.
Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire
For Hyde, Bert, Davis & Associates
.
.
~
Deborah A. Cavacini, Esquire
For Charles Klein & Sons
Dennis J. Bonetti, Esquire
For Smith Roofing
James P. Thomas, Esquire
For Rothschild Architects
Bryan Gaster, Esquire
For Victor Smith & Smith Mgt. Group
Ibg
~
i
I
1
i
I
i
,
,
I
I
I
,
,
CERTIPICATE OP SERVICE
AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 1998, I, Cynthia D. Byrd,
secretary in the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, hereby certify
that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to
the following counsel of record by placing a copy of same in the
United States, first class mail, addressed as follows:
Uslander/Eide Associates Corp.
927 North Forest
Oak Park, IL 60302
Charles Us lander
927 Noth Forest
Oak Park, IL 60302
CyGh~f ~. )k~~d~' Pxo hL
it r;. ....
", - /.;
.- "',
"~~: '"" : "~
h<"l," .-+-.:: , <
'-.. n. .
~)I: (. ~ .:j
..,
C~'('. ...., ~j':j
lJ.,.'. -
cCi.' (",j I'" ._
t:J,':j
,'. l., ~., I Cl.,:
l..
", C' ....
U .-,
c;n U
~
,
"
L.
~
~
to
..
~
Q
~
..
~
~
9
2j
...
a
~
E
,s
~
t;
...
a:
Iii II
.. II
Z II
i a
.. II
~ d
~ A:
Z
..
o
...
II
o
E
~
Ii
a:
:>
II
..
i
a:
c
:I:
~
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, et al.,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
v.
NO. 96-292 - CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES
CORP., and CHARLES USLANDER,
Successor-In-Interest to
Uslander/Eide Associates
Corp.,
Defendants
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEBN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action
within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served,
by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and
filing in writing with this 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.
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
NOTICIA
LE BAN DEMANDO A USTED EN LA CORTE. Si usted quiere
defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes,
usted tiene viente (20) dias de plaza al partir de la fecha de la
demanda y la notificacion. Usted de be preaentar una apariencia
escrito e en persona 0 par obogado y archivar en la corte en forma
escrita sus defensas 0 sus objectiones alas demandas en contra de
su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte
tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo
aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido
en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus
propiedades 0 ostros derechos import antes para usted.
- .
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
. ~ / ... / I, .)
BY:} V'1{ ~. ,) ~) /1 ~ (i!')
. Doug! s" B. arce!lo, Esquire
305 North Front Street
Post Office Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 1710B-0999
(717) 255-723B
Attorneys for Plaintiff
2
'-...;.,?\'..,.,;,'"
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, et al,
Plaintiffs
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 96-292 - CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES
CORP., and CHARLES USLANDER,
Successor-In-Interest to
Uslander/Eide Associates
Corp.,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff at all times in question owned and operated a
business at Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.
2.
Charles
as
Uslander
Successor-in-interest
to
Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. which is believed to be a Successor-in-
interest to Structomatic, Inc., and/or successor to the product
line and/or was at all times relevant hereto engaged in the
business of selling, planning, designing, fabricating and/or
manufacturing trusses.
3.
Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. is believed to be
a
Successor-in-interest to Structomatic, Inc., and/or successor to
the product line and was at all times relevant hereto engaged in
the business of selling, planning, designing, fabricating and/or
manufacturing trusses and/or assumed and is responsible for the
liabilities and/or purchased the assets of Structomatic and/or
continued its business and enterprise.
4. The trusses which supported the roof at 5216-5220 East
Simpson Ferry Road, which collapsed on January 21, 1994.
5. Said wood trusses were planned, designed, sold,
constructed and/or fabricated by Defendant, Structomatic, Inc.
.
6. By correspondence dated May 10, 1974, Structomatic, Inc.
stated that the trusses were sufficient to support the placement of
air conditioning units on the roof.
7. On or about January 21, 1994, the roof of the Windsor
Park Shopping Center collapsed, causing substantial damage to
Plaintiffs' leasehold and personal property and substantially
interrupted the operation of Plaintiffs' business and caused a loss
of business income and created a hazard of injury to the occupants
of the building.
COUNT I: PRODUCT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS V. USLANDER/EIDE ASSOC. CORP.
8. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1
through 7 of this Complaint.
9. Defendant Structomatic, Inc., and/or Us lander Eide Assoc.
Corp. at all times material hereto, has been engaged in the
planning, design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans, and/or
roof trusses, and related hardware.
10. Defendant Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander Eide Assoc.
Corp. designed and/or fabricated the roof trusses used in the
construction of the subject building.
11. Sometime before January 21, 1994, Defendant Structomatic,
Inc. and/or uslander Eide Assoc. Corp. sold and placed into the
stream of commerce drawings, and certain hardware used in the
manufacture of roof trusses and/or the actual roof trusses used in
the construction of the subject building.
2
3
12. Defendant, Structomatic, Inc. , and/or Uslander Eide
Assoc. Corp. designs, manufactures, distributes, and sells truss
plans, trusses, and related hardware, expecting those plans,
trusses, and related hardware to reach consumers in the condition
in which they are manufactured and sold and knowing, or having
reason to know, that they will be used without inspection for
defects.
13. On or about January 21, 1994, while the above-described
roof trusses and related hardware were being used in a manner which
was intended or reasonably foreseeable, specifically, to support
other elements of the roof assembly, said roof trusses and related
hardware failed, causing and allowing the roof of the subject
building to collapse.
14. At the time of their manufacture and sale, the plans,
roof trusses and related hardware were not fit for their intended
or reasonably foreseeable use and were defective and unreasonably
dangerous.
15. The plans, roof trusses and related hardware were
defective and unreasonably dangerous in that (a) the diagonal web
members were undersized; (b) the web members did not have adequate
load capacity to support the minimum code required snow and/or live
loads; (c) substandard wood species were used in the diagonal web
members; (d) bracing for the diagonal web members was inadequate;
(e) the plans, trusses, and hardware contained such other defect(s)
as to render the roof trusses inadequate for their intended
purpose; (f) failing to design, plan, fabricate and/or specify
truss for the building sufficient to support the roof, HVAC units,
snow loads in the geographical location of the building, live
loads, and/or dead loads; (g) violating the applicable national
standards with respect to the plan, design, specification,
manufacture, construction and/or fabrication of the trusses; (h)
violating Restatement (Second) of Torts ~323; (i) improperly
performing its contractual obligation to specify, plan, and design
the trusses; (j) improperly performing its contract; (k) improperly
performing its professional services as engineer and/or architect
of the trusses; and (m) failing to specify, plan, design, construct
and/or manufacture the trusses that was safe for the occupants
and/or property of others.
16. As the direct and proximate result of the defective
condition and/or design of the plans, roof trusses and related
hardware, Plaintiffs suffered extensive property damages as well as
the substantial interruption in their business and resultant loss
of profit.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their
favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00,
together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney
fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under
the circumstances.
4
COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS V. USLANDER/EIDE ASSOC. CORP.
17. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1
through 16 of this Complaint.
lB. Plaintiffs' damages were directly and proximately caused
by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Structomatic,
Inc., and/or UslEonder/Eide Assoc. Corp. generally and in the
following particulars:
(a) In failing to design or to adopt a safe plan or design or
the production, manufacture and installation of the roof
trusses in the subj ect building, which conduct this
Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care
should have known, rendered the roof trusses incapable of
withstanding the required roof loads, which defect
created a highly dangerous condition to the Plaintiffs as
well as to the users and customers of the Plaintiffs'
business;
(b) In failing to design or adopt a safe plan or design for
the production, manufacture and installation of said roof
trusses;
(c) In carrying out the design and plan for the production,
manufacture, and installation of the said roof trusses
which this Defendant knew, or in the exercise of
reasonable care should have known would produce a
defective and unsafe roof which was unable to sustain
acceptable roof loads;
(d)
In failing to assure a safe and adequate design and
for the manufacture, assembly, production
installation of said roof trusses;
plan
and
(e) In failing to adequately test or otherwise discover that
the said roof trusses were designed, manufactured and
installed in such an unreasonable and dangerous manner
and under such unreasonable and dangerous conditions as
to render the roof unsafe for use;
(f) In supplying, installing, or causing to be installed in
the premises wooden roof trusses which this Defendant
knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should
have known were defective, inadequate, and insufficient
for the purpose for which they were used;
(g) In using or allowing the use of an inferior grade of
lumber in the production, manufacture and installation of
the said roof trusses, when this Defendant knew or in the
exercise of reasonable care should have known was not the
proper grade of lumber;
5
(h) In failing to warn Plaintiffs of the potential dangers
resulting from the design, manufacture and installation
of the defective roof trusses;
(i) In failing to design, manufacture, assemble and install
the roof trusses in a professional and workmanlike
manner;
(j) In failing to provide roof trusses which were adequate
and sufficient for the purposes for which they were
installed;
(k) In failing to accurately calculate the load to which the
roof would be subjected;
(1) In failing to supply adequate hardware for the
manufacture of the roof trusses;
(m) Failing to specify, plan and/or design for the building
sufficient to support snow loads in the geographical
location of the building;
(n) Failing to specify, plan, design, construct and/or erect
the trusses in a manner so as to provide sufficient and
adequate dead load, snow load, and live load;
(0) Violating the provisions of applicable national standard
with respect to the plan, design, manufacture,
construction, and/or erection of the building;
(p) Failing to use reasonable care in performing services
which care defendant recognized, or should have
recognized, as necessary to protect the interests of
Plaintiffs and in violation of the provisions of the
Restatement of Torts 2d, ~323;
(q) Improperly performing its contractual obligation to
specify, plan, and design the trusses;
(r) Improperly performed its contract;
(s) Improperly performed its professional services as
engineer and/or architect of the trusses; and
Failing to specify, plan, design,
manufacture trusses that were safe
and/or property of others.
19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts
(t)
construct and/or
for the occupants
and omissions of this defendant, as set forth above, Plaintiffs
6
have sustained damage in that the building collapsed and was
consequently demolished, causing extensive real and personal
property loss, as well as the lengthy interruption of the
Plaintiffs' business and resultant loss of profit.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their
favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00,
together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney
fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under
the circumstances.
COUNT III: BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES
PLAINTIFFS V. USLANDER/EIDE ASSOC. CORP.
20. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1
through 19 of this Complaint.
21. In selling the roof truss plans, roof trusses and related
hardware and placing same into the stream of commerce, Defendant
Structomatic, Inc. and/or Eslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. expressly and
impliedly warranted that the plans, trusses, and related hardware
were merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for which such
items are used and/or that the trusses would be fabricated in a
workmanlike manner.
22. Defendant Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Assoc.
Corp. breached its aforesaid express and implied warranties because
the plans, roof trusses, and related hardware were not
merchantable, were not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such
items are used, were not fit for their intended use and/or were not
fabricated in a workmanlike manner. To the contrary, the plans,
7
.
roof trusses and related hardware were defective in such a manner
as to be unreasonably dangerous to the Plaintiffs, which defects
were not reasonably discoverable by Plaintiffs at or prior to the
date and time of the roof collapse.
23. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid
breaches, the roof of the subject building collapsed on or about
January 21, 1994, causing Plaintiffs substantial real and personal
property loss as well as the substantial interruption of
Plaintiffs' business and resultant loss of profits.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their
favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00,
together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney
fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under
the circumstances.
COUNT IV: PRODUCT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS V. CHARLES USLANDER
Successor in Interest to USLANDER/EIDE ASSOC. CORP.
24. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1
through 23 of this Complaint.
25. Defendant Charles Us lander purchased the assets of
Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. and/or was a successor in interest.
26. Defendants Charles Uslander continues to operate said
predecessors, designing, manufacturing and distributing the same
products previously designed, manufactured and distributed by
Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp.
8
27. Defendant Charles Us lander assumed and are responsible
for the liabilities of Uslander/Eide Corp.
28. Defendants Charles Us lander successor in interest to
Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. at all times material hereto, has been
engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans
and/or roof trusses and have engaged in a continuing enterprise of
substantially the same business.
29. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments
of Count I of their Complaint to the same force and effect as if
set forth at length herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their
favor and against Defendant, Charles Uslander and Patricia Reynolds
t/d/b/a Structomatic, Inc. in an amount in excess of $50,000.00,
together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney
fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under
the circumstances.
COUNT V: NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS V. CHARLES USLANDER
as Successor in Interest of USLANDER/EIDE ASSOC. CORP.
30. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1
through 29 of this Complaint.
31. Defendants Charles Uslander purchased the assets of
Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. and/or was a successor in interest
thereto.
9
.
32. Defendants Charles Us lander continue to operate
Uslander/Eide Corp., designing, manufacturing and distributing the
same products previously designed, manufactured and distributed by
Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Associates Corp.
33. Defendants Charles Us lander assumed and are responsible
for the liabilities of Uslander/Eide Associates Corp.
34. Defendants Charles Us lander as successor in interest to
Uslander/Eide Corp. has at all times material hereto, have been
engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans
and/or roof trusses and/or have been engaged in a continuing
enterprise.
35. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments
of Count II of the Complaint, to the same force and effect as if
set forth at length herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their
favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00,
together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney
fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under
the circumstances.
COUNT VI: BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES
PLAINTIFFS V. CHARLES USLANDER
Successor in Interest to USLANDER/EIDE ASSOC. CORP.
36. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1
through 35 of this Complaint.
10
r
11
37. Defendants Charles Uslander purchased the assets of
Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. and/or was a successor in interest
thereto.
38. Defendants Charles Us lander continue to operate
Structomatic, Inc., and/or Us lander Eide Associates Corp.
designing, manufacturing and distributing the same products
previously designed, manufactured and distributed by Structomatic,
Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Associates Corp.
39. Defendants Charles Us lander assumed and are responsible
for the liabilities of Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide
Associates Corp.
40. Defendants Charles Us lander as successor in Interest to
Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. at all times material hereto, have been
engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans
and/or roof trusses and have engaged in a continuing enterprise of
substantially the same business.
41. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments
of Count III of the Complaint, to the same force and effect as if
set forth at length herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant in an
amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with prejudgment interest,
costs, delay damages, attorney fees and other such relief as the
Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances.
THOMAS, THOMAS " ~ER
By: ~/1t:{:/( 6'/~Y,("i'D
~glaS B. Marcello
Attorney I.D. No. 36510
P.O. Box 999
305 Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108
(717) 755-7238
Attorney for Plaintiffs
12
','
,',
'.
FE8-11-1998 14123
~ IdSO I lI:n"'l,~:.nClR
412 745 ro.lO P.02/02
... .-
WRJ:Il'!CA'l'ION
I, Deborah C. I!"podto, statu thilt I am hmilhr with t.ho
facts and al1.gation. .et torth in the toregoing document. I have
~e.4 the foregoing document and hereby affirm t~~t it i. t.rue and
corract to l:h.. beet of my penlona1 knowle4Sle, In!omar.l.on and
beliet. Tni. Verification is ~ade pureuant. to 18 Pa.C.S. 14904
relating to un.worn falsification t.o authoritiea.
DATBD,
d J 1/ / 93
I '
aI!~a.~
Deborah c. eepoe to
.
TOTI'L P.02
.... C". '.-
l;; c.: f;
;.:: l...~ "
ll.lr.~,
C ,- ,
I,: , ..
L'_. . (.... ,
'i): "
17.'1' .:r
U.;' I -
~t. r :: ',j
r
I . " ~ .~......
II t~'" ::j
CJ c.;\ U
z
-
lA
lA
-
llI:
I.:)
to9
llI:
III
-l
....
III
....
en
. ~ ~
:5 S :S
~ ~n
Sin
~ t; d ~
~ :; '" ~
<!l :i
~
~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, et al
Plaintiffs
NO. 96-292 - civil Term
- vs -
USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP.,
and CHARLES USLANDER, Successor-
In-Interest to Uslander/Eide
Associates, Corp.,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRELIMINARY OBJEC'l'ION OF DEFENDANTS
1.
Insufficient Specificity in a Pleadinq -
Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3)
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Complaint aver, in
conclusory style, that the defendants are successors in interest as
more fully set forth therein.
2.
Defendants are unable to admit or deny these
conclusions without supporting facts to support the conclusions.
3.
Plaintiffs Complaint is inSUfficiently specific
because it fails to aver any facts regarding the nature, subject
matter or specifics of the alleged successor in interest of three
different parties defendant.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request Your Honorable Court
to direct Plaintiffs to file a more specific Complaint.
STE'l'LER , GRIBBIN
DATE I
l>/.,/ttr
I .
BYI
'07390
138 E. Market Street
PO Box 2588
York PA 17405-2588
(717) 854-9506
CER'l'IFICA'l'B OF SBRVICE
I, LEO E. GRIBBIN, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a
true and correct copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objections, by
first-class mail, postage prepaid, on the following I
Douglas B. Marcello, Esquire
305 Front Street
PO Box 999
Harrisburg PA 17108
S'l'BTLER & GRIBBIN
DATE:
~J.,/,s-
BY:
.07390
138 E. Market Street
PO Box 2588
York PA 17405-2588
(717) 854-9506
'.- rot ..
t-, ("<~ I:;
, , to:;
.' ,>
.., j
(). '.., . '.
II: ,
, , '-"-. :~
5); -. )
Ll' I
l...,:..j; ;
,0, r.:
G. 'J
.1 ~ .J
(, : ,-
.. :a:
I). '" . -'
<;'J U. U
z
jQ
lA
-
llI:
I.:)
to9
llI:
III
i=l
~
en
~ ~
~ S :S
~ ~ ~ ~
S i g i
~3~&:
~!l ~
~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, et al
Plaintiffs
NO. 96-292 - Civil Term
.
.
.
.
- vs -
.
.
USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP.,
and CHARLES USLANDER, Successor-
In-Interest to Uslander/Eide
Associates, Corp.,
Defendants
:
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
.
.
.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
OBJECTION BY DEENDAN'l'S TO PETI'l'ION TO CONSOLIDATE
Defendants respectfully object to the conclusory nature of the
Petition to Consolidate this case with others. The Petition fails
to set forth sufficient facts to permit the defendants to agree on
whether there is a common question of fact or law, or whether the
matter is needlessly repetitive, prejudicial, or capable of
creating jury confusion.
e
WHEREFORE, Defendants request Your Honorable Court to direct
Plaintiffs to set forth sufficient facts from which Defendants can
determine whether there is a basis for consolidation.
S'l'ETLER & GRIBBIN
DATE:
]I /.,/11'
BY, ~~l~
Attorney for Defendant
Attorney I.D. '07390
-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, LEO E. GRIBBIN, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a
true and correct copy of the foregoing OBJECTION TO PETITION TO
CONSOLIDATE, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on the
following I
Douglas B. Marcello, Esquire
305 Front Street
PO Box 999
Harrisburg PA 17108
S'l'ETLER & GRIBBIN
DATBI
BY:
Leo B. Gribbin, Bsquire
Attorney for Defendant
Attorney I.D. #07390
138 E. Market Street
PO Box 2588
York PA 17405-2588
(717) 854-9506
~
~
;::,
(;)
~t;
fE(
9c.
0(:,
[.Ol~
-' I'
,-;.,1..-
~F
11.
o
N
'"
c.;
:c
u..
(.::
~.
,-
~~~E
(.~:!;~
','i(l
.~)!~
'{ll,j
C:,~ 0...
-.
:i
U
,,,>
N
0:;
,,-
:r;
~
C"
.
I.
~
~
~~
i
Q
~
Ii
~
~
"ii
~
E
ol!
~
t; II
w 0
f E
'" .. '"
.. .. 0:
z at d
~ ~ ~
~ d ::
fj a: i
z ..
'" z
o
'"
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, et al.,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 96-292 - CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES
CORP., and CHARLES USLANDER,
Successor-In-Interest to
Uslander/Eide Associates
Corp.,
Defendants
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action
within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served,
by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and
filing in writing with this 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.
NOTICIA
LE BAN DEMANDO A USTED EN LA CORTE. Si usted quiere
defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes,
usted tiene viente (20) dias de plaza al partir de la fecha de la
demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia
escrito e en persona 0 por obogado y archivar en la corte en forma
escrita sus defensas 0 sus objectiones alas demandas en contra de
su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte
tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo
aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido
en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus
propiedades 0 ostros derechos importantes para usted.
.
. ":"f_~
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
THOMAS, THOMAS " HAFER
By:
~~v~
D~U~S B. Marcello, Esquire
305 North Front Street
Post Office Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999
(717) 255-7238
Attorneys for Plaintiff
2
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, et al.
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 96-292 - CIVIL TERM
v.
USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES
CORP., and CHARLES USLANDER,
Successor-In-Interest to
Uslander/Eide Associates
Corp.,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff at all times in question owned and operated a
business at Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.
2.
Charles
to
Us lander
Successor-in-interest
as
Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. which is believed to be a Successor-in-
interest to Structomatic, Inc., and/or successor to the product
line and/or was at all times relevant hereto engaged in the
business of selling, planning, designing, fabricating and/or
manufacturing trusses.
3.
Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. is believed to be
a
Successor-in-interest to Structomatic, Inc., and/or successor to
the product line and was at all times relevant hereto engaged in
the business of selling, planning, designing, fabricating and/or
manufacturing trusses and/or assumed and is responsible for the
liabilities and/or purchased the assets of Structomatic and/or
continued its business and enterprise.
4. Defendant, Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. purchased the
assets of Structomatic, Inc. sometime prior to January 21, 1994.
5. Defendant, Charles Us lander purchased the assets of
Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. sometimes prior to January 21, 1994.
6. Defendants Charles Us lander and/or Uslander/Eide
Associates Corp. continue to operate Structomatic, Inc., designing,
manufacturing and distributing the same products previously
designed, manufactured and distributed by Structomatic, Inc.
7. Defendants Charles Us lander and/or Uslander/Eide
Associates Corp. assumed and are responsible for the liabilities of
Structomatic, Inc.
8. Defendants Charles Us lander and/or Uslander/Eide
Associates Corp. at all times material hereto, have been engaged in
the design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans and/or roof
trusses and have engaged in a continuing enterprise of
substantially the same business and/or continuing the same product
line.
9. Plaintiff incorporates the averments of this Complaint
against Structomatic as if set forth in full.
10. Structomatic designed and/or fabricated the roof trusses
which supported the roof at 5216-5220 East Simpson Ferry Road,
which collapsed on January 21, 1994.
11. Said wood trusses were planned, designed, sold,
constructed and/or fabricated by Defendant, Structomatic, Inc.
12. Defendant Structomatic sold and/or placed in the stream
of commerce drawings and/or certain hardware for use in the
manufacture of roof trusses and/or which were used in the
construction of the roof trusses of the subject building.
2
.
13. By correspondence dated May 10, 1974, Structomatic, Inc.
stated that the trusses were sufficient to support the placement of
air conditioning units on the roof.
14. On or about January 21, 1994, the roof of the Windsor
Park Shopping Center collapsed, causing substantial damage to
Plaintiffs' leasehold and personal property and substantially
interrupted the operation of Plaintiffs' business and caused a loss
of business income and created a hazard of injury to the occupants
of the building.
COUNT I: PRODUCT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS V. USLANDER/EIDE ASSOC. CORP.
15. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1
through 14 of this Complaint.
16. Defendant Structomatic, Inc., and/or Uslander Eide Assoc.
Corp. at all times material hereto, has been engaged in the
planning, design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans, and/or
roof trusses, and related hardware.
17. Defendant Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander Eide Assoc.
Corp. designed and/or fabricated the roof trusses used in the
construction of the subject building.
18. Sometime before January 21, 1994, Defendant Structomatic,
Inc. and/or Uslander Eide Assoc. Corp. sold and placed into the
stream of commerce drawings, and certain hardware used in the
manufacture of roof trusses and/or the actual roof trusses used in
the construction of the subject building.
3
19. Defendant, Structomatic, Inc., and/or Us lander Eide
Assoc. Corp. designs, manufactures, distributes, and sells truss
plans, trusses, and related hardware, expecting those plans,
trusses, and related hardware to reach consumers in the condition
in which they are manufactured and sold and knowing, or having
reason to know, that they will be used without inspection for
defects.
20, On or about January 21, 1994, while the above-described
roof trusses and related hardware were being used in a manner which
was intended or reasonably foreseeable, specifically, to support
other elements of the roof assembly, said roof trusses and related
hardware failed, causing and allowing the roof of the subject
building to collapse.
21. At the time of their manufacture and sale, the plans,
roof trusses and related hardware were not fit for their intended
or reasonably foreseeable use and were defective and unreasonably
dangerous.
22. The plans, roof trusses and related hardware were
defective and unreasonably dangerous in that (a) the diagonal web
members were undersized; (b) the web members did not have adequate
load capacity to support the minimum code required snow and/or live
loads; (c) substandard wood species were used in the diagonal web
members; (d) bracing for the diagonal web members was inadequate;
(e) the plans, trusses, and hardware contained such other defect(s)
as to render the roof trusses inadequate for their intended
purpose; (f) failing to design, plan, fabricate and/or specify
4
truss for the building sufficient to support the roof, HVAC units,
snow loads in the geographical location of the building, live
loads, and/or dead loads; (g) violating the applicable national
standards with respect to the plan, design, specification,
manufacture, construction and/or fabrication of the trusses; (h)
violating Restatement (Second) of Torts 5323; (i) improperly
performing its contractual obligation to specify, plan, and design
the trusses; (j) improperly performing its contract; (k) improperly
performing its professional services as engineer and/or architect
of the trusses; and (m) failing to specify, plan, design, construct
and/or manufacture the trusses that was safe for the occupants
and/or property of others.
23. As the direct and proximate result of the defective
condition and/or design of the plans, roof trusses and related
hardware, Plaintiffs suffered extensive property damages as well as
the substantial interruption in their business and resultant loss
of profit for which Defendant is strictly liable and/or is liable
as to the successor-in-interest to Structomatic.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their
favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00,
together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney
fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under
the circumstances.
5
"
.
COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS V. USLANDER/EIDE ASSOC. CORP.
24. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1
through 23 of this Complaint.
25. Plaintiffs' damages were directly and proximately caused
by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Structomatic,
Inc., and/or Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. generally and in the
following particulars:
(a) In failing to design or to adopt a safe plan or design or
the production, manufacture and installation of the roof
trusses in the subject building, which conduct this
Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care
should have known, rendered the roof trusses incapable of
withstanding the required roof loads, which defect
created a highly dangerous condition to the Plaintiffs as
well as to the users and customers of the Plaintiffs'
business;
(b) In failing to design or adopt a safe plan or design for
the production, manufacture and installation of said roof
trusses;
(c) In carrying out the design and plan for the production,
manufacture, and installation of the said roof trusses
which this Defendant knew, or in the exercise of
reasonable care should have known would produce a
defective and unsafe roof which was unable to sustain
acceptable roof loads;
(d) In failing to assure a safe and adequate design and plan
for the manufacture, assembly, production and
installation of said roof trusses;
(e) In failing to adequately test or otherwise discover that
the said roof trusses were designed, manufactured and
installed in such an unreasonable and dangerous manner
and under such unreasonable and dangerous conditions as
to render the roof unsafe for use;
6
,- -.A
(f) In supplying, installing, or causing to be installed in
the premisee wooden roof trusses which this Defendant
knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should
have known were defective, inadequate, and insufficient
for the purpose for which they were used;
(g) In using or allowing the use of an inferior grade of
lumber in the production, manufacture and installation of
the said roof trusses, when this Defendant knew or in the
exercise of reasonable care should have known was not the
proper grade of lumber;
(h) In failing to warn Plaintiffs of the potential dangers
resulting from the design, manufacture and installation
of the defective roof trusses;
(i) In failing to design, manufacture, assemble and install
the roof trusses in a professional and workmanlike
manner;
(j) In failing to provide roof trusses which were adequate
and sufficient for the purposes for which they were
installed;
(k) In failing to accurately calculate the load to which the
roof would be subjected;
(1) In failing to supply adequate hardware for the
manufacture of the roof trusses;
(m) Failing to specify, plan and/or design for the building
sufficient to support snow loads in the geographical
location of the building;
(n) Failing to specify, plan, design, construct and/or erect
the trusses in a manner so as to provide sufficient and
adequate dead load, snow load, and live load;
(0) Violating the provisions of applicable national standard
with respect to the plan, design, manufacture,
construction, and/or erection of the building;
(p) Failing to use reasonable care in performing services
which care defendant recognized, or should have
recognized, as necessary to protect the interests of
Plaintiffs and in violation of the provisions of the
Restatement of Torts 2d, ~323;
(q) Improperly performing its contractual obligation to
specify, plan, and design the trusses;
(r) Improperly performed its contract;
7
"..".
(t)
(s) Improperly performed its professional services as
engineer and/or architect of the trusses; and
Failing to specify, plan, design,
manufacture trusses that were safe
and/or property of others.
26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts
construct and/or
for the occupants
and omissions of this defendant, as set forth above, Plaintiffs
have sustained damage in that the building collapsed and was
consequently demolished, causing extensive real and personal
property loss, as well as the lengthy interruption of the
Plaintiffs' business and resultant loss of profit.
27. Defendant is liable based upon its negligence and/or as
successor-in-interest of Structomatic.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their
favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00,
together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney
fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under
the circumstances.
COUNT III: BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES
PLAINTIFFS V. USLANDER/EIDE ASSOC. CORP.
28. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1
through 27 of this Complaint.
29. In selling the roof truss plans, roof trusses and related
hardware and placing same into the stream of commerce, Defendant
Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. expressly and
impliedly warranted that the plans, trusses, and related hardware
were merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for which such
8
,
.
items are used and/or that the trusses would be fabricated in a
workmanlike manner.
30. Defendant Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Assoc.
Corp. breached its aforesaid express and implied warranties because
the plans, roof trusses, and related hardware were not
merchantable, were not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such
items are used, were not fit for their intended use and/or were not
fabricated in a workmanlike manner. To the contrary, the plans,
roof trusses and related hardware were defective in such a manner
as to be unreasonably dangerous to the Plaintiffs, which defects
were not reasonably discoverable by Plaintiffs at or prior to the
date and time of the roof collapse.
31. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid
breaches, the roof of the subject building collapsed on or about
January 21, 1994, causing Plaintiffs substantial real and personal
property loss as well as the substantial interruption of
Plaintiffs' business and resultant loss of profits.
32. Defendant is liable to Plaintiff based upon its breach of
warranty and/or as successor in interest to Structomatic.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their
favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00,
together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney
fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under
the circumstances.
9
COUNT IV: PRODUCT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFFS V. CHARLES US LANDER
Successor in Interest to USLANDER/EIDE ASSOC. COR~
33. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1
through 32 of this Complaint.
34. Defendant Charles Uslander purchased the assets of
Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. and/or was a successor in interest.
35. Defendants Charles Us lander continues to operate said
predecessors, designing, manufacturing and distributing the same
products previously designed, manufactured and distributed by
Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp.
36. Defendant Charles Uslander assumed and are responsible
for the liabilities of Uslander/Eide Corp.
37. Defendants Charles Uslander successor in interest to
Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. at all times material hereto, has been
engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans
and/or roof trusses and have engaged in a continuing enterprise of
substantially the same business.
38. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments
of Count I of their Complaint to the same force and effect as if
set forth at length herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their
favor and against Defendant, Charles Uslander and Patricia Reynolds
t/d/b/a Structomatic, Inc. in an amount in excess of $50,000.00,
together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney
10
fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under
the circumstances.
COUNT V: NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS V. CHARLES USLANDER
as Successor in Interest of USLANDER/EIDE ASSOC. CORP.
39. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1
through 38 of this Complaint.
40, Defendants Charles Us lander purchased the assets of
Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. and/or was a successor in interest
thereto.
41. Defendants Charles Uslander continue to operate
Uslander/Eide Corp., designing, manufacturing and distributing the
same products previously designed, manufactured and distributed by
Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Associates Corp.
42. Defendants Charles Uslander assumed and are responsible
for the liabilities of Uslander/Eide Associates Corp.
43. Defendants Charles Us lander as successor in interest to
Uslander/Eide Corp. has at all times material hereto, have been
engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans
and/or roof trusses and/or have been engaged in a continuing
enterprise.
44. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments
of Count II of the Complaint, to the same force and effect as if
set forth at length herein.
11
-...' \ ...
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their
favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00,
together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney
fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under
the circumstances.
COUNT VI: BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES
PLAINTIFFS V. CHARLES US LANDER
Successor in Interest to USLANDER/EIDE ASSOC. CORP.
45. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1
through 44 of this Complaint.
46. Defendants Charles Us lander purchased the assets of
Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. and/or was a successor in interest
thereto.
47. Defendants Charles Uslander continue to operate
Structomatic, Inc., and/or Uslander Eide Associates Corp.
designing, manufacturing and distributing the same products
previously designed, manufactured and distributed by Structomatic,
Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Associates Corp.
48. Defendants Charles Us lander assumed and are responsible
for the liabilities of Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide
Associates Corp.
49. Defendants Charles Uslander as successor in Interest to
Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. at all times material hereto, have been
engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans
12
THOMAS,
and/or roof trusses and have engaged in a continuing enterprise of
substantially the same business.
50. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments
of Count III of the Complaint, to the same force and effect as if
set forth at length herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant in an
amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with prejudgment interest,
costs, delay damages, attorney fees and other such relief as the
Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances.
By:
\
B. Marcello
ney I.D. No. 36510
P.O. Box 999
305 Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108
(717) 755-7238
Attorney for Plaintiffs
13
.,......,-.
','
.
CERTIFZCATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this
!{)l)11
day of lfJ{1 h ~ It J
, 1998,
I, Cynthia D. Byrd, secretary in the law firm of Thomas, Thomas"
Hafer, hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United
States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the following:
Michael A. Farrell, Esquire
Marshall & Farrell, P.C.
2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 108
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9347
(Attorney for Kermisch, Kleiman, Brown, Cohen & Lipitzl
David S. Brown Enterprises
9183 Reisterstown Road
Owing Mills, MD 21117
David S. Brown Enterprises, Ltd.
9183 Reisterstown Road
Owing Mills, MD 21117
Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
One South Market Square Building
213 Market Street
Post Office Box 1248
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(Attorney for Pyramid, Cooperman and Berg)
Structomatic, Inc.
c/o Helen Eagle
233 South Wacker Drive
8000 Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
Charles Uslander, t/d/b/a Structomatic
and as Successor-in-interest to
Structomatic, Inc.
927 North Forest
Oak Park, III 60302
Patricia Reynolds
t/d/b/a Structomatic and as
Successor-in-interest to
608 E. 92nd Street
Chicago, III 60624
Dennis J. Bonetti, Esquire
Peters & Wasilefski
2931 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(Donald B. Smith, Inc.)
Mechanicsburg Oven, Inc.
5 Highgate Road
Ligonier, PA 15658
Capitol Ovens, Inc., in its own
right and as Successor-in-interest
to Mechanicsburg Oven, Inc.
The Johnston House HC64
Box 21
Latrobe, PA 15650-9808
Bryan Gaster, Esquire
John Churchman Smith & Associates
14 West Second Street
Post Office Box 229
Media, PA 19063
(Attorneys for Smith)
James Kutz, Esquire
McNees, Wallace & Nurick
100 pine Street
Post Office Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(Attorneys for Firestone/Bridgestonel
Deborah Cavacini, Esquire
Caldwell & Kearns
3631 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(Attorney for Klein)
Robert Ray, Esquire
Burns, White & Hickton
2400 5th Avenue Place
120 4th Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3001
(Attorney for Rothschild)
Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
100 Pine Street, Fourth Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(Attorney for Bert, Davis & Associates)
Ronald Raffensberger
981 Silver Lake Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Moore & Morford
Broad Street
South Greenburg, PA 15601
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
Post Office Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(Attorney for Cory Construction)
Lisa DiBernardo, Esquire
Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins
110 South Northern Way
York, PA 17402
(Attorney for Neil Cory Construction)
MacDonald Englehart Architects
3132 North 10th Street
Arlington, VA 22201
-C:eQl,,~/). . ()~d
Cynt ia D. Byrd
,
03/~7/1999 19:39
,. ~ .
... ,.. . ~
. - j
PAG:; O~
:l:~~'~'~~:'~~:::!"L:" ~;I" D...~.~
I, Deborah C. ESpOIlJ,t:O, lltt\':e t::at ! am familiar with the
facts and allegations set forth in the fore~oing document. I have
read the foregoing document: and hereby affirm that it is true and
correct to the besI: of my personal knowledge, information and
belief. This Verification is made purauant to 18 Pa.C.S. 54904
relating to unsworn faluification to authorities.
DATED ~ #.A-t.J...,j
It, Iq'i~
,
~~~~.~~
lS
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewrillen and submilled In duplleate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within molter for the next Argument Coun.
DEBORAI~ C, ESPOSITO. eta!..
Plaintiff
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PA
NO. 96-292 CIVIL TERM
USLANDERlEIDE ASSOCIATES CORP"lU1d
CHARLES USLANDER. Sueeessor-In.lnterestto CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Uslander/Eide Associates Corp..
DefendlU1ts JURV TRIAL DEMANDED
1. State moiler to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial,
defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.):
Plaintiff's Objection to Motion to Strike.
2. Identify counsel who will argue ease:
(a)
For Plaintiff:
Address:
Douglas B. Marcello. Esquire
305 Nonh Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, P A 17108
(b) See allached Certificate of Service of Service for Defendants' counsel.
3.
argument.
I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for
4.
Argument Court Date: December 12, 200...
"
Dated: October 23, 2001
/
:146909,2
~glas B, Mnrcello, Esquire
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 23rd duy ofOctobcr, 2001, 1 hercby ccrtify thlltl sentlltrue nnd correct
copy of the foregoing document by pldcing II copy of the Sllme in the United States Mllil, first
c1I1SS, postllge prepllid, to the lollowing:
Dllniel M. Tllylor, Jr" Esquire
Jones,/, Gregg, Creehan & Gerace, LLP
411 7 Ave., Suite 1200
Pillsburgh, PA 15219-1905
(Counsel for Mechanicsburg Oven)
Dennis J. Bonelli. Esquire
Pelen & Wasllefski
2931 North Front Street
Harrisburg. P A 17110
(Counsel for Donald B. Smith Roofing)
James P. ThomllS, Esquire
Bums, White & Hickton
2400 Fifth Avenue Plllce
120 Fifth Avenue
Pillsburgh, PAl 5222-300 I
(Counsel for Rothschild Architects)
ThomllS E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & ShIpman, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, P A 17108-1268
(Counsel for Cory Construction)
Howard Kauffman, Esquire
John Gerard Devlin & Assoc.
Suite 260
100 Pine Street
Harrisburg. P A 1710 1
(Counsel for Charles Klein & Sons)
Marc T. Levin. Esquire
Farrell & Ricci, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
Hllrrisburg, PA 17110
(Counsel for Defendllnts Kennisch, Kleimnn,
Cohen, Lipitz, Windsor Pllrk Shopping Centers,
and Dllvid S. Brown Enterprises. Ltd.)
. ..
.
Timothy McMahon. Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
100 Pine Street
Hllrrisburg, PA 17101
(Counsel for Bert Dllvis Associlltes)
Stullrl S. Smith, Esquire
John Churehman Smith & Associates
117-119 North Olive Street
Mcdill, PA 19063
(Counsel for Mechllnicsburg Oven/Victor Smith)
Jllffies Kutz, Esquire
100 Pine Street
HlllTisburg, P A 17108
(Counsel for Firestone/Bridgestone)
Sllffiuel L. Andes, Esquire
525 North Twelfth Street
Post Office Box 168
Lemoyne,PA 17043
(Counsel for Ronllld Rllffensperger)
By:
ubmitted.
OMAS & HAFER, LLP
:104848,1
.
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, et aI.,
PlaintilT
v.
.
_....--,....,.., i'
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 96-292 CIVIL TERM
USLANDERlEIDE ASSOCIATES CORP.,
and CHARLES USLANDER, Successor-In- CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Interest to UslanderlEide Associates Corp.,
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
, 'fi;O~911l,1'Q.'~(;jQF,:~'Wiffit'::;X~w.!t,ii'%(t,;
I. PlaintilT objects to the striking of this case and requests that it be kept active.
2. This action arises out of the collapse of the Windsor Park Shopping Center.
3. Other actions have been consolidated arising out of the same accident with regard to
the PlnintilT,
4. Litigation in those actions is proceeding, with arguments recently having been held
on September 28, 200 I.
5, PlaintilThad filed a Petition to Consolidate these actions with the other actions.
6. A Rule was issued to which Defendants filed Objections,
7. Contemporaneous with the filing of this Objection. the PlaintilT is requesting the
Court consider the Rule to consolidate this action with the other Windsor Park actions presently
pending before this Court.
8. Additionally, there are outstanding Preliminary Objections of Plain tilT in this matter.
9. Contemporary with the filing of this Objection, PlaintilT is listing those Objections
for argument.
WHEREFORE, PlaintilT requests this Honomble Court refuse to strike this aetion as it is
pending consolidation and Preliminary Objections.
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS, THO AS & HAFER, LLP
Date: October 23. 200 I
:146908,2
By:
Do as . Marcello, Esquire
3 Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108
(717) 255-7238
Attorney for PlaintilTs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 23'd day of October, 2001.1 hereby certify that 1 Eent a true and correct
copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first
class, postage prepaid, to the following:
Daniel M. Taylor, Jr., Esquire
Jone8~ Gregg, Creehan & Gerace, LLP
411 t Ave., Suite 1200
Pittsburgh, PAl 5219-1905
(Counsel for Mechanicsburg Oven)
Dennis J. Bonetti. Esquire
Peters & Wasilefskl
2931 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(Counsel for Donald B, Smith Roofing)
James P. Thomas. Esquire
Burns, White & Hlckton
2400 Fifth A venue Place
120 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh. PA 15222-3001
(Counsel for Rothschild Architects)
Thomas E, Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
P,O, Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(Counsel for Cory Construction)
Howard Kauffman, Esquire
John Gerard Devlin & Assoc.
Suite 260
100 Pine Street
Harrisburg. P A 17l 0 1
(Counsel for Charles Klein & Sons)
Marc T. Levin. Esquire
Farrell & Ricci, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(Counsel for Defendants Kennisch, Kleiman,
Cohen, Lipitz, Windsor Park Shopping Centers.
and David S. Brown Enterprises. Ltd.)
Timothy McMahon, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
100 Pine Street
HlIrrisburg. PA 17101
(Counsel for Bert DlIvis Associlltes)
StUllrt S. Smith. Esquire
John Churchman Smith & Associates
117-119 North Olive Street
Mcdill. PA 19063
(Counsel for Mechunicsburg Oven/Victor Smith)
JlImes Kutz, Esquire
100 Pine Street
HlIrrisburg. PA 17108
(Counsel for Firestone/Bridgestone)
SlImuel L. Andes. Esquire
525 North Twelfth Street
Post Office Box 168
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(Counsel for Ronllld RlIlTensperger)
By:
;104646,1
.
... . A I \
.
OCT 2 9 2001 ~
J.
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO. et 01..
Plaintiff
"
v.
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PA
NO.96-292 CIVIL TERM
USLANDERlEIDE ASSOCIATES CORP.. and
CHARLES USLANDER, Successor-In-Inten:stto CIVIL ACfION - LAW
Uslander/Eide Associates Corp,.
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
:' ~ -;~,:r::}~{!;:~.~,:~j't;1;~:-:,;~ :~;(I!:?:~/:<~:.'. ,.';-","
AND NOW. this ,_9'; Cl.duy of (Z' (' t~d.(''L . 2001. it is hereby ORDERED thut a
c~fercnce with the Court is scheduled for the 7 t~ day of
Un'HI!. (J 2001 in (- /I!. d- c,/ at I" 3('J L:.M. in the
Courthouse ofCumbcrlnnd County.
BY THE COURT:
:, ~"
W~
. "
~
'/;\i'
r"i
'jll
., .
Po '\1
'j .1' .),
(;~,.., ,. :':.NIY
;:/":')'\'-.)(C.:-',\,1,:\
~
.
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO. et al,.
Plaintiff
IN Tim COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PA
NO, 96.292 CIVIL TERM
v.
USLANDERlEIDE ASSOCIATES CORP,. and
CHARLES USLANDER. Successor-In-Interestto CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Uslander/Eide Associates Corp"
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
',;~;;f~'Mrilf.(i;P'~'SM01'IOl\f'FORIIEAlUl\fG,QN'COl\f$Olltp~"""P~~\tte,t>&ti?;l~
1. Plaintiff filed a Motion to consolidate this action with the other Windsor Park
actions, a copy of the Motion to Consolidate is atlnched hereto Wld made a part hereof ns Exhibit
"A'''.
2. Defendant filed an Objection to the consolidation, a copy of which is atlnched hereto
and made a part hcreof ns Exhibit "B",
3. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests this Honomble Court schedule a conference of
counsel with regard to consolidation ofthese actions,
By:
Date: October 23, 200 I
o gins B. Marcello,
305 Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108
(717) 255-7238
Attorney for Plaintiffs
:146916,1
\
exhibit A
;,..1:<-..\
J':.e?if'i'
,
.'.If
. .'
-i'..
'I.. ~
"''',;1'
) , . ~ ,
,'I ,
~
, .
,., .. ....
.
"
... "
,
.
. I
(,
9
\ ,
I 1;(
I;
~ ;
\ ,\
"
. .;
i I :,
, ,
I
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Individually and trading as CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
SEW WITH US SEWING CENTER and
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO and SHARON NO. 96-292 - CIVIL TERM
A. SILVA, Individually and
trading as SEW WITH US SEWING CIVIL ACTION _ LAW
CENTER, a Pennsylvania
partnership, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs
v.
USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES
CORP., and CHARLES USLANDER,
Successor-In-Intereot to
Uslander/Eide Associates
Corp. ,
Defendants
RULE
AND NOW, this
I () :iL
day of February, 1998, a Rule is
hereby issued to show cause why this action should not be
consolidated with the other actions arising from this collapse
pursuant to the Order of Court dated September 26, 1997.
Rule returnable within
.;10
days of services.
BY THE COURT:
'.s! 'kr~..... C( . ~
..:-, ," . , ,.. ~; ;-:~;""' ,J ... ~ ,'. . ! "",
t -,
:,'-,~d
", ~ ;.. . t' ~,.; .:i '-"
, .
Ls IO.~.. dey of..$-dr,. I? ,9.t.
......,........,~J.,~,..,a.. ~.w...._
olJ Prolhon~li>ry
J,
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO,
Individually and trading as
SEW WITH US SEWING CENTER and
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO and SHARON
A. SILVA, Individually and
trading as SEW WITH US SEWING
CENTER, a Pennsylvania
partnership,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 96-292 - CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES
CORP., and CHARLES US LANDER ,
Successor-In-Interest to
Uslander/Eide Associates
Corp.,
,-. : ..,
..
<, ~iJ l
."
.,
- , , "
I ,
, "
c . ;':,
~.)
.
.. !
. , .
:.'/ . I
, - I
'- ,.
.. : . :.' ;:.,
.. .
Defendants
PLAINTIFFS' PETITION TO CONSOLIDATE
1. Plaintiffs commenced this action with regard to a
bUilding collapse.
2. There are several other actions arising from this same
collapse which have been brought before the Court of Common Pleas
of Cumberland County.
3. Those actions were consolidated for the purposes of Pre-
Trial proceedings pursuant to the Order of September 26, 1997 of
Judge Kevin A. Hess.
4. This action arises out of the same incident or accident
and should be consolidated for said purposes.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request this Honorable Court issue an
Order conSOlidating this action with those consolidated by the
Court's Order of September 26, 1997.
.
..,...tL"'.~''''~'..' .,,~'.
.-
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP
By:
~~
s B. Marcello, Esquire
orth Front Street
Post Office Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999
(717) 255-7238
'-'
MECHANICSBURG OVEN, INC., I
et al, I
Plaintiffs I
I
V I
I
IRENE B. KERMISCH, et a1, I
Defendants I
I
V I
I
ROTHSCHILD ARCHITECTS, I
et al,
Add1. Defendants
FRANCES PRIBULSKY, et al,
Plaintiffs
v
IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al,
Defendants
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, et all
Plaintiffs I
V
I
IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al, I
Defendants I
MARIA STRICKLER, et al,
Plaintiffs
I
V I
I
IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al, I
Defendants I
!<ANDY CLARK, et al,
Plaintiffs
V
IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al,
Defendants
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, et a1:
Plaintiff
V
IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al
'-
OCT 0 2 1997
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
96-0171 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
96-0272 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
96-0271 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
95-7385 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
95-7384 CIVIL TERM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
95-0311 CIVIL TERM
,~'"
v
'-'"
FRANCES PRIBULSKY, et a1 1
Plaintiffs I
I
V I
I
IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al I
Defendants I
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
95-0314 CIVIL 'l'ERM
CIPRIANO and JOSEPHINE I
ARENA, et al I
Plaintiffs I
I
V I
I
BRIDGESTONE, FIRESTONE, I
INC., et al I
Defendants I
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
97-0002 CIVIL 'l'ERM
IN REI MO'l'ION TO CONSOLIDATE
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 1997, this
matter having been called for hearing, the within motion to
consolidate is granted, and the above-captioned cases are
consolidated for the purpose of pretrial proceedings without
prejudice to any subsequent motion to consolidate the matters
for trial on the questions of liability and/or damages.
By the Court,
. 4iL
Douglas Marcello, Esquire
Daniel M. Taylor, Jr., Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
Michael A. Farrell, Esquire
For Kermisch, et al
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
For Cory Construction
Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire
For Sam Cooperman << Gerald Berg
Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire
For Hyde, Bert, Davis << Associates
.
.
~
Deborah A. Cavacini, Esquire
For Charles Klein " Sons
Dennis J. Bonetti, Esquire
For Smith Roofing
Jameo P. Thomas, Esquire
For Rothochild Architects
Bryan Gaster, Esquire
For Victor Smith & Smith Mgt. Group
Ibg
~,
~
,
<
;'J:o._
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 1998, I, Cynthia D. Byrd,
secretary in the law firm of Thomas, Thomas &. Hafer, hereby certify
that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to
the fOllowing counsel of record by placing a copy of same in the
United States, first class mail, addressed as follows:
Uslander/Eide Associates Corp.
927 North Forest
Oak Park, IL 60302
Charles Us lander
927 Noth Forest
Oak Park, IL 60302
Cy~ifaL~. J~~~d () he h rL
.~ ,.......,,-""..~.;,\,.;,;...^i:.i..~'"')'~.;,
exhibit B
MAR 0 4 1993
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, et al
Plaintiffs
.
.
NO. 96-292 - Civil Term
- vs -
:
.
.
USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP.,
and CHARLES USLANDER, Successor-
In-Interest to Uslander/Eide
Associates, Corp.,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
OBJECTION BY DEENDANTS TO PETI'l'ION TO CONSOLIDA'l'E
Defendants respectfully object to the conclusory nature of the
Petition to Consolidate this case with others. The Petition fails
to set forth sufficient facts to permit the defendants to agree on
whether there is a common question of fact or law, or whether the
matter is needlessly repetitive, prejudicial, or capable of
creating jury confusion.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request Your Honorable Court to direct
Plaintiffs to set forth sufficient facts from which Defendants can
determine whether there is a basis for consolidation.
S'l'E'l'LER & GRIBBIN
DATE:
" /.,/11'
BY:
Le E.\ Gl' bb
Attorney for Defendant
Attorney 1.0. '07390
.-
138 E. Market Street
PO Box 2588
York PA 17405-2588
(717) 854-9506
CERTIFICA'l'E OF SERVICE
I, LEO E. GRIBBIN, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a
true and correct copy of the foregoing OBJECTION TO PETITION TO
CONSOLIDATE, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on the
following:
Douglas B. Marcello, Esquire
305 Front Street
PO Box 999
Harrisburg PA 17108
S'l'E'l'LER & GRIBBIN
DATE:
BY:
Leo E. Gribbin, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
Attorney I.D. '07390
.-0.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 23'd day of October. 2001.1 hereby certify that I sent a true and correct
copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail. first
class, postage prepaid. to the following:
Daniel M. Taylor. Jr,. Esquire
Jonest Gregg, Creehan & Gerace, LLP
411 7' Ave" Suite 1200
Pittsburgh. PAl 5219-1905
(Counsel for Mechanicsburg Oven)
Dennis J. Bonetti. Esquire
Peters & Wasllefskl
2931 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(Counsel for Donald B. Smith Roofing)
James P. Thomas. Esquire
Bums, White & Hlckton
2400 Fifth Avenue Place
120 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh. PA 15222-3001
(Counsel for Rothschild Architects)
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(Counsel for Cory Construction)
Howard Kauffman. Esquire
John Gerard Devlin & Assoc.
Suite 260
100 Pine Street
Harrisburg. PA 17101
(Counsel for Charles Klein & Sons)
Marc T. Levin, Esquire
Farrell & Ricci, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(Counsel for Defendants Kennisch. Kleiman,
Cohen. Lipitz, Windsor Park Shopping Centers,
and David S. Brown Enterprises. Ltd.)
.
Timothy McMohon, Esquire
ManhaJl, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & GOIlGln
100 Pine Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(Counsel for Bert Davis Associates)
Stuart So Smith, Esquire
John Churchman Smith & Associates
117-119 North Olive Street
Medin, PA 19063
(Counsel for Mechnnicsburg OvenlVictor Smith)
James Kutz, Esquire
100 Pine Street
Harrisburg. P A 17108
(Counsel for FirestonelBridgestone)
Samuel L. Andes. Esquire
525 North Twelfth Street
Post Office Box 168
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(Counsel for Ronald Raffensperger)
ully submitted,
By: 'OUglas : Marcello, Esquire
:104646,1
~ Q. 1=
'0 ,-
" '.
I, .,' ,...~ 1 .-
. ~
, ,.
":
,,- -:"."j
i ') ,
(',
) - t,-,
, .!t.:..
......
I. :j
'- '-' 0
.. -...-.--.-............-,'"
OFFICE OF PROTHONOTARY
Cumberland Count Yo Carlisleo PA 17013
Aj .l, 'o>Y'l I
Date 4\ ,: , '.
This Is to notify you that
D, rN" ' C{",,:, (,(j vs, iJ.~r "/(r/l rt
.., I. ' 'I '"l? . i.{
No. :,/~.,._';{~J 'f- (;- v-,I 1.,\~'
Listed for Argument on [y, f)) dj'
Cumberland County Argument Court Rules 21 0.1 through 210.14 shall be strictly
enforced. If the Issue was listed for prior argument you must r .fiIe your brief as
per Local Rule 210.11,
~',;li~:.;.;,>?"""'~"'-'.~.'
" 1, "r CA, ~ ct, A(
,. , .' ( 1-
has been
.
- . ~....""
. . 0
"
,...J.
,
, ,
~,
-,
I
I
f
" ,)
I
, ,
: .
'i
.,' . ..'
.~ .', t
~"
,
, '
.
.
,
,....
, ,
i.'
i I
,
tV
".
I
I
.... --.'
, P'"
,
;,
. '. ,'~ 'd
:'\J
~t(J / ~ ~ ~USAlct ,
Y \j J,v), _! .
\~ \)("..1
i'\ A O/NSU --
i OSC g#~r:;c~~~B':To10KoNRES~
'r7" l:1 NOt H NUMBE OWN
/ I) . UN~~WVER~BLfWREEt 0 OtHER
to FORW~RCOORESSEO
....
/"
(~"I
...,....
j,,() I"
PO" 8,,1. ^"'./:;(,'C'
r1 ,., ,.,/1- r.
. /{ U5L\.O'\< fl.l h...... ..7));
:;~:;:O/ i ~;:.~ 1,'111\11.1,.11.1111\11\....111\111.1111.11..11.11.11,.111,,11\
>:j
""'.'.-
"':;.;...',....-',....
,
'.
"
.'
"
.. '",~.
.
, "
,
.... , ..
" 1
't.,' .....
','
.... ... ~ -
...
__.1\
, ,
-,
.,
\
I
~
" q
o \
, ,
~. .
.
\
, 0
I
,
, .
.r
. I
,
"
DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO. et ai,
PlaintilT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
96-292 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
vs.
USLANDERlEIDE ASSOCIATES
CORP.. and CHARLES
USLANDER. Successor-In-Interest JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
to Uslnnder/Eide Associates Corp"
Defendants
IN RE: MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of December, 200 I, atthc request of counsel,
/0'
hearing in the above captioned mailer set for December 7, 2001, is continued generally.
BY THE COURT,
,__:I(L Ai
Kevan ,Hess, J.
//
Douglas Marcello, Esquire I' o-o.U..o ~I
For the PlaintilT L ~ r. ~
I J. -1/ .D IRS
Leo E. Gribbin, Esquire
For the Defendants
:rlm
..
~'
,I
,
l!
u
If I:: IU
.-'. ,:, . j' 'TY
\..,,,...., , ., - I_.'_;~.\
r;cNI ,.~,yL\:"'-:'!:A
,":,
.;
".-
-~
, .'-~
'ilJ
,;, ~.'
I..
:::i
'.~'J
13,
Deborah Co Esposito, Sew with Us Sewing Center,
Sharon A. Silva
v
Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. and Charles
Uslander, Successor.in-Interest to Uslander/Eide
Associates Corp.
,
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO, 96-292 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, December 31,2001, by agreement of counsel, the above-captioned
matter is continued from the December 12, 200 I Argument Court list. Counsel is directed to relist
the case when ready.
~Uglas B. Marcello, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
t~ ~
1-4-0:{~
.;Leo E. Gribbin, Esquire
For the Defendant
Court Administrator
Id
By the Court,
n{t..J....n R-JAcf'o+Oj
J-'(.O:(
,L I~..q ~::-~:E
DEBORAH ESPOSITO, ',:' ': "':r(f.l IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
~~~~T~. U~I~~~;NG Ol~n9 Ii i 2::S9 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PLAINTIFFS :
V. CUi.':.):.:,.,.. ",j CC'_~!TY
PEi'J!\3YLV/\i\f/,: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP.
CHARLES USLANDER,
DEFENDANTS 96-292 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 30th day of October, 2001, in the case
of Esposito versus Uslander/Eide Associates Corporation at No.
96-292 Civil Term, and it appearing that docket activity has
recently occurred in this case, the case is stricken from the
purge list and shall remain active.
By the Court,
Douglas B. Marcello,
305 N. Front St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101
For the Plaintiff
Esquire
Leo E. Gribbin, Esquire
138 E. Market St.
York, PA 17405
For the Defendant
I' ~ cl3J
{j1';'~.OJ ~~~
pcb
7~~ ,j