The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About96-785 civilDAVID F. McCLURE CO., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF INC., CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : : ALLENSVILLE PLANING : MILL, INC., EMMANUEL : NO. 96-785 CIVIL ALLGYER t/a A&Z : CONTRACTORS and : ALPINE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants : IN RE: DEFENDANT ALLENSVILLE PLANING MILL, INC.'S AND DEFENDANT ALPINE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, INC.'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before HOFFER, P.J., OLER, J. and GUIDO, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, ~ ~ { , 1998, after careful consideration of the record, the joint brief submitted by the defendants and oral argument held June 24, 1998, Defendant Allensville Planing Mill, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Defendant Alpine Engineered Products, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. By the Court, 98-785 CIVIL TERM John P. Hohenadel, Esquire Nikolaus, Hohenadel & Umbenhauer 212 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17603 For the Plaintiff C. Kent Price, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 For Defendant Allensville Planing Mill, Inc. George B. Failer, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For Defendant Emmanuel AIIgyer, t/a A&Z Contractors Anthony J. Piazza, Jr., Esquire Murphy, Piazza & Genello, P.C. Scranton Life Building 538 Spruce Street, Suite 300 Scranton, PA 18501-0909 For Defendant Alpine Engineered Products, Inc. DAVID F. McCLURE CO., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF INC., : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : V. : ALLENSVlLLE PLANING : MILL, INC., EMMANUEL : NO. 96-785 CIVIL ALLGYER t/a A&Z : CONTRACTORS and : ALPINE ENGINEERED : PRODUCTS, INC., : Defendants : IN RE: DEFENDANT ALLENSVILLE PLANING MILL, INC.'S AND DEFENDANT ALPINE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, INC.'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before HOFFER, P.J., OLER, J. and GUIDO, J. OPINION HOFFER, J.: In this opinion, we address motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants Allensville Planing Mill, Inc. and Alpine Engineered Products, Inc. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This case was filed as a consequence of a roof collapse at plaintiff's Mechanicsburg warehouse in early March 1994. The roof that collapsed covered an addition to plaintiff's warehouse, built in 1990. The contractor on the project was Defendant Emmanuel AIIgyer, t/a A&Z Contractors ("A&Z"). The structure was erected using wooden trusses manufactured by Defendant Allensville Planing Mill, 98-785 CIVIL TERM Inc. ("Ailensville"). Defendant Alpine Engineered Products, Inc. ("Alpine") designed the truss system which supported the roof of the warehouse. On or about March 4 and 5, 1994, portions of the warehouse addition's roof collapsed. As a result, the entire addition had to be demolished. A Praecipe for Writ of Summons was filed against all three defendants on February 13, 1996. Plaintiff's Complaint was filed March 12, 1997. Plaintiff alleges that the roof on the warehouse addition collapsed because certain trusses lacked lateral bracing. Defendant Alpine filed an answer on May 22, 1997. Defendant Allensville filed an answer on June 3, 1997. Plaintiff responded to New Matter raised by both defendants July 28, 1997. Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment on March 17, 1998. As of this date, no response has been filed by the plaintiff. Oral argument was held June 24, 1998. Defendants submitted a joint brief in support of the motions for summary judgment. No brief was submitted by the plaintiff. DISCUSSION The rules concerning motions for summary judgment in Pennsylvania are clear. A party opposing summary judgment, may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings but must file a response within thirty days after service of the motion identifying (1) one or more issues of fact arising from 2 98-785 CIVIL TERM evidence in the record controverting the evidence cited in support of the motion or from a challenge to the credibility of one or more witnesses testifying in support of the motion, or (2) evidence in the record establishing the facts essential to the cause of action or defense which the motion cites as not having been produced. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1035.3(a). It is permissible to grant summary judgment against a party who fails to respond. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1035.3(d). Parties must be given a full and fair opportunity to argue against motions for summary judgment. Smitley v. Holiday Rambler Corp., 707 A.2d 520, 526 (Pa. Super. 1998). Rule 1035.3 is a mechanism which allows a court to enter judgment against a party who fails to respond to motions for summary judgment. Id. A trial court has discretion to decide whether briefs and/or oral argument are necessary to fairly determine a motion for summary judgment. Id. Cumberland County Rules of Procedure require briefs to be filed before argument is held. C.C.R.P. 210 - 6. "Issues raised, but not briefed, shall be abandoned." C.C.R.P. 210 - 7. Parties who fail to file brief may be denied argument. C.C.R.P. 210 - 8. Plaintiff, in the case at bar, has had ample opportunity to respond to defendants motions and has failed to do so. The motions for summary judgment were filed March 17, 1998. Alpine listed its motion for argument May 12, 1998. 3 98-785 CIVIL TERM Allensville listed its motion for argument May 13, 1998. Argument was not held until June 24, 1998. Each time Defendants' filed their motions and listed the motions for argument, Plaintiff was notified. The Court gave Plaintiff every opportunity to respond. No written response to the motion has ever been filed by the plaintiff. In accordance with Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and Cumberland County Rules of Procedure, Defendant Allensville Planing Mill, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Defendant Alpine Engineered Products, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. 4