The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-4673 - BONNIE MANNING, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : : v. : : VISION PROPERTIES, LLC; : TECH PARK ASSOCIATES, L.P.; : ENGINUITY, LLC; : ENGINUITY CONSULTANTS, LLC; : ENGINUITY ENERGY, LLC; : NO. 08-4673 CIVIL TERM MBR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., : individually and/or d/b/a Bohrer Regan Co.; : BOHRER REAGAN CO.; : TRANE, individually and/or d/b/a : Ingersol-Rand Company; : INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; : FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC. : Individually and/or d/b/a Fluor Corporation; : CIVIL ACTION FLUOR CORPORATION; : TEMCO FACILITY SERVICES, INC., : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants IN RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS, P.J. OPINION and ORDER Motions for Summary Judgment have been filed by Defendants as follows: Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Temco Facility Services, Inc, filed June 6, 2010; Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Trane Company and Ingersoll Rand Company, filed June 29, 2011; Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Enginuity, LLC, Enginuity Consultants, LLC, and Enginuity Energy, LLC, filed July 1, 2011; Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Vision Properties, LLC and Tech Park Associates, LLP, filed July 1, 2011; Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants MBR Construction Services and Bohrer Reagan Company, filed July 1, 2011; and Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Fluor Enterprises, Inc. and Fluor Corporation, filed July 5, 2011. This matter has been submitted on briefs; Plaintiff, however, has neither responded to the motions, nor has she submitted briefs in opposition. The facts of this case may be summarized as follows. On January 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Moving Defendants. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that in 2006, while she was at work in an office building, she inhaled fumes and/or chemicals coming from vents connected to the HVAC system. (Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed Jan. 2, 2009, ¶ 27, 29, 35). Plaintiff further alleged that, while working in that same building in 2007, she was exposed to toxic cleaning fluids in the women’s restroom which had not been properly diluted prior to their use. (Complaint, ¶ 52). Plaintiff claimed that as result of these incidents, she suffered severe and permanent physical and mental injuries, including damage to her muscles, lungs, throat, eyes, stomach, and internal organs, as well as the diminishment of her voice, severe stress, anxiety, physical pain, depression, difficulty breathing and sleeping, and heightened sensitivity to chemicals. (Complaint, ¶ 53). Defendants in this case include the manufacturer of the HVAC system, the maintenance company for the HVAC system, the owner of the property, the company hired to clean the property, and a number of others. Plaintiff’s Complaint contained the following counts: Count I – Negligence, Count II – Negligence, Count III – Negligence, Count IV – Products Liability, and Count V – Negligence. The procedural history of this case is important to note. The complaint was filed in early th 2009. In March, 2009, Defendants filed Answers to Plaintiff’s Complaint. On May 18, 2010, this court granted a motion of Plaintiff’s former attorney to withdraw as counsel. (Order of Court, May 18, 2010). On August 26, 2010, a Status Conference was held and the Honorable 2 Judge Edward E. Guido granted Plaintiff a 60-day extension to obtain alternate counsel and imposed a 60-day stay in the proceedings. Also on that date, an Order was entered re-opening the discovery period as of October 26, 2010 and setting a discovery deadline of April 26, 2011. Plaintiff was directed to supply Defendants with expert reports on or before May 26, 2011. (Order of Court, In re: Extension & Discovery (Hon. Edward E. Guido), Aug. 26, 2010). To date, Plaintiff has conducted no discovery known to this court or to Defendants, identified no expert witnesses, and she has produced no expert reports. As a result, Defendants have filed the Motions sub judice. Plaintiff has neither responded to the Motions, nor has she submitted briefs in opposition. Pursuant to Rule 1035.2 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may grant summary judgment after the relevant pleadings are closed and “whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be established by any additional discovery or expert report.” Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.2(1). In opposing a motion for summary judgment, a non-moving party who bears the burden of proof on an issue may not simply rely on the pleadings to survive summary judgment. Coleman v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2010 PA Super 158, 6 A.3d 502, 508. Indeed, Rule 1035.2(2) provides that summary judgment is appropriate “if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury.” As a result, the Superior Court has held that the “[f]ailure of a non-moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which he bears the burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.” Michael Salove Co. v. Enrico Partners, L.P., 3 2011 PA Super 128, 23 A.3d 1066, 1069 (internal citations omitted). Finally, summary judgment is also proper against a non-moving party where that party fails to respond within thirty days after service of the motion for summary judgment. Pa.R.Civ. P. 1035.3(d). Applying the foregoing, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. In this case, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof with respect to her claims of negligence and strict products liability pertaining to both the HVAC system incident and the cleaning chemicals incident. Plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence on the issues which she has alleged in her Complaint. Plaintiff has neither responded to the Motions for Summary Judgment nor has she submitted briefs in opposition to inform this court of evidence bearing on the essential issues of her case. Furthermore, she has produced no expert reports as required by the August 26, 2010 Order of Court. Quite simply, it appears that Plaintiff has taken no action in this case since the Status Conference held in August of 2010. ORDER AND NOW, this day of September, 2011, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motions for Summary, and for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED and the Prothonotary is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Bonnie Manning. BY THE COURT, __________________ Kevin A. Hess, P.J. 4 BONNIE MANNING, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : VISION PROPERTIES, LLC; : TECH PARK ASSOCIATES, L.P.; : ENGINUITY, LLC; : ENGINUITY CONSULTANTS, LLC; : ENGINUITY ENERGY, LLC; : MBR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., : No. 08-4673 CIVIL TERM individually and/or d/b/a Bohrer Regan Co.; : BOHRER REAGAN CO.; : TRANE, individually and/or d/b/a : Ingersol-Rand Company; : INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; : FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC. : Individually and/or d/b/a Fluor Corporation; : FLUOR CORPORATION; : CIVIL ACTION TEMCO FACILITY SERVICES, INC., : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS, P.J. ORDER AND NOW, this day of September, 2011, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motions for Summary, and for the reasons contained in the accompanying opinion, Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED and the Prothonotary is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Bonnie Manning. BY THE COURT, __________________ Kevin A. Hess, P.J. Bonnie Manning, Pro Se Plaintiff William E. Dengler, Esquire For Defendants Vision Properties, LLC and Tech Park Associates, L.P. Steven D. Snyder, Esquire For Defendants Enginuity, LLC; Enginuity Consultants, LLC; and Enginuity Energy, LLC Donald L. Carmelite, Esquire For Defendants MBR Construction Services, Inc. and Bohrer Reagan Company Amy L. Groff, Esquire For Defendants The Trane Company and Ingersoll-Rand Company Diane B. Carvell, Esquire For Defendants Fluor Enterprises, Inc. and Fluor Corporation John J. Hatzell, Jr., Esquire For Defendant Temco Facility Services :rlm