FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 09/27/ :50 AM

Transcription

1 MONROE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT. Receipt # Book Page Return To: No. Pages: 19 JOSEPH THOMAS KREMER I istmment: MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT Control #: Unrecorded # Index #: E Date: Time: Total Fees Paid: $0.00 Employee: State of New York MONROE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE WARNING - THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERKS ENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTION 317-a(5) & SECTION 319 OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH OR REMOVE. ADAM J BELLO MONROE COUNTY CLERK 1 of 19

2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT In Re Seventh Judicial District ASBESTOS LITIGATION Asbestos Litigation This Document Applies to: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF MONROE Index No.: E JENNIFER SHEPPARD, Administratrix of the Estate of ALLEN GREGORY PEASE, Deceased, Plaintiff, vs. BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC as successor-by-merger to BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, ELMER W. DAVIS, INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC f/lda GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, GOULDS PUMPS, INCORPORATED f/lda GOULDS PUMPS MERGER CORPORATION, GRINNELL LLC, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. f/lda ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC. and as successor in interest to THE BENDIX CORPORATION, INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS, INC., NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION individually and as successor to COLUMBIA AUTO PARTS CORPORATION, ROCHESTER INDUSTRIAL INSULATION, INC., TRANE U.S. INC. f/lda AMERICAN STANDARD INC., UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, VELAN VALVE CORP., 2 of 19

3 WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY, SUMMERHAYS' WILLIAM SONS CORPORATION, GENUlNE PARTS COMPANY, Defendants. The plaintiff, JENNIFER SHEPPARD, Administratrix of the Estate of ALLEN GREGORY PEASE, by her attorneys, LIPSITZ & PONTERIO, LLC, for her verified Second Amended Complaint against each and every defendant alleges: 1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff, JENNIFER SHEPPARD, was and still is a citizen of the State of Tennessee and a resident of the County of Davidson. 2. That on or about the 26th day of August, 2016, the plaintiff, JENNIFER SHEPPARD, was duly granted Letters of Administration of the Estate of ALLEN GREGORY PEASE, pursuant to an Order of the Circuit Court of Davidson County, State of Tennessee, and the said plaintiff thereupon duly qualified and thereafter acted and is still acting as Administratrix of the Estate of ALLEN GREGORY PEASE. 3. If it is deemed that Article 16 of the CPLR applies to this action, the plaintiff asserts that this action falls within one or more of the exceptions set forth in CPLR 1602 including, but not limited to, the exception for cases where a person is held liable for causing the claimant's injury by having acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others (CPLR 1602(7)); the exception for cases involving any person held liable for causing claimant's injury by having unlawfully released into the enviroñmêñt a substance hazardous to public health, safety or the environment (CPLR 1602(9)); the exception for any parties found to have acted knowingly or intentionally and in concert to cause the acts or failures upon which liability is based (CPLR 1602(11)); the exception based upon defendants' non-delegable duty to warn of the health of 19

4 hazards of asbestos (CPLR 1602(2)(iv)); the exception pertaining to claims against a defendant where the claimant has sustained a "grave injury" as defined in Section eleven of the Workers' Compensation Law to the extent of the equitable share of any person against whom the claimant is barred from asserting a cause of action because of the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law (CPLR 1602(4)); and the exception for persons held liable in a product liability action where the manufacturer of the product is not a party to the action and jurisdiction over the manufacturer could not with due diligence be obtained (CPLR 1602(10)). 4. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC as successor-by-merger to BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, is a foreign business corporation authorized to and which transacted business in the State of New York with its principal place of business outside the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the manufacture and sale of friction materials and products containing the substance asbestos. 5. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, ELMER W. DAVIS, INC., was and still is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos. 6. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, was and still is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos of 19

5 7. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC f/k/a GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION, was and still is a foreign business corporation authorized to and transacting business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business outside the State of New York. At all times relevant it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos. 8. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, GOULDS PUMPS INCORPORATED f/k/a GOULDS PUMPS MERGER CORPORATION, was and still is a foreign business corporation authorized to and transacting business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business outside the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos. 9. That upon information an belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, GRINNELL LLC, was and still is a foreign business corporation transacting business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business outside the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of materials, products and/or equipment containing the substance asbestos. 10. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. f/lda ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC. and as successor in interest to THE BENDIX CORPORATION, is a foreign business corporation authorized to transact business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business outside the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the nmnufacture, sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos of 19

6 11. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, was and still is a foreign corporation authorized to do business within the State of New York with its principal place of business outside the State of New York. At all times relevant it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos. 12. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS, INC., was a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos. 13. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION, individually and as successor to COLUMBIA AUTO PARTS CORPORATION, was and still is a foreign business corporation transacting business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business outside the State of New York. At all times relevant it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of friction materials and products containing the substance asbestos. 14. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, ROCHESTER INDUSTRIAL INSULATION, INC., was and still is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos. 15. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, TRANE U.S. INC. f/lda AMERICAN STANDARD INC., is a foreign business of 19

7 corporation authorized to transact business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business outside the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos. 16. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, was and still is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos. 17. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, VELAN VALVE CORP., was and still is a domestic business corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of materials, products, and/or equipment containing the substance asbestos. 18. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY, was and still is a foreign business corporation authorized to and trailsaethig business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business outside the State of New York. At all times relevant it has engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos. 19. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, WILLIAM SUMMERHAYS' SONS CORPORATION, was and still is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos of 19

8 20. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, is a foreign business corporation authorized to transact business in the State of New York with its principal place of business outside the State of New York. At all times relevant, it has engaged in the sale and distribution of materials and products containing the substance asbestos. 21. For a number of years, plaintiffs decedent handled in the course of his employment or was otherwise exposed to large amounts of various asbestos-containing products and materials manufactured and marketed by the above-captioned defendants due to the use of asbestos materials and products by his co-employees and others. Decedent's exposure to asbestos ended in That upon information and belief, asbestos and asbestos-containing products and materials were mined, manufactured, compounded and fabricated by the defendants, acting through their agents, employees and representatives, and were subsequently placed in the market and sold in commerce. 23. That upon information and belief, the named defendants, mined, manufactured, marketed, sold, distributed, relabeled and commingled those asbestos-containing products which the plaintiffs decedent was exposed to during the course of his employment; and plaintiffs decedent was actually exposed to the asbestos fibers or asbestos-containing products of each individual defendant named herein. 24. That upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, each of the defendants were miners, manufacturers, processors, importers, converters, compounders, merchants, installers, removers, sellers, distributors, marketers and/or suppliers of asbestos, asbestos-containing products, or products designed to be used with asbestos-containing products, of 19

9 or products designed to be used with products defendants knew, or should have known, would likely contain asbestos (hereinafter referred to as "asbestos products"). In addition, the abovenamed defendants, acting through their servants, agents and employees, placed such asbestos products into the stream of commerce and/or caused such asbestos products to be sold and placed into the stream of commerce, and/or caused asbestos fibers to become airborne through their work with or around such products. 25. That upon information and belief, the defendants, acting in concert, failed to disclose to the decedent and those similarly situated, or warn them of the known dangers associated with the use of defendants' asbestos-containing products. Defendants' concerted action took either the form of an express or implied agreement not to warn or was achieved by providing substantial assistance or encouragement to one another in their wrongful course of conduct. As a result of defendants' conceited action, plaintiffs decedent suffered personal injuries which led directly to his untimely death. 26. That upon information and belief, defendants, acting in combination, failed to disclose to the decedent and those similarly situated, or warn them of the Imown dangers associated with the use of defendants' asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Defendants mined, manufactured and supplied those asbestos fibers and asbestos-containing products to which decedent was exposed during the course of his employment and are therefore liable collectively or in the alternative for all ofthe personal injuries and death suffered by decedent. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS NAMED HEREIN, THE PLAINTIFF, JENNIFER SHEPPARD, ALLEGES: of 19

10 27. The plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "26" of the Second Amended Complaint herein with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 28. The inhalation of asbestos dust and asbestos-containing particles is highly dangerous, proximately causing mesothelioma, asbestosis and other severe lung diseases, and cancer. 29. That upon information and belief, by reason of exposure to and inhalation of asbestos particles and dust, and other contaminates found in the products and materials of each and every defendant named herein, individually, collectively, or both, the plaintiffs decedent contracted an incurable asbestos-related disease which ultimately led to his premature death. 30. That upon information and belief, it is well established and has been well-known for many years that the inhalation of asbestos dust and particles is extremely hazardous and dangerous, The defendants, as manufacturers or distributors of asbestos products and materials knew, or should have known, of its hazards and dangers. 31. That upon information and belief, the defendants knew, or should have known, that the decedent would not have knowledge of the hazards of asbestos products and materials with which he worked and which the defendants manufactured and marketed. 32. That upon information and belief, the defendants did not adequately test their asbestos and asbestos-containing products and materials and did not take reasonable precautions in their manufacture and marketing, nor did they exercise reasonable care to warn of the dangers of use or exposure to their products and materials; they also failed to give sufficient instructions in the safe use and handling thereof of 19

11 33. That upon information and belief, the defendants intentionally and willfully failed to adequately warn of the known dangers of exposure to their products and materials and/or to give adequate instruction in the safe use and handling thereof. 34. That upon information and belief, the defendants did not design their products so that said products avoided unreasonable risk of harm to anyone likely to be exposed to danger when the product was used in the fashions in which they were intended and/or in foreseeable, unintended fashions. 35. That upon infonnation and belief, the defendants knew their asbestos and asbestos-containing products and materials to be unsafe to the health of purchasers, users, or those otherwise exposed. 36. That upon information and belief, one or more of the defendants falsely stated, advertised, or otherwise represented to the decedent, to other purchasers and users of defendants' products and materials, and to the public that, as a matter of fact, there were no health hazards of any significance associated with the purchase, use, or exposure to defendants' asbestos and asbestos-containing products and materials. 37. That upon information and belief, the defendants knew such statements, representations and advertisements to be false, misleading or incomplete at the time they were made. 38. That upon information and belief, the defendants made such statements, advertisements or misrepresentations with reckless indifference as to whether they were true or complete at the time they were made. 39. That upon information and belief, as a proximate result of the defendants' negligence in their failure to properly manufacture, test and label their materials and products, of 19

12 and their willful and intentional failure to warn decedent and other reasonably foreseeable users of the severe hazards inherent in the use of or exposure to their asbestos products and materials, the decedent contracted an incurable asbestos-related disease. 40. The decedent did not contribute in any manner to his own injuries. 41. By reason of the injuries to and the death of plaintiffs decedent, the Estate of the decedent has paid for necessary medical treatment, hospitalization and funeral expenses. 42. As a result of the foregoing, the deceased prior to his premature death, sustained bodily injury and suffered great pain and suffering, all to his damage in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional limits of all other courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction over this matter. 43. The intentional and willful conduct above complained of against the defendants was aimed against the public as well as the decedent; was grossly unjust and involved high moral culpability for which punitive damages should be assessed in a sum of money to be determined by the trier of fact. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS NAMED HEREIN, THE PLAINTIFF, JENNIFER SHEPPARD, ALLEGES: 44. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "43" of the Second Amended Complaint herein with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 45. That upon information and belief, the defendants willfully and intentionally refused to disclose Imown defects and hazards in the asbestos-containing products they manufactured and/or placed into the stream of commerce. 46. that upon information and belief, as a result of the defendants' failure, among other things, to test their products for hazards, or to give adequate warning of their danger, or to of 19

13 give instructions in their use and handling, the defendants' materials and products were manufactured and marketed in a defective condition, were unreasonably dangerous to users such as decedent, and proximately caused decedent's death, injuries and damages. 47. Decedent used the materials and products manufactured and sold by defendants for the purpose and in the manner normally intended. 48. Decedent could not have, in the exercise of reasonable care, discovered the defects and hazardous nature of the products manufactured and marketed by the defendants, nor perceived the dangers thereof, nor otherwise averted his injuries and damages. 49. By reason of the foregoing, the defendants are strictly liable to the plaintiffs decedent in the amount and respects set forth in paragraphs numbered "41", "42", and "43" of this Second Amended Complaint. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS NAMED HEREIN, THE PLAINTIFF, JENNIFER SHEPPARD, ALLEGES: 50. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "49" of the Second Amended Complaint herein with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 51. Decedent died of an incurable disease caused exclusively by exposure to asbestos. 52. Decedent left him surviving his daughters, NATOUSHA REITZ and ASHLEY PEASE, who were dependent upon him at the date of his death. 53. The said NATOUSHA REITZ and ASHLEY PEASE were to a degree dependent upon the deceased for their moral support and have been damaged in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional limits of all other courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction over this matter of 19

14 54. The intentional and willful conduct above complained of against the defendants was aimed against the public as well as the decedent; was grossly unjust and involved high moral culpability for which punitive damages should be assessed in a sum of money to be determined by the trier of fact. 55. Decedent died on April 27, 2016, solely as a result of injuries inflicted by the defendants acting individually, in concert, as participants in a joint enterprise, in various combinations with one another, and as profiteers in the asbestos products market. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS, ELMER W. DAVIS, INC., INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS, INC., ROCHESTER INDUSTRIAL INSULATION, SUMMERHAYS' INC. AND WILLIAM SONS CORPORATION, THE PLAINTIFF, JENNIFER SHEPPARD, ALLEGES: 56. The plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "1" through "55" of the Second Amended Complaint herein with the same force and effect as if fully set forthherein. 57. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, ELMER W. DAVIS, INC., was a contractor of insulation services and supplied asbestos-containing products and services to various jobsites where ALLEN GREGORY PEASE worked. 58. That upon information and belief, during the course of asbestos application, ELMER W. DAVIS, INC. failed to properly apply, repair and/or remove the asbestos, failed to properly advise those in the area that asbestos was being applied,repairedand/orremoved, failed to provide appropriate respiratory equipment and failed to advise those in the area that they may be exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos of 19

15 59. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS, INC., was a contractor of insulation services and supplied asbestos-containing products and services to various jobsites where ALLEN GREGORY PEASE worked. 60. That upon information and belief, during the course of asbestos application, INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS, INC. failed to properly apply, repair and/or remove the asbestos, failed to properly advise those in the area that asbestos was being applied, repaired and/or removed, failed to provide appropriate respiratory equipment and failed to advise those in the area that they may be exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. 61. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, ROCHESTER INDUSTRIAL INSULATION, INC., was a contractor of insulation services and supplied asbestos-containing products and services to various jobsites where ALLEN GREGORY PEASE worked. 62. That upon information and belief, during the course of asbestos application, ROCHESTER INDUSTRIAL INSULATION, INC. failed to properly apply, repair and/or remove the asbestos, failed to properly advise those in the area that asbestos was being applied, repaired and/or removed, failed to provide appropriate respiratory equipment and failed to advise those in the area that they may be exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. 63. That upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant, WILLIAM SUMMERHAYS' SONS CORPORATION, was a contractor of insulation services and supplied asbestos-containing products and services to various jobsites where ALLEN GREGORY PEASE worked of 19

16 64. That upon information and belief, during the course of asbestos application, WILLIAM SUMMERHAYS' SONS CORPORATION failed to properly apply, repair and/or remove the asbestos, failed to properly advise those in the area that asbestos was being applied, repaired and/or removed, failed to provide appropriate respiratory equipment and failed to advise those in the area that they may be exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. 65. As a result of the negligence of ELMER W. DAVIS, INC., INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS, INC., ROCHESTER INDUSTRIAL INSULATION, INC. AND WILLIAM SUMMERHAYS' SONS CORPORATION, the plaintiff has been injured and is claiming damages in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional limits of all other courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction over this matter. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional limits of all other courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction over this matter; punitive damages in a sum of money to be determined by the trier of fact; and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this action. Dated: Buffalo, New York September 27, 2018 You s etc., H. fféemer ESQ. L SITZ & PONTERIO, LC ttorneys for Plaintiff Office and Post Office Address 424 Main Street, Suite 1500 Buffalo, New York (716) of 19

17 State of New York ) County of Erie ) SS The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, shows: that deponent is associated with the firm of LIPSITZ & PONTERIO, LLC, the attorneys of record for the plaintiff in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing Second Amended Complaint and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters depoñeñt believes it to be true. Deponent further says that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by plaintiff, JENNIFER SHEPPARD, is because said plaintiff is not in Erie County which is the county where deponent has his principle office. The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: records, reports and correspoñdence in deponent's file. The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury. Dated: September 27, 2018 J. )È EMER, ESQ. 17 of 19

18 SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF MONROE In re: SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Index No.: E ASBESTOS LITIGATION AMENDED PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT (S JDAL) This document applies to: JENNIFER SHEPPARD, Administratrix of the Estate of ALLEN GREGORY PEASE, Deceased, vs. Plaintiff, BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC as successor-by-merger to BORG-WARNER CORP ORATION, et al., Defendants. Please state for yourself (for each plaintiff): 1. Full Name: JENNIFER SHEPPARD 2. Date of Birth: This information will be supplied during the course of discovery 3. Address: st Avenue South, Nashville, TN Social Security Number: XXX-XX-XXXX Please state for decedent (where appropriate): 5. Full Name: ALLEN GREGORY PEASE 6. Date of Birth: 1948 Date of Death: 4/27/16 7. Address: 1508 Dickerson Pike, Lot K5, Nashville, TN Social Security Number: XXX-XX-XXXX of 19

19 9. Indicate which of the following types of activity resulted in plaintiff s/decedent's alleged exposure to asbestos: (a) Insulating Trade (b) Boiler Trade (c) Construction Trade (d) Plant Worker X (e) Brake Lining or Friction Worker X (f) Non-occupational (indicate site) X (g) Other (describe) 10. Nature of alleged claim or condition: Mesothelioma X Lung Cancer Asbestosis Pleural Changes Other (Describe) 11. Wrongful Death X Personal Injury X 12. Year of first exposure and date of last exposure: First exposure: 1962 Last exposure: _1979 This information will be supplied during the course of discovery 13. Prior asbestos actions: Upon information and belief, none 14. Trade names of asbestos containing products to which plaintiff/decedent claims exposure (if Imown): This information will be supplied during the course of discovely THIS FORM IS TO BE USED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY, AND IS NOT A PLEADING OR DISCOVERY DOCUMENT. DATED: September 27, 2018 Plain f s rne By: JO KREMER, ESQ of 19