DEFENDANTS’ PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S            COMPLAINT  (Please note this word processing system does not have legal keys so I will be using a (P) for paragraph and an ampersand for case law.)   INTRODUCTION               Plaintiff Rebecca Holzinger (hereafter “Plaintiff”), a resident of Philadelphia, has commenced this action in Philadelphia County Court of Common Please against her parents, Charles H. and Millicent B. Holzinger (hereafter “Defendants”), both of whom live in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.  Plaintiff, who is now fifty (50) years old, has based her claim on alleged recovered memories from some unspecified point in her childhood.  Pursuant to Rule 1028 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and for all the reasons set forth below and in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Defendants bring these Preliminary Objections based on improper venue, failure to specifically plead allegations relating to time, and failure to state a legally cognizant claim.  They respectfully request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice.   A.  FIRST OBJECTION:  VENUE DOES NOT LIE IN PHILADELPHIA   Pursuant to Rule 1006 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants object to Plaintiff’s Complaint on the basis of improper venue.  In support of their Objection, Defendants aver the following:   1.      Charles and Millicent Holzinger both reside at 365 Sylvan Retreat Road, Columbia, Pennsylvania, which is located in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.   2.      Pursuant to Rule 1006 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, “ an action against an individual may be brought in and only in a county in which the individual may be served or in which the cause of action arose or where a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose or in any other county authorized by law.”   3.      Pursuant to Rule 402 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, original service may be made upon the Defendants only by 1) handing them a copy of the summons or complaint; or 2) handing a copy of the summons or complaint to an adult member of the family who resides at their residence.   4.      Charles H. and Millicent B. Holzinger can be personally served only in Lancaster County.  They cannot be served in Philadelphia County.   5.      The alleged events which give rise to Plaintiff’s cause of action took place in Lancaster County, sometime before 1972. (1)               WHEREFORE, venue does not property lie in Philadelphia County.  Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss this action in its entirety on the basis of improper venue. ____________________________________________________________  1                    Paragraph 4 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint states:  “During 2001 Rebecca began to recall various disconnected events from her childhood.”  These alleged events purportedly took place in “Charles’ house.”  Complaint at (P) 8.  Ms. Holzinger, who was born on April 9, 1954, turned 18 in 1972.  ______________________________________________________________________   B.      SECOND OBJECTION:  THE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THE TIME WHEN HER CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE ARE NOT PLED WITH SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY   Pursuant to Rule 1019 of the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure, Defendants object to Plaintiff’s Complaint because she has failed to allege with specificity the time when the events took place upon which she premises her cause of action.  In support of this Objection, Defendants aver the following:   1.      Plaintiff premises her claim upon two alleged events that occurred at some unspecified time during her “childhood.”  Complaint at (P) 4; 8 & 9.   2.      Rule 1019 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require that “{a}verments of time, place, and special damage shall be specifically stated.”   3.      Plaintiff, who was born on April 9, 1954, and therefore reached the age of majority on April 9, 1972, has not specified when during her childhood the acts which she alleges in Paragraphs 8 and 9 of her complaint took place.               WHEREFORE, as Plaintiff has failed to plead specifically the time when any of the events took place upon which her purported cause of action arose, her Complaint must be dismissed. (2) _______________________________________________________  2                    Regardless of when during her childhood Plaintiff’s cause of action arose, it is time barred and not cognizable in any Pennsylvania Court.  Dalrymple v. Brown, 549 Pa. 217, 701 A. 2d (1997).  See also 42 Pa. C.S.A. & 5524 (actions for “battery” must be brought within two years).  See also infra at Section C (Defendants’ Third Preliminary Objection) and Defendants’ Memorandum of Law at 5. __________________________________________________________________   C.      THIRD OBJECTION:  THE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO STATE A LEGALLY COGNIZABLE CLAIM (DEMURRER)   Pursuant to Rule 1019 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants object to Plaintiff’s Complaint because she has filed to allege a legally cognizable claim.   1.       Based on two alleged events that occurred at some unspecified time during her “childhood,” Plaintiff has sought compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants totalling $100,000.00. Complaint at (P) 4: 8-9.   2.       Plaintiff’s claim depends for its legal viability upon application of the “discovery rule” in a manner which specifically contradicts the governing law of the Commonwealth, as articulated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Dalrymple v. Brown, 549 Pa, 217, 701 A.2d 164 (Pa. 1997).   3.      Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s controlling opinion in Dalrymple, supra, Plaintiff’s claim is barred as a matter of law, and is not legally cognizable under any of the facts which she has articulated in her Complaint, or which she could articulate in any subsequent pleading.   WHEREFORE, as Plaintiff has failed to plead a legally sustainable cause of action, her Complaint must be dismissed.                                                            LORRIE McKINLEY, ESQUIRE                                                          Counsel for Defendants   DATE:  June 28, 2004               MEMORANDUM OF LAW TO FOLLOW TOMORROW