EXHIBIT A

Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 14

SUMMONS - CIVIL
JD-CV-1 Rev 2-13
C.GS 51-346,51-347,51-349,51-350, 52-45a,
52-48,52-259, PB Sees, 3-1 through 3-21,8-1
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
SUPERIOR COURT
wwwjud,ct.gov
See page 2 for instructions
o
o
o
"X" if amount, legal interest or property in demand, not including interest and
costs is less than $2,500,
"X" if amount, legal interest or property in demand, not including interest and
costs is $2,500 or more,
TO: Any proper officer; BY AUTHORITY OF THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby
commanded to make due and legal service of
this Summons and attached Complaint.
"X" if claiming other relief in addition to or in lieu of money or damages,
Address of court clerk where writ and other papers shall be filed (Number, street, town and zip code) Telephone number of clerk (with Return Date (Must be a Tuesday)
(eG.s, 51-346, 51-350) area code)
235 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510 (203 )503-6800
September 9 ,2 014
Month IJaV Year
o Judicial District
O
GA
\
At (Town in which writ is returnable) (e.G.S. 51-346,51-349)
New Haven
Case type code (See list on page 2)
o Housing Session Number: Major: V Minor: 01
For the P/aintiff(s) please enter the appearance of:
Name and address of attorney, law firm or plaintiff if self-represented (Number, street, town and zip code) 1 Juris number (to be entered by attorney onty)
Tinley, Renehan & Dost, LLP, 60 North Main Street, Second Floor, Waterbury, CT 06702 402031
Telephone number (with area code) I Signature of Plaintiff (If self-represented)
(203 ) 596-9030
Number of Plaintiffs: 1 I Number of Defendants: 1
I
o Form JD-CV-2 attached for additional parties
Parties Name (Last, First, Middle Initial) and Address of Each party (Number; Street; P,O. Box; Town; State; Zip; Country, if not USA)
First
Name: Irias, Jose
Plaintiff
Address: 144 Bishop Street, Waterbury, CT 06705
Additional
Name:
Plaintiff
Address:
First
Name:
Defendant
Address:
Additional
Name: Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company
Defendant
Address: clo Ryan, Ryan & Deluca, LlP
707 Summer Street, Stamford, CT 06901
Additional
Name:
Defendant
Address:
Additional
Name:
Defendant
Address:
Notice to Each Defendant
1. YOU ARE BEING SUED, This paper is a Summons in a lawsuit. The complaint attached to these papers states the claims that each plaintiff is making
against you in this lawsuit.
2. To be notified of further proceedings, you or your attorney must file a form called an "Appearance" with the clerk of the above-named Court at the above
Court address on or before the second day after the above Return Date. The Return Date is not a hearing date. You do not have to come to court on the
Return Date unless you receive a separate notice telling you to come to court.
P-01
P-02
0-01
0-02
0-03
0-04
3. If you or your attorney do not file a written "Appearance" form on time, a judgment may be entered against you by default. The "Appearance" form may be
obtained at the Court address above or at www.jud.ct,gov under "Court Forms,"
4, If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim that is being made against you in this lawsuit, you should immediately contact your
insurance representative. Other action you may have to take is described in the Connecticut Practice Book which may be found in a superior court law
library or on-line at www.jud.ct.gov under "Court Rules,"
5, If you have questions about the Summons and Complaint. you should talk to an attorney quickly. The Clerk of Court is not allowed to give advice on
Ie al uestions,
Signed (Sign !nd "X" proper box)
/-;-'/',;?? .. '" ...... " ... '-'--
If this Su mons is signed by a Clerk:
)( Commissioner of the
Superior Court
ASSistant Clerk
Name of Person Signing at Left
Amita S, Patel, Esq.
a. The signing has been done so that the Plaintiff(s) will not be denied access to the courts,
b. It is the responsibility of the Plaintiff(s) to see that service is made in the manner provided by law,
c, The Clerk is not permitted to give any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit.
d The Clerk signing this Summons at the request of the Plaintiff(s) is not responsible in any way for any errors or
in the Summons, any allegations contained in the Complaint, or the service of the Summons or Complain,t.
I certify I have read and Signed (Self-Represented Plaintiff)
understand the above:
Name and address of person recognized to prosecute in the amount of 5250
Vette Murtishi, TRD, 60 North Main Street, Second Floor, Waterbury, CT 06702
)( Commissioner of the Date
Superior Court 08/15/2014
Assistant Clerk
(Page 1 of 2)
Date signed
08/15/2014
- ..... For Court Use Only
Docket Number
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 14
RETURN DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 SUPERIOR COURT
JOSEIRIAS J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
V.
AT NEW HAVEN
METRO-NORTH COMMUTER
RAILROAD COMPANY AUGUST 15, 2014
COMPLAINT
FIRST COUNT: NEGLIGENCE A COMMON CARRIER
1. The plaintiff, Jose lrias, is a resident of the state of Connecticut.
2. The defendant, Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company ("Metro North") is a foreign
corporation doing business in the State of Connecticut, with a place of business in Connecticut.
3. At all times relevant hereto, Metro-North was a common carrier engaged in the business of
interstate commerce and which operated a railroad between New York City, New York and New
Haven, Connecticut.
4. On May 17, 2013, Metro-North was in possession and control of a railroad track, related signals
and track circuitry located at milepost 53.3 in Bridgeport, Connecticut, including Track 4.
5. At all times relevant hereto, Metro-North was responsible for the inspection, maintenance, repair
and condition of the tracks, track beds, signals and track circuitry in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
6. On May 17,2013, at approximately 6:00PM, Metro-North was in possession and control of
Metro-North Railroad passenger train number 1548 ("Train 1548"), traveling eastbound from
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 14
7. New York Grand Central Station to New Haven Union Station in the vicinity of Bridgeport,
Connecticut.
8. At the same time and place, Metro-North was in possession and control of Metro-North Railroad
passenger train number 1581 ("Train 1581 "), traveling westbound from New Haven Union
Station to New York Grand Central Station in the vicinity of Bridgeport, Connecticut.
9. At the same time and place, plaintiff Jose Irias was a passenger invitee of the defendant Metro-
North traveling on Train 1548, where he was seated facing westbound.
10. Prior to 6:00PM on May 17, 2013, Metro-North inspectors discovered that two compromise joint
bars on Track 4, near milepost 53.3 were cracked and/or had broken.
11. The compromise joint bars were replaced, however, problems again emerged on May 15, 2013 -
two days before the incident on May 17, 2013. Metro-North inspectors reported a "pumping
condition," which meant that the ties and rails were moving up and down under the weight of
trains, and also "ina:dequate ballast support."
12. The inspection also discovered an insulated rail joint with inadequate supporting ballast and
indications of vertical movement of the track system under load at catenary number 734 on Track
4, near milepost 53.3.
13. On May 17, 2013, at approximately 6:00PM, Train 1548 derailed suddenly and without warning
near milepost 53.3.
14, Upon information and belief, Train 1548 was traveling at approximately seventy (70) miles per
hour when it derailed.
Page 2 of 11
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 4 of 14
15. Train 1548 came to rest so as to block the adjacent westbound track.
16. Approximately twenty (20) seconds to one minute later, Train 1581 struck Train 1548, causing
further damage.
17. At all times relevant hereto, Metro-North had a deficient safety culture that prioritized on-time
performance, while sacrificing the safety and protection of riders and employees.
18. The aforesaid derailment and collision were caused by the negligence of the defendant Metro-
North in one or more of the following ways:
a. On or about April 4, 2013, Metro-North and/or its agents or employees replaced the two
compromise joint bars at the point of derailment in a manner that did not comply with its
own standards or federal standards, including the failure to perform a thermite weld;
b. At the time of the Apri14, 2013 repair, Metro-North and/or its agents or employees did
not employ sufficient welding teams to facilitate the thermite weld as described above;
c. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to properly mate two mismatched rails
during the April 4, 2013 repair;
d. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to timely repair the broken
compromise joint bars at catenary number 734 on Track 4 near milepost 53.3, which it
and/or its employees or agents had discovered on May 15, 2013;
e. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents negligently concluding during the May 15,
2013 inspection that the repair was not urgently required;
f. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents had failed to provide its inspection crews
with sufficient equipment to make timely repairs, including the crew that detected the
broken compromise joint bars on May 15,2013;
Page 3 of 11
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 5 of 14
g. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to respond to any maintenance
requests in a timely manner, leading to a maintenance backlog that was years behind
schedule;
h. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to keep the tracks that were under its
possession or control in a good state of repair;
i. Metro-North andlor its employees or agents failed to conduct a "five-year" cycle of
maintenance on Track 4 since 2005;
j. Metro-North and/or its employees failed to properly repair, support, maintain and/or
inspect Track 4;
k. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to close and/or remove Track 4 from
service; and
I. Metro-North failed to adequately train its track inspectors.
19. The defendant knew or should have known of the deficient nature of the Track because it had
performed an inspection of the same section on May 15, 2013, during which the deficiency was
noted.
20. The defendant knew or should have known of the deficient nature of the Track because it
performed inspections of the Track three times per week.
21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant as aforesaid,
the plaintiff, Jose lrias, sustained a lumbar sprain/strain, lumbar segmental joint dysfunction, a
sacroiliac sprain/strain, a cervical sprain/strain, cervical segmental dysfunction,
myofascitis/muscle spasm, a thoracic sprain/strain, thoracic segmental dysfunction, and
symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The plaintiff further suffers from headaches,
Page 4 of 11
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 6 of 14
nightmares, flashbacks, inability to sleep and an inability to concentrate. To treat these injuries
and their concomitant symptoms of pain, weakness, spasm, stiffness and restricted mobility the
plaintiff required a lengthy course of chiropractic treatment, medication, an injection and
radiological studies. The injuries and damages to the Plaintiff's lumbar spine are permanent in
nature and will require future medical treatment. In addition the Plaintiff has suffered and will
continue to suffer great physical and emotional pain, distress, anxiety and discomfort and has
been and will in the future 'be unable to participate in many of the activities in which he engaged
prior to said accident.
22. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant as aforesaid, the
plaintiff, Jose Irias, was forced to incur substantial sums of money for the medical care,
services, treatment and medications necessitated by his condition.
23. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant as aforesaid, the
plaintiff, Jose lrias, was forced to miss several weeks from the duties of his employment
and has suffered a loss of earnings.
SECOND COUNT: RECKLESSNESS
1. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 16 of the First Count are incorporated by reference and
hereby made Paragraphs 1 through 16 of this Second Count.
17. The aforesaid derailment and collision were caused by the recklessness of the defendant Metro-
North in one or more of the following ways:
Page 5 of 11
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 7 of 14
a. On or about April 4, 2013, Metro-North and/or its agents or employees replaced the two
compromise joint bars at the point of derailment in a manner that did not comply with its
own standards or federal standards, including the failure to perform a thermite weld;
b. At the time of the April 4, 2013 repair, Metro-North and/or its agents or employees did
not employ sufficient welding teams to facilitate the thermite weld as described above;
c. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to properly mate two mismatched rails
during the April 4, 2013 repair;
d. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to timeJy repair the broken
compromise joint bars at catenary number 734 on Track 4 near milepost 53.3, which it
and/or its employees or agents had discovered on May 15,2013;
e. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents negligently concluding during the May 15,
2013 inspection that the repair was not urgently required;
f. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents had failed to provide its inspection crews
with sufficient equipment to make timely repairs, including the crew that detected the
broken compromise joint bars on May 15, 2013;
g. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to respond to any maintenance
requests in a timely manner, leading to a maintenance backlog that was years behind
schedule;
h. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to keep the tracks that were under its
possession or control in a good state of repair;
i. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to conduct a "five-year" cycle of
maintenance on Track 4 since 2005;
Page 6 of 11
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 8 of 14
j. Metro-North and/or its employees failed to properly repair, support, maintain and/or
inspect Track 4;
k. Metro-North and/or its employees or agents failed to close and/or remove Track 4 from
service; and
1. Metro-North failed to adequately train its track inspectors.
18. The defendant knew or should have known of the deficient nature of the Track because it had
performed an inspection of the same section on May 15, 2013, during which the deficiency was
noted.
19. The defendant knew or should have known of the deficient nature of the Track because it
performed inspections of the Track three times per week.
20. As a direct and proximate result of the recklessness of the defendant as aforesaid, the plaintiff,
Jose Irias, sustained a lumbar sprain/strain, lumbar segmental joint dysfunction, a sacroiliac
sprain/strain, a cervical sprain/strain, cervical segmental dysfunction, myofascitis/muscle spasm,
a thoracic sprain/strain, thoracic segmental dysfunction, symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder. The plaintiff further suffers from headaches, nightmares, flashbacks, inability to sleep
and an inability to concentrate. To treat these injuries and their concomitant symptoms of pain,
weakness, spasm, stiffness and restricted mobility the plaintiff required a lengthy course of
chiropractic treatment, medication, an injection and radiological studies. The injuries and
damages to the Plaintiff's lumbar spine are permanent in nature and will require future medical
treatment. In addition the Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great physical and
emotional pain, distress, anxiety and discomfort and has been and will in the future be unable to
participate in many of the activities in which he engaged prior to said accident.
Page 7 of 11
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 9 of 14
21. As a further result of the recklessness of the defendant as aforesaid, the plaintiff, Jose
Irias, was forced to incur substantial sums of money for the medical care, services,
treatment and medications necessitated by his condition.
22. As a further result of the recklessness of the defendant as aforesaid, the plaintiff, Jose
Irias, was forced to miss several weeks from the duties of his employment and has
suffered a loss of earnings.
THIRD COUNT: UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
1. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 16 of the First Count are incorporated by reference and
hereby made Paragraphs 1 through 16 of this Third Count.
17. Upon information and belief, Metro-North breached its duties under Federal Law by allowing the
train on which the plaintiff was riding to pass over defective rails in violation of C.F.R.
213.113, by permitting a rail end mismatch in violation of 49 C.F.R. 213.115 and by not
ensuring that the subject rail and rail joints were structurally sound in violation of 49 C.F.R.
213.121.
18. Metro-North had recently repaired railroad track equipment, including damaged joint
bars at or near the May 17, 2013 incident site, roughly two days prior to the incident, and
knew or should have known that a dangerous condition existed and permitted its trains to
pass over these defective tracks anyway;
19. Metro-North set forth a policy for maintenance regarding the replacement of railroad ties
and failed to comply with said policy;
Page 8 of 11
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 10 of 14
20. Metro-North negligently, recklessly, or intentionally misrepresented to the public,
including the plaintiff, Jose Irias, that it complied and complies with the aforementioned
sections of the Code of Federal Regulations and that it operates its trains and track system
"in the safest possible manner," thereby inducing passengers to travel on the train and
pay fares. Had passengers, including the plaintiff, Jose Irias, been aware of breaches of
duty by Metro-North they would not have purchased tickets and boarded the train that
derailed on May 17,2013.
21. As a result of the unfair and deceptive acts and practices of the defendant, Metro-North,
the plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer ascertainable economic loss, including
the purchase price of his ticket, medical expenses, lost wages, earning capacity and non-
economic damages as well.
22. By engaging in the aforesaid conduct in the course of its trade or business, Metro-North
committed one or more violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.O.s.
42-110a, et seq.
23. By engaging in the aforesaid conduct, the defendant, Metro-North, caused substantial
injury and economic harm to the plaintiff, Jose Irias.
Page 9 of 11
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 11 of 14
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims:
a. Fair, just and reasonable damages;
b. Attorney's fees pursuant to CUTPA, C.O.S. 42-110a, et seq.
c. Such other and further relief as law and equity may provide.
THE PLAINTIFF,
JOSEIRIAS

Tinley, Renehan & Dost, LLP
60 North Main Street, Second Floor
Waterbury, CT 06702
Tel: (203) 596-9030
Fax: (203) 596-9036
Juris No.: 402031
Page 10 of 11
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 12 of 14
RETURN DATE: SEPTEMBER 9,2014
JOSEIRIAS
V.
METRO-NORTH COMMUTER
RAILROAD COMPANY
SUPERIOR COURT
J.D. OF NEW HAVEN
AT NEW HAVEN
AUGUST 15, 2014
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
The amount in demand, exclusive of interest and costs, is in excess of FIFTEEN
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000.00).
THE PLAINTIFF,
JOSE IRIAS
B Y ~ ~
Amita:Patel, Esq
Tinley, Renehan & Dost, LLP
60 North Main Street, Second Floor
Waterbury, CT 06702
Tel: (203) 596-9030
Fax: (203) 596-9036
Juris No.: 402031
Page 11 of 11
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 13 of 14
Recording Division
Business Inquiry
Business Details
Business Name: METRO-NORTH COMMUTER
RAILROAD COMPANY
Business 10: 0535493
Business Address: 50 UNION AVE., NEW HAVEN,
CT,06519
Mailing Address: 347 MADISON AVE., NEW
YORK, NY, 10017
Date Inc/Registration: Apr 26,1996
Commence Business
Date: Jan 01,1983
Principals Details
NamelTitle Business Address
HON. PETER S. 347 MADISON AVE., NEW
KALIKOW CHAIRMAN YORK, NY, 10017
PETER A. CANNITO
PRESIDENT
RICHARD K.
BERNARD VICE
PRESIDENT
Agent Summary
347 MADISON AVE., NEW
YORK, NY, 10017
347 MADISON AVE., NEW
YORK, NY. 10017
Agent Name RYAN RYAN DELUCA LLP
http://www.concord-sots.ct.gov/CONCORDlPubliclnquiry?eid=97 ...
.. HOME HELP
Citizenship/State Inc: Foreign/NY
Last Report Filed Year: 2006
Business Type: Non-Stock
Business Status: Active
Residence Address
1001 5TH AVENUE, PENTHOUSE B, NEW YORK,
NY, 10028
8 CARUSO PLACE, ARMONK, NY, 10504
100 REVOLUTIONAY ROAD, SCARBOROUGH. NY.
10510
Agent Business 707 SUMMER STREET, STAMFORD, CT, 06901
Address
Agent Residence NONE
Address
I View Filing History I I View Name History
of 1 8/20/2014 12: 10 PM
Case 3:14-cv-01279-RNC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 14 of 14