Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cv-00222-SLR

Document 10

Filed 06/11/2008

Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ROBERT MINUTOLA, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD DAVID SPIERING, THOMAS ERIC LONG, MIGUEL ANGEL GAMBOA, DONALD L. GIVENS and CARIE ANN GIVENS, Defendants. ANSWER OF DEFENDANT SPIERING WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND CROSSCLAIMS § § § § § § § § §

C.A. No. 08-222 TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

1. 2. 3.

Admitted upon reliance on representations made by Plaintiff. Admitted. Denied. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of

this allegation. 4. this allegation. 5. this allegation. 6. this allegation. 7. 8. Admitted upon reliance on representations made by Plaintiff. Admitted. Denied. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of Denied. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of Denied. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of

Case 1:08-cv-00222-SLR

Document 10

Filed 06/11/2008

Page 2 of 9

9. this allegation. 10. this allegation. 11. this allegation. 12. this allegation. 13. this allegation. 14. this allegation. 15. action. 16.

Denied. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of

Denied. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of

Denied. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of

Denied. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of

Denied. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of

Denied. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of

Denied. Admitted only that there is diversity of citizenship among the parties to this

Denied. Admitted only that on or about August 22, 2006, a motor vehicle collision

occurred which involved the vehicles being operated by Plaintiff, Defendant Gamboa, Defendant Carie Givens, and Answering Defendant. COUNT I ROBERT MINUTOLA V. RICHARD DAVID SPIERING 17. part hereof. 18. 19. Denied in whole and as to each of its parts. Denied. Specifically denied that Answering Defendant was reckless, careless or Answers to paragraphs 1 though 16 are incorporated herein by reference and made a

Case 1:08-cv-00222-SLR

Document 10

Filed 06/11/2008

Page 3 of 9

negligent in any manner. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of the remainder of this allegation. 20. this allegation. 21. Denied. Specifically denied that Answering Defendant was reckless, careless or Denied. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of

negligent in any manner. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of the remainder of this allegation. 22. Denied. Answering Defendant specifically denies that he was negligent in any

manner. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of the remainder of this allegation. 23. this allegation. 24. Denied. Answering Defendant specifically denies that he was careless or negligent in Denied. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of

any manner. Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of the remainder of this allegation. COUNT II ROBERT MINUTOLA V. THOMAS ERIC LONG AND MIGUEL ANGEL GAMBOA 25. part hereof. 26. This allegation is not directed to Answering Defendant and requires no response Answers to paragraphs 1 through 24 are incorporated herein by reference and made

thereto. To the extent that an answer is required, this allegation is denied by reason that Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of this allegation. 27. This allegation is not directed to Answering Defendant and requires no response

Case 1:08-cv-00222-SLR

Document 10

Filed 06/11/2008

Page 4 of 9

thereto. To the extent that an answer is required, this allegation is denied by reason that Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of this allegation. 28. This allegation is not directed to Answering Defendant and requires no response

thereto. To the extent that an answer is required, this allegation is denied by reason that Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of this allegation. 29. This allegation is not directed to Answering Defendant and requires no response

thereto. To the extent that an answer is required, this allegation is denied by reason that Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of this allegation. 30. This allegation is not directed to Answering Defendant and requires no response

thereto. To the extent that an answer is required, this allegation is denied by reason that Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of this allegation. 31. This allegation is not directed to Answering Defendant and requires no response

thereto. To the extent that an answer is required, this allegation is denied by reason that Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of this allegation. 32. This allegation is not directed to Answering Defendant and requires no response

thereto. To the extent that an answer is required, this allegation is denied by reason that Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of this allegation. COUNT III ROBERT MINUTOLA V. DONALD L. GIVENS AND CARIE ANN GIVENS 33. part hereof. 34. This allegation is not directed to Answering Defendant and requires no response Answers to paragraphs 1 through 32 are incorporated herein by reference and made a

thereto. To the extent that an answer is required, this allegation is denied by reason that Answering

Case 1:08-cv-00222-SLR

Document 10

Filed 06/11/2008

Page 5 of 9

Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of this allegation. 35. This allegation is not directed to Answering Defendant and requires no response

thereto. To the extent that an answer is required, this allegation is denied by reason that Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of this allegation. 36. This allegation is not directed to Answering Defendant and requires no response

thereto. To the extent that an answer is required, this allegation is denied by reason that Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of this allegation. 37. This allegation is not directed to Answering Defendant and requires no response

thereto. To the extent that an answer is required, this allegation is denied by reason that Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of this allegation. 38. This allegation is not directed to Answering Defendant and requires no response

thereto. To the extent that an answer is required, this allegation is denied by reason that Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of this allegation. 39. This allegation is not directed to Answering Defendant and requires no response

thereto. To the extent that an answer is required, this allegation is denied by reason that Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of this allegation. 40. This allegation is not directed to Answering Defendant and requires no response

thereto. To the extent that an answer is required, this allegation is denied by reason that Answering Defendant has insufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of this allegation. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 41. This Court lacks jurisdiction by reason that Plaintiff's damages do not meet the amount

in controversy requirement.

Case 1:08-cv-00222-SLR

Document 10

Filed 06/11/2008

Page 6 of 9

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE 42. Plaintiff's causes of action are barred in whole or in part by the provisions of the

Delaware Comparative Negligence Act. Plaintiff was comparatively negligent in the following manner: a. He operated his vehicle in a careless or imprudent manner without due regard for the road and traffic conditions then existing, in violation of 21 Del.C.§4176(a); b. He stopped or decreased speed suddenly and without giving the appropriate signal in violation of 21 Del. C. §4155(a); c. He was otherwise negligent. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 43. If Plaintiff sustained the injuries as alleged in his Complaint, which is herein strictly

denied, then such injuries were caused by the acts or omissions of entities/individuals over which/whom Answering Defendant had no control nor legal duty to control. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 44. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendant acted with due care and proper

care under the circumstances. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 45. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 46. Plaintiff's injuries were pre-existing or otherwise not causally related to the

incident at issue. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 47. An intervening event occurred which precludes Answering Defendant's actions from

Case 1:08-cv-00222-SLR

Document 10

Filed 06/11/2008

Page 7 of 9

having a causal relationship of any kind with Plaintiff's alleged damages. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 48. If Plaintiff sustained any injuries in the incident at issue in this action, then Plaintiff

has reached maximum medical improvement regarding such injuries. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 49. Answering Defendant hereby gives notice that he intends to rely upon any other

affirmative defenses which become available or apparent during pretrial discovery or litigation proceedings in this action and hereby reserves the right to assert all such affirmative defenses as though they were fully set forth herein Cross Claim Against Co-Defendants Miguel Gamboa and Carie Ann Givens 50. Answering Defendant denies that he is liable for any damages Plaintiff alleges in

any respect. In the event that Answering Defendant is held liable to Plaintiff then Answering Defendant cross claims against Co-Defendants Miguel Gamboa and Carie Ann Givens on the grounds that the actions and/or omissions of Co-Defendants Miguel Gamboa and Carie Ann Givens were the primary cause of Plaintiff's damages so that Answering Defendant is entitled to indemnification from Co-Defendants Miguel Gamboa and Carie Ann Givens. 51. In the event that Answering Defendant is held primarily liable to Plaintiff, then

the wrongful acts of Co-Defendants Miguel Gamboa and Carie Ann Givens are contributing causes to the damages sustained by Plaintiff and Answering Defendant is entitled to contribution in any amount which it may be required to pay to Plaintiff as a result of the Co-Defendants' wrongful act based on relative degrees of fault determined pursuant to the provisions of Delaware's Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Law, 10 Del. C. §6302. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court

Case 1:08-cv-00222-SLR

Document 10

Filed 06/11/2008

Page 8 of 9

grant judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, dismissing all claims against him and awarding him costs incurred in this litigation or, in the alternative, granting judgment in his favor and against Co-Defendants, awarding him indemnification and/or contribution from all CoDefendants jointly and severally.

LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA G. BEAM

/s/ Carol J. Antoff Carol J. Antoff, Esquire (I.D. #3601) Christiana Executive Campus 131 Continental Drive, Suite 407 Newark, DE 19713-4301 (302) 292-6660 Attorney for Defendant Spiering Date: June 11, 2008

Case 1:08-cv-00222-SLR

Document 10

Filed 06/11/2008

Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, do hereby certify on this 11th day of June, 2008, that a true and correct copy of Defendant Spiering's Answer has been served electronically, to the following:

Alfred V. Altopiedi, Esquire 902 Old Marple Road Springfield, PA 19064 Attorney for Plaintiff Gordon L. McLaughlin, Esquire Law Offices of Gordon L. McLaughlin 1203 North Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801 David C. Malatesta, Jr., Esquire Kent & McBride, P.C. 1105 Market Street, Suite 500 Wilmington, DE 19801

LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA G. BEAM

/s/ Carol J. Antoff Carol J. Antoff, Esquire (I.D. #3601) Christiana Executive Campus 131 Continental Drive, Suite 407 Newark, DE 19713-4301 (302) 292-6660 Attorney for Defendant Spiering
F:\2008\08nk00213\E-Filed Pleadings\Answer.doc