Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 9

Filed 07/03/2007

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JOE GANO, Plaintiff, v. DONALD MARK EHART and SPREAD EAGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation formerly known as Red Eagle Avionics, Inc., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 07-271 (***)

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 1 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied. 2. 3. rental income as well. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Admitted. Paragraph 5 states a legal conclusion; no responsive pleading is required. Paragraph 6 states a legal conclusion; no responsive pleading is required. Admitted on information and belief. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Admitted. Admitted. By way of further response, the company "services" include

paragraph 8 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied.

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 9

Filed 07/03/2007

Page 2 of 6

9. over a few years. 10. 11.

Denied as stated. Ehart believes he had met Gano on several occasions

Denied as stated. Ehart first considered the sale prior to that time. Denied as stated. By way of further response, Defendants do no recall

who initiated the discussions. 12. for itself. 13. Denied as stated. To the extent the allegation is attempting to claim that Admitted he provided the information requested. The document speaks

Brousseau & Brousseau, P.A. prepared it, admitted. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Denied. Denied. Admitted. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny. Admitted that the sale was structured as an asset sale for $2,200,000. The

sale documents speak for themselves. 19. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 19 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied. 20. 21. 22. Admitted. Denied. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 22 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 9

Filed 07/03/2007

Page 3 of 6

23.

Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 23 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied. 24. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 24 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied. 25. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 25 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied. 26. 27. Denied. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 27 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied. 28. 29. Denied. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 29 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied. 30. 31. 32. speaks for itself. 33. 34. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. The agreement speaks for itself. Admitted that a non-competition agreement was signed. The document

3

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 9

Filed 07/03/2007

Page 4 of 6

COUNT I 35. Defendants incorporate their response as to paragraphs 1 through 20 as

though fully set forth herein. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Denied. Admitted. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 43 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied. 44. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 44 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied. 45. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 45 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied. 46. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 46 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied.

4

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 9

Filed 07/03/2007

Page 5 of 6

47.

Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 47 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied. 48. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 48 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied. 49. Denied. COUNT II 50. Defendants incorporate their response as to paragraphs 1 through 20 as

though fully set forth herein. 51. Denied. a. b. c. 52. 53. Denied Denied. Denied.

Denied. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 53 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied. 54. Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in

paragraph 54 of the Complaint. However, to the extent that an answer is deemed required of Defendants, said allegations are denied. Furthermore, Defendants deny that rescission is appropriate under the circumstances. 55. Denied that Plaintiffs are entitled to any remedy either at law or in equity.

5

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 9

Filed 07/03/2007

Page 6 of 6

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. 2. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has failed to plead averments of fraud and mistake with

particularity as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9. 3. 4. 5. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has filed its claims in an improper venue. Plaintiff's claims are barred by doctrines of res judicata, stare decisis,

issue and claim preclusion, laches, waiver, and estoppel. 6. 7. Plaintiff's claims are barred by doctrine of accord and satisfaction. Plaintiff has failed to join necessary and indispensable parties to this

action as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 19. 8. Plaintiff lacks standing. CROSS & SIMON, LLC

Dated: Dated: July 3, 2007 Wilmington, Delaware

/s/ John D. Wallen Richard H. Cross, Jr. (No. 3576) Christopher P. Simon (No. 3697) John D. Wallen (No. 4319) 913 N. Market Street, 11th Floor P.O. Box 1380 Wilmington, Delaware 19899-1380 (302) 777-4200 (302) 777-4224 (facsimile) Attorneys for Defendants

6

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 07/03/2007

Page 1 of 1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John D. Wallen, hereby certify that on July 3, 2007, I caused to be served a copy of the Defendant's Answer to Complaint upon the following parties listed below in the manner indicated: VIA HAND DELIVERY Sophia Siddiqui, Esquire Gregory B. Williams, Esquire Fox Rothschild LLP Citizens Bank Center 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1300 P.O. Box 2323 Wilmington, DE 19899-2323 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Todd B. Nurick, Esquire Nurick Law Group 111 West Germantown Pike Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Wendy G. Rothstein, Esquire Fox Rothschild LLP 1250 South Broad Street P.O. Box 431 Lansdale, PA 19446-0341

/s/ John D. Wallen John D. Wallen (No. 4319)