Free Answer to Amended Complaint - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Russell A. Kolsrud, #004578 Brad M. Thies, #021354 N ORLING, K OLSRUD, S IFFERMAN & D AVIS, P.L.C. 16427 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 210 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 (480) 505-0015 Attorneys for Defendant ValueOptions, Inc., Karen Marshall and Thomas Crumbley IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA SHANNON MICHAEL CLARK, Plaintiff, v. VALUEOPTIONS, INC., Defendant. KAREN MARSHALL'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (RECOGNIZED BY THE COURT AS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT) Case No. CIV 03-1344-PHX-EHC (MS)

Defendant Karen Marshall, through her counsel, hereby answers the Second Amended Complaint and admits, denies and affirmatively alleges as follows: 1. Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff's complaint violates the pleading

requirements of Rule 10(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., Karen Marshall denies each and every allegation of Plaintiff's complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Immunity. Karen Marshall is immune from claims raised in Plaintiff's

Complaint pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820, et seq. 2. Statute of Limitations - A.R.S. § 12-821. The Plaintiff's claims, to the extent

they exist, are barred by the Statutes of Limitations contained in A.R.S. § 12-821, et. seq. 3. Failure to State a Claim. Karen Marshall affirmatively asserts that Plaintiff's

complaint fails to state a claim against her upon which relief can be granted. 4. Lack of Fault. To the extent the Plaintiff incurred any injury or damages as

alleged in the complaint, such injuries or damages were not the fault of Karen Marshall as

Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

Document 243

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

that term is defined by A.R.S. § 12-2506. To the extent any fault may exist relating to Plaintiff's complaint, such fault is the result of actions or omissions of non-parties to this litigation or Plaintiff himself. 5. Karen Marshall alleges as further affirmative defenses that Plaintiff's

complaint is barred or may be found to be barred following discovery herein by reason of one or more of the following defenses: assumption of the risk; comparative negligence; estoppel; fraud; illegality; laches; release; res judicata; qualified immunity; unclean hands; failure to exhaust administrative remedies; lack of necessary intent; statute of limitations; waiver; and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. WHEREFORE, Karen Marshall, having fully answered the Second Amended Complaint, hereby requests the court to enter judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff, dismissing this action with prejudice and awarding Karen Marshall her costs and expenses incurred herein. DATED this 17 th day of July, 2006. NORLING, KOLSRUD, SIFFERMAN & DAVIS, P.L.C.

By: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 /s/ Brad M. Thies 27 28 2 Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE Document 243 Copy of the foregoing mailed this 17 th day of July, 2006 to: Shannon M. Clark #113372 ASPC-Tucson-Santa Rita P.O. Box 24406 Tucson, Arizona 85734-4406 Plaintiff pro per

/s/ Brad M. Thies Russell A. Kolsrud Brad M. Thies Attorneys for Defendant ValueOptions, Inc., Karen Marshall and Thomas Crumbley

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 2 of 2