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

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

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. THOMAS CRUMBLEY'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 Thomas Crumbley, whose true name is Thomas Nathan Crumbley, M.D. 15 ("Dr. Crumbley"), through his counsel, hereby answers the Second Amended Complaint 16 and admits, denies and affirmatively alleges as follows: 17 1. 18 requirements of Rule 10(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., Dr. Crumbley denies each and every allegation 19 of Plaintiff's complaint. 20 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 21 1. 22 pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820, et seq. 23 2. 24 they exist, are barred by the Statutes of Limitations contained in A.R.S. § 12-821, et. seq. 25 3. 26 complaint fails to state a claim against him upon which relief can be granted. 27 28 Failure to State a Claim. Dr. Crumbley affirmatively asserts that plaintiff's Statute of Limitations - A.R.S. § 12-821. The Plaintiff's claims, to the extent Immunity. Defendant is immune from claims raised in Plaintiff's Complaint Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff's complaint violates the pleading

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

Document 238

Filed 06/07/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

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 Dr. Crumbley as 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. Dr. Crumbley 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, Dr. Crumbley having fully answered the Second Amended Complaint hereby requests the court to enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff, dismissing this action with prejudice and awarding Dr. Crumbley his costs and expenses incurred herein. DATED this 7 th day of June, 2006. NORLING, KOLSRUD, SIFFERMAN & DAVIS, P.L.C.

By: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE Document 238

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

Filed 06/07/2006

Page 2 of 3

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

Copy of the foregoing mailed this 7 th day of June, 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

3 Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE Document 238 Filed 06/07/2006 Page 3 of 3