IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATESVILLE DIVISION

JAMES LEE PARLIER, JR., an individual )
(d/b/a Jimmy Parlier Horse Transport, )
Parlier Farms and Parlier Equine Transport )
& Carriages), )
)
Plaintiff, ) WDNC Case No.: 5:14-cv-00085
)
vs. )
)
TIFFANY LEWIS, et al. )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)

ANSWER FOR DEFENDANTS TIFFANY LEWIS
AND KANSAS CITY PREMIER APARTMENTS, INC.

COMES NOW the Defendants, TIFFANY LEWIS (hereinafter Lewis) and KANSAS
CITY PREMIER APARTMENTS, INC. (hereinafter KCPA) (collectively as these
Defendants), by and through their undersigned counsel, and answers the Complaint of the
Plaintiff as follows:
FIRST DEFENSE
The Complaint of the Plaintiff fails to state a claim against these Defendants for either
compensatory or punitive damages, upon which relief can be granted, and the same should be
dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically as to
Defendant KCPA, there are no allegations contained with the Complaint that any statement was
attributable to KCPA or that KCPA interfered with any contract of the Plaintiff; therefore, KCPA
should be dismissed from this action.



Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 25
SECOND DEFENSE
AND ANSWER

Nature of the Action

1. Paragraph 1 of the Plaintiffs Complaint does not contain any factual allegations
to which these Defendants can respond, but makes general, conclusory statements based upon
expert knowledge. If there are any allegations against these Defendants to which they respond,
the allegations are denied.
2. Paragraph 2 of the Plaintiffs Complaint does not contain any factual allegations
to which these Defendants can respond, but makes general, conclusory statements. If there are
any allegations against these Defendants to which they respond, the allegations are denied.
3. Paragraph 3 of the Plaintiffs Complaint does not contain any factual allegations
to which these Defendants can respond, but makes general, conclusory statements. If there are
any allegations against these Defendants to which they respond, the allegations are denied.
4. Paragraph 4 of the Plaintiffs Complaint does not contain any factual allegations
to which these Defendants can respond, but makes general, conclusory statements. If there are
any allegations against these Defendants to which they respond, the allegations are denied.
5. Denied.
6. Paragraph 6 of the Complaint contains statements relating to parties other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied. Defendant Lewis went on
Traveling Horse Transport & Stables Directorys website and requested free quotes from equine
transporters through the website. Except as herein admitted, denied.
7. Denied.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 2 of 25
8. Denied.
The Parties
9. Admitted upon information and belief.
10. Admitted upon information and belief.
11. It is denied that Defendant Lewis is a resident of Jackson County, Missouri. It is
admitted that she resides in Platte County, Missouri. It is admitted that she is a former customer
of the Plaintiff. Except as herein admitted, denied.
12. It is admitted that Defendant KCPA is a corporation organized under the laws of
Missouri. Except as herein admitted, denied.
13. It is admitted that Jason Stahl is a resident of Missouri. It is specifically denied
that Mr. Stahl is acting under the direction of Defendant Lewis. Except as herein admitted,
denied.
14. Paragraph 14 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
15. Paragraph 15 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
16. Paragraph 16 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 3 of 25
statements contained in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
17. Paragraph 17 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
18. Denied.
Jurisdiction and Venue
19. The allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint state conclusions of
law to which no response is required from these Defendants. To the extent a response is required,
these Defendants deny the allegations.
20. The allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint state conclusions of
law to which no response is required from these Defendants. To the extent a response is required,
these Defendants deny the allegations.
21. The allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint state conclusions of
law to which no response is required from these Defendants. To the extent a response is required,
these Defendants deny the allegations.
22. The allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint state conclusions of
law to which no response is required from these Defendants. To the extent a response is required,
these Defendants deny the allegations.
23. The allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint state conclusions of
law to which no response is required from these Defendants. To the extent a response is required,
these Defendants deny the allegations.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 4 of 25
24. The allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint state conclusions of
law to which no response is required from these Defendants. To the extent a response is required,
these Defendants deny the allegations.
Factual Background and General Allegations
25. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations
set forth in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
26. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations
set forth in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
27. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations
set forth in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
28. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations
set forth in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
The Chronicles of the Horse Page
29. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis created an account and posted on The
Chronicles of the Horse website forum, and that the Plaintiff has attached an exhibit which is
some of the published comments from The Chronicles of the Horse website forum. It is
specifically denied that Defendant KCPA created an account or posted on The Chronicles of the
Horse website forum. Further, Paragraph 29 of the Complaint contains allegations relating to a
party other than these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the
extent the statements contained in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest
or imply liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
30. Exhibit A referenced in paragraph 30 speaks for itself. As such, no further
response is required.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 5 of 25
31. It is admitted that there have been several posts on The Chronicles of the Horse
website forum from reviewers who tell their stories regarding their interactions with the Plaintiff
and his equine transportation business. Except as herein admitted, denied.
32. Denied. It is the purpose of The Chronicles of the Horse website forum to
provide other users with a review of the services provided by the Plaintiff and to share their
stories, such as the severe equine injuries sustained, which occurred during the Plaintiffs
transportation of such horses.
33. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis published comments under the user name
merecedes9. Except as herein admitted, denied.
34. Defendant Lewis specifically denies that any published comments were false,
misleading and/or deceptive, but that any published comments by Defendant Lewis were true. It
is specifically denied that Defendant KCPA published any comments or statements. The
allegations in Paragraph 34 and all subparagraphs as they relate to these Defendants are denied.
35. Denied.
Original Facebook Horse Transport Reviews
36. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis posted on the Facebook page of Horse
Transport Reviews, and that the Plaintiff has attached an exhibit which is some of the published
comments from the Horse Transport Reviews website. It is specifically denied that Defendant
KCPA created an account or posted on the Horse Transport Reviews Facebook page. Further,
Paragraph 36 of the Complaint contains allegations relating to parties other than these
Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the statements
contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply liability on
behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 6 of 25
37. Exhibit B referenced in paragraph 37 speaks for itself. As such, no further
response is required.
38. It is admitted that there have been several posts on the Horse Transport Reviews
Facebook page from reviewers who tell their stories regarding their interactions with the Plaintiff
and his equine transportation business. Except as herein admitted, denied.
39. Denied.
40. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis published comments under the user name
Tiffany Lewis. Except as herein admitted, denied.
41. Defendant Lewis specifically denies that any published comments were false,
misleading and/or deceptive, but that any published comments by Defendant Lewis were true. It
is specifically denied that Defendant KCPA published any comments or statements. The
allegations in Paragraph 41 and all subparagraphs as they relate to these Defendants are denied.
Paragraph 41 of the Complaint further contains statements by or relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint by a party other than these Defendants
may be interpreted to suggest or imply liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations
are denied.
42. It is admitted that on April 7, 2014, the Administrator of the Horse Transport
Reviews Facebook page published its posting rules that are copied and pasted in Paragraph 42 of
the Plaintiffs Complaint. Except as admitted herein, denied.
43. Denied.
44. Denied.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 7 of 25
Tiffany Lewis Facebook Page
45. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis created and is the administrator for her
personal Facebook page. Exhibit C referenced in paragraph 45 speaks for itself. Except as
admitted herein, denied.
46. It is admitted that there have been several posts on Defendant Lewis personal
Facebook page which relate to her interactions with the Plaintiff and his equine transportation
business. Except as herein admitted, denied.
47. Denied.
48. Denied.
49. Defendant Lewis denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 49 and all
subparagraphs.
50. Denied.
Maria Bogdanova Peifers Facebook Page
51. Paragraph 51 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
52. Paragraph 52 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
53. Paragraph 53 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 8 of 25
statements contained in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
54. Paragraph 54 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
55. Paragraph 55 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
56. Paragraph 56 and all subparagraphs of the Complaint contains statements relating
to a party other than these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To
the extent the statements contained in Paragraph 56 and all subparagraphs of the Complaint may
be interpreted to suggest or imply liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are
denied.
57. Denied.
Defendants Facebook Horse Transporter Reviews Page
58. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis created and is an Administrator for the Horse
Transporter Reviews Facebook page. Exhibit E referenced in paragraph 59 speaks for itself.
Except as herein admitted, denied.
59. Exhibit E referenced in paragraph 59 speaks for itself. As such, no further
response is required.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 9 of 25
60. It is admitted that there have been several posts on the Facebook Horse
Transporter Reviews Page which relate to her interactions with the Plaintiff and his equine
transportation business. Except as herein admitted, denied.
61. Denied.
62. Denied.
63. Paragraph 63 and all subparagraphs of the Complaint contains statements relating
to a party other than these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To
the extent the statements contained in Paragraph 63 and all subparagraphs of the Complaint may
be interpreted to suggest or imply liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are
denied.
64. Denied.
Defendants Facebook Fairytale Arabians Page
65. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis created and is an Administrator for the
Fairytale Arabians Facebook page. Exhibit F referenced in paragraph 65 speaks for itself.
Except as herein admitted, denied.
66. Exhibit F referenced in paragraph 59 speaks for itself. As such, no further
response is required.
67. It is admitted that there have been several posts on the Facebook Fairytale
Arabians Page which relate to her interactions with the Plaintiff and his equine transportation
business. Except as herein admitted, denied.
68. Denied.
69. Denied.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 10 of 25
70. Paragraph 63 and all subparagraphs of the Complaint are denied as to the
allegation that Defendant Lewis published false, misleading and deceptive statements or
advertisements about the Plaintiff. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis posted the story of her
horse, Mylla, that is contained in subparagraph (a). Except as herein admitted, denied.
71. Denied.
Yelp Publications
72. Paragraph 72 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
73. Paragraph 73 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 73 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
74. Paragraph 74 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
75. Paragraph 75 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 75 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 11 of 25
76. Paragraph 76 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
77. Paragraph 77 and all subparagraphs of the Complaint contains statements relating
to a party other than these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To
the extent the statements contained in Paragraph 77 of the Complaint may be interpreted to
suggest or imply liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
78. Paragraph 78 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 78 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
Facebook Myllas Story
79. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis posted Myllas Story on the Fairytale
Arabians Facebook page. Exhibit H referenced in paragraph 79 speaks for itself. Except as
herein admitted, denied.
80. Exhibit H referenced in paragraph 80 speaks for itself. As such, no further
response is required.
81. It is admitted that there have been several posts on the Facebook Myllas
Story Page which relate to Defendant Lewis interactions with the Plaintiff and his equine
transportation business. Except as herein admitted, denied.
82. Denied.
83. Denied.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 12 of 25
84. Paragraph 84 and all subparagraphs of the Complaint are denied as to the
allegation that Defendant Lewis published false, misleading and deceptive statements about the
Plaintiff. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis posted the comments about her horse, Mylla, and
the facts of her transportation with the Plaintiff that are contained in subparagraphs (a) and (b).
Except as herein admitted, denied.
85. Denied.
Marilyn Meeker Bernsteins Facebook Page
86. Paragraph 86 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 86 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
87. Paragraph 87 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 87 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
88. Paragraph 88 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 88 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
89. Paragraph 89 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 89 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 13 of 25
90. Paragraph 90 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 90 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
91. Paragraph 91 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 91 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
92. Paragraph 92 and all subparagraphs of the Complaint contains statements relating
to a party other than these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To
the extent the statements contained in Paragraph 92 and all subparagraphs of the Complaint may
be interpreted to suggest or imply liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are
denied.
93. Paragraph 93 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 93 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
Other Unknown False, Misleading and Deceptive Damaging Published Comments
94. Denied.
95. Denied.
96. Denied.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 14 of 25
97. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations
set forth in Paragraph 97 of the Complaint related to the Plaintiffs insurance company; thus, it is
denied. Except as herein admitted, denied.
98. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations
set forth in Paragraph 98 of the Complaint related to the Plaintiffs insurance company; thus, it is
denied.
Intentional Acts
99. Paragraph 99 and subparagraphs (a) through (f) of the Complaint contains
statements relating to a party other than these Defendants such that no response is required of
these Defendants. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis posted the comment contained within
subparagraph (g). To the extent the statements contained in Paragraph 99 and all subparagraphs
of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply liability on behalf of these Defendants,
those allegations are denied.
100. Paragraph 100 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent that the
allegations relate to these Defendants, they are denied.
101. Denied.
102. Denied.
103. Paragraph 103 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 103 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 15 of 25
104. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis communicated with Jeannie Haugen at
Traveling Horse Transport & Stables Directory after the Plaintiff transported Defendant Lewis
horse from California to Missouri during which time the horse suffered significant injuries while
in the Plaintiffs possession. Defendant Lewis had found the Plaintiff through Traveling Horse
Transport & Stables Directory and wanted Ms. Haugen to be aware of her experience with the
Plaintiff. Except as admitted herein, denied.
105. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations
set forth in Paragraph 105 of the Complaint related to whether Traveling Horse Transport &
Stables Directory or any other contractual parties of the Plaintiff read any comments about the
Plaintiff online; thus, it is denied. Defendant Lewis specifically denies that any published
comments were false, misleading and/or deceptive, but that any published comments by
Defendant Lewis were true. It is specifically denied that Defendant KCPA published any
comments or statements. Except as herein admitted, denied.
106. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations
set forth in Paragraph 106 of the Complaint related to whether Traveling Horse Transport &
Stables Directory read any comments about the Plaintiff online; thus, it is denied. Defendant
Lewis specifically denies that any published comments were false, misleading and/or deceptive,
but that any published comments by Defendant Lewis were true. It is specifically denied that
Defendant KCPA published any comments or statements. Except as herein admitted, denied.
107. Exhibit J referenced in paragraph 107 speaks for itself. As such, no further
response is required. Except as herein admitted, denied.
108. Denied.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 16 of 25
109. Paragraph 109 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than
these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the
statements contained in Paragraph 109 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply
liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.
Conspiracy
110. Denied.
111. Denied.
112. Denied.
113. Denied.
114. Denied.
First Claim for Relief
Tortuous Interference with Contract
115. These Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 114 as if
fully stated herein.
116. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 116 of the Complaint, and therefore the allegations are denied.
117. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
general allegations set forth in Paragraph 117 of the Complaint, and therefore the allegations are
denied.
118. Denied.
119. Denied.
120. Denied.
121. Denied.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 17 of 25
122. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to truth or falsity
of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 122 of the Complaint; thus, they are denied.
123. Denied.
124. Denied.
125. Denied.
126. Denied.
Second Claim for Relief
North Carolina Defamation Per Se
127. These Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 126 as if
fully stated herein.
128. Denied.
129. Denied.
130. Denied.
131. Denied.
132. Denied.
133. Denied.
134. Denied.
135. Paragraph 135 of the Plaintiffs Complaint does not contain any factual
allegations to which these Defendants can respond, but states a presumed legal conclusion. If
there are any allegations against these Defendants to which they respond, the allegations are
denied.
136. Denied.



Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 18 of 25
Third Claim for Relief
North Carolina Defamation Per Quod
137. These Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 136 as if
fully stated herein.
138. Denied.
139. Denied.
140. Denied.
141. Denied.
142. Denied.
143. Denied.
144. Denied.
145. Denied.
146. Denied.
Fourth Claim for Relief
Violation of North Carolina Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1 to 75-35
147. These Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 146 as if
fully stated herein.
148. Paragraph 148 of the Plaintiffs Complaint does not contain any factual
allegations to which these Defendants can respond, but states a legal conclusion. If there are any
allegations against these Defendants to which they respond, the allegations are denied.
149. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to truth or falsity
of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 149 of the Complaint; thus, they are denied.
150. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to truth or falsity
of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 150 of the Complaint; thus, they are denied.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 19 of 25
151. Denied.
152. Denied.
153. Denied.
154. Denied.
155. Denied.
156. Denied.
157. Paragraph 135 of the Plaintiffs Complaint does not contain any factual
allegations to which these Defendants can respond, but states a presumed legal conclusion. If
there are any allegations against these Defendants to which they respond, the allegations are
denied.
158. Denied.

THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages against these Defendants do not comply with
N.C.G.S. 1D-15, are frivolous and therefore fail to state a claim for relief and should be
dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, the
Plaintiff knows or should have known that such claims for punitive damages are frivolous and/or
malicious; and by reason thereof, these Defendants are entitled, pursuant to N.C.G.S. 1D-45, to
recover reasonable attorneys fees against the Plaintiff for asserting such claim.
FOURTH DEFENSE

These Defendants assert as a bar and affirmative defense to Plaintiffs claim for punitive
damages that such damages are unconstitutional and contravene the provisions of the Eighth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and of Article I, Section 23 of the
Constitution of North Carolina, each of which prohibits the imprecision excessive fines; that
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 20 of 25
an award of punitive damages would contravene the due process provisions of the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the law of the land provisions of Article
I, Section 19 of the Constitution of the United States. Further, an award of punitive damages
would contravene N.C.G.S. 4-1 in that punitive damages are an obsolete remnant of the
common law of the Eighteenth Century; and the assessment of punitive damages in addition to
compensatory damages against these Defendants is contrary to justice and reason and should be
prohibited by the Court. Further, these Defendants, demand that pursuant to N.C.G.S. Chapter 1
D that separate trials be held in the issues of compensatory damages and punitive damages.
FIFTH DEFENSE

These Defendants are informed, believe and so allege that the Plaintiff has failed to mitigate
and minimize his damages as required by law and that, instead of trying to keep the harmful
consequences of his damages to a minimum, Plaintiff has sought to exaggerate the extent of his
damages and to incur unreasonable and unnecessary expense. These Defendants plead the
foregoing in bar of any recovery by Plaintiff of damages which should have been avoided with
reasonable diligence and/or were incurred in violation of Plaintiffs duty to mitigate and minimize
damages.
SIXTH DEFENSE
These Defendants plead the affirmative defense of absolute and/or qualified privilege to
the allegations of Defamation Per Se and Defamation Per Quod.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
These Defendants plead the affirmative defense of the truth as an absolute defense to
Plaintiffs claims of Defamation Per Se and Defamation Per Quod.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 21 of 25
EIGHTH DEFENSE
These Defendants plead the affirmative defense of the opinion and fair comment
privilege as a defense to Plaintiffs claims of Defamation Per Se and Defamation Per Quod.
NINTH DEFENSE

To the extent that the rights of action set forth in the Complaint are based upon any
alleged conduct which took place prior to May 29, 2013, such rights did not accrue within one
year before the commencement of this action as required by law. The applicable statute of
limitations are pled as an absolute bar.
TENTH DEFENSE
Prior to the Plaintiff transporting Defendant Lewis horse from California to Missouri, the
Plaintiff represented and warranted that he was an authorized equine transportation carrier. The
Plaintiff knew or should have known that he was not authorized by the Department of
Transportation as he did not have an active Federal Motor Carrier Number at the time the Plaintiff
transported Defendant Lewis horse. The Plaintiffs misrepresentation bars him from recovering
from these Defendants in this action.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff seeks equitable relief in this action. Plaintiff has, however, acted inequitably and
with unclean hands. Plaintiffs unclean hands bar him from recovering from these Defendants in
this action.
TWELTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices do not comply with N.C.G.S.
75-16, are frivolous and/or malicious and therefore fail to state a claim for relief and should be
dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, the
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 22 of 25
Plaintiff knows or should have known that such claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices
are frivolous and/or malicious; and by reason thereof, these Defendants are entitled, pursuant to
N.C.G.S. 75-16.1(2), to recover reasonable attorneys fees against the Plaintiff for asserting
such claim.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

These Defendants plead the affirmative defense found in Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act (47 U.S. Code 230) which provides that no provider or user of
an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information
provided by another information content provider. With regard to any content, publications,
posts, or statements by individuals other than these Defendants on any of the websites referenced
in the Plaintiffs Complaint, these Defendants are not liable and Section 230 bars the Plaintiff
from recovering from these Defendants.
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

Further, these Defendants incorporate herein by reference all affirmative defenses pled by
any other party to this action to the full extent that any such affirmative defenses may be
applicable to these Defendants.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants, TIFFANY LEWIS and KANSAS CITY PREMIER
APARTMENTS, INC. having fully answered the Plaintiffs Complaint, respectfully pray the Court
as follows:
1. That the Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

2. That the costs of this action, including a reasonable attorney's fee be taxed against
the Plaintiff, including but not limited to, the statutory provision of attorneys fees provided in
N.C.G.S. 1D-45 and N.C.G.S. 75-16.1(2).
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 23 of 25
3. For a Trial by jury of all issues so triable.

4. That separate Trials be held with regard to the issues of compensatory damages and
punitive damages.
5. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

This the 16
th
day of September, 2014.


/S/ Jason L. Walters_________
Kent L. Hamrick
NC State Bar No: 10907
Jason L. Walters
NC State Bar No: 38575
Attorneys for Defendants Tiffany Lewis and
Kansas City Premier Apartments, Inc.

DAVIS & HAMRICK, LLP
635 West Fourth Street
PO Box 20039
Winston-Salem, NC 27120-0039
Telephone: 336 725-8385, ext 113 and 105
Facsimile: 336 723-8838
E-mail: klhamrick@davisandhamrick.com
E-mail: jwalters@davisandhamrick.com


Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 24 of 25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned does hereby certify that on September 16, 2014, I electronically filed on
behalf of the Defendants, Tiffany Lewis And Kansas City Premier Apartments, Inc., the
foregoing ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES with the Clerk of the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina using the CM/ECF system which will
send notification of such filing to all counsel of record, and by U.S. Mail to the following pro se
Defendants at the address indicated below:

Marilyn Meeker Bernstein
458 N. Oakhurst Drive #302
Beverly Hills, CA 90210


Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Jason L. Walters_________
Kent L. Hamrick
NC State Bar No: 10907
Jason L. Walters
NC State Bar No: 38575
Attorneys for Defendants Tiffany Lewis and
Kansas City Premier Apartments, Inc.

DAVIS & HAMRICK, LLP
635 West Fourth Street
PO Box 20039
Winston-Salem, NC 27120-0039
Telephone: 336 725-8385, ext 113 and 105
Facsimile: 336 723-8838
E-mail: klhamrick@davisandhamrick.com
E-mail: jwalters@davisandhamrick.com


Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 25 of 25