IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO MICHAEL P. LOGRASSO, CASE NO. CV-12-798334 Plaintiff, JUDGE CASSANDRA COLLIER-WILLIAMS avs ; ) J ‘) d ) DEFENDANTS EMILIE DIFRANCO’S ROBERT FREY, et al., ) AND DAVID FURRY’S JOINT. d ) ) J J ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S Defendants, COMPLAINT (Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon) Defendants Emilie DiFranco and David Furry, by and through undersigned counsel, for their joint answer to the plaintif1"s complaint hereby state as follows: RI ICTION/VENU! 1 Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Plaintiff's complaint for want of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations. 2. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that, to the best of their knowledge, the plaintiff is currently employed as the Law Director of the City of South Euclid. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 of the plaintiff's complaint for want of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with this statement. 3. Ms. DiFranco and Mr, Furry deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 of the plaintiff's complaint for want of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations.4, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 of the plaintiff's complaint. ACTS 5. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry restate their answers to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 through Paragraph 4, inclusive, of the plaintiff's complaint, as if Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry had fully rewritten such answers herein. 6. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that Ms. DiFranco sent correspondence regarding the plaintiff to the Supreme Court of Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel on or about October 12, 2011. Pursuant to Rule 10 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, a true and accurate copy of the correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry specifically deny that Ms. DiFranco sent any correspondence to the Supreme Court of Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel on or about October 17, 2012. Ms. DiFranco further denies any allegations set forth in Paragraph 6 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements. 7. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that Ms. DiFranco’s correspondence regarding the plaintiff to the Supreme Court of Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel speaks for itself. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry specifically deny that any statement sent within such correspondence is false. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry further deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements. 8. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that Ms, DiFranco’s correspondence regarding the plaintiff to the Supreme Court of Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel speaks for itself. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry specifically deny that any statement sent within such correspondence isfalse. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry further deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements. 9. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that Ms. DiFranco’s correspondence regarding the plaintiff to the Supreme Court of Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel speaks for itself, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry specifically deny that any statement sent within such correspondence is false. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry further deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of the plaintifs complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements 10. Ms. DiFranco and Mr, Furry deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 of the plaintiff's complaint for want of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations I. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 of the plaintiff's complaint relate to another answering defendant, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms. DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required. To the extent an answer is required, Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry admit that Defendant Robert Frey attended a meeting of the City of South Euclid City Couneil that took place on or about October 22, 2012. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements. 12, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 of the plaintiff's complaint. 13. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of the plaintiff's complaint relate to another answering defendant, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms. DiFranco or Mr, Furry is required. To the extent an answer is required, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that Mr. Frey spoke publicly at the meeting of the City of South Euclid CityCouncil that took place on or about October 22, 2012. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations ate inconsistent with these statements. 14, Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 of the plaintif's complaint relate to another answering defendant, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms, DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required. To the extent an answer is requited, Ms, DiFranco and ‘Mr. Furry state that Mr. Frey’s remarks speak for themselves. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements. 15. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15 of the plaintiff's complaint relate to another answering defendant, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms. DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required. To the extent an answer is required, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that Mr. Frey's remarks speak for themselves. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 15 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements. 16. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that Mr. Frey's remarks and any documents that Mr. Frey referenced during his remarks speak for themselves. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry further state that Ms. DiFranco’s correspondence regarding the plaintiff to the Supreme Court of Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel speaks for itself. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 16 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements. 17. Ms, DiFranco and Mr, Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17 of the plaintis?’s complaint relate to another answering defendant, and as such, no answer on behalfof Ms. DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required, To the extent an answer is required, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that Mr. Frey’s remarks speak for themselves. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 17 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements. 18. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 of the plaintiff's complaint relate to another answering defendant, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms. DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required, To the extent an answer is required, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that Mr. Frey’s remarks speak for themselves. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 of the plaintiff's complaint for want of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements. 19. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that they were present at the October 22, 2012 ‘meeting of the City of South Euclid City Council. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry further state that they videotaped the meeting, including Mr. Frey’s remarks and the plaintiff's response to Mr. Frey's remarks. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 19 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements, 20. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 of the plaintiff's complaint. 21, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that they uploaded the video of the October 22, 2012 meeting of the City of South Euclid City Council to the South Euclid Oversight blog, Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry further state that they posted the video of the October 22, 2012 meeting of the City of South Euclid City Council to the website www.youtube, Ms. DiFranco andMr. Furry deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 21 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements, 22. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that they attended a meeting of the City of South Euclid City Council that took place on or about November 12, 2012. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry further state that Mr. Frey also attended this meeting. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 22 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements. 23. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 23 of the plaintiff's complaint relate to another answering defendant, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms. DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required. To the extent an answer is required, Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the remarks of Mr. Frey speak for themselves. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 23 of the plaintiff’s complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements, 24. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 24 of the plaintiff's complaint relate to another answering defendant, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms. DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required. To the extent an answer is required, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the remarks of Mr. Frey speak for themselves. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 24 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements. 25, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 25 of the plaintiff's complaint relate to another answering defendant, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms. DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required. To the extent an answer is required, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the remarks of Mr. Frey speak for themselves, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furrydeny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 25 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements. 26. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 26 of the plaintiff’s complaint relate to another answering defendant, and as such, no answer on behalf ‘of Ms. DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required, To the extent an answer is required, Ms, DiFranco and ‘Mr. Furry state that the remarks of Mr. Frey speak for themselves. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 26 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements. 27. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 27 of the plaintiff's complaint relate to another answering defendant, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms. DiFranco or Mr, Furry is required. To the extent an answer is required, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state the remarks of Mr. Frey and any documents that Mr. Frey referenced during his remarks speak for themselves. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny any allegations set forth in Paragraph 27 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements, 28. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that they videotaped the November 12, 2012 meeting of the City of South Euclid City Council, including Mr. Frey's remarks. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry further state that the video depicts the plaintiff's reactions during Mr. Frey’s remarks. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 28 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements. 29. Ms, DiFranco and Mr, Furry state that they uploaded the video of the November 12, 2012 meeting of the City of South Euclid City Council to the South Euclid Oversight blog. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry further state that they posted the video of the October 22, 2012meeting of the City of South Euclid City Council to the website www.youtube.com. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny an allegations set forth in Paragraph 29 of the plaintiff's complaint, to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with these statements OUNT I: DEFAMATION 30. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry restate their answers to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 through Paragraph 29, inclusive, of the plaintiff's complaint, as if Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry had fully rewritten such answers herein. 31. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 31 of the plaintiff's complaint constitute legal conclusions, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms. DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required, To the extent an answer is required, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 31 of the plaintiff's complaint. 32. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 32 of the plaintiff's complaint 33. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations sct forth in Paragraph 33 of the plaintiff's complaint constitute legal conclusions, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms. DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required. To the extent an answer is required, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 33 of the plaintif?"s complaint. 34. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny the allegations sct forth in Paragraph 34 of the plaintiff's complaint T 201 35. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry restate their answers to the allegations set forth in Paragraph | through Paragraph 34, inclusive, of the plaintiff's complaint, as if Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry had fully rewritten such answers herein,36. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 36 of the plaintiff's complaint constitute legal conclusions, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms. DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required. To the extent an answer is required, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 36 of the plaintiff's complaint. 37. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 37 of the plaintiff's complaint constitute fegal conclusions, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms. DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required, To the extent an answer is required, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 37 of the plaintiff's complaint. IVE DAMAG) 38. Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry restate their answers to the allegations set forth in Paragraph | through Paragraph 37, inclusive, of the plaintiff's complaint, as if Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry had fully rewritten such answers herein. 39. Ms. DiFranco and Mr, Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 39 of the plaintiff's complaint constitute legal conclusions, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms. DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required. To the extent an answer is required, Ms, DiFranco and Mr, Furry deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 39 of the plaintiff's complaint. 40. Ms. DiFranco and Mr, Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 40 of the plaintiff's complaint constitute legal conclusions, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms. DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required, To the extent an answer is required, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 40 of the plaintiff's complaint. 41, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry state that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 41 of the plaintiff's complaint constitute legal conclusions, and as such, no answer on behalf of Ms.DiFranco or Mr. Furry is required. To the extent an answer is required, Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 41 of the plaintiff's complaint, FURTHER AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES 1. The plaintiff has failed to state a legally sufficient claim upon which this Court may grant relief against Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry. 2, The applicable statute of limitations bars or otherwise limits the plaintiff from recovery. 3. The rights guaranteed to Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry under the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution bar or otherwise limit the plaintiff from recovery, 4. Federal law preempts or precludes the plaintiff's state law claims for relief. 5. An absolute and/or qualified privilege protects the actions of Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry. 6. The allegedly defamatory statements of Ms. DiFranco and Mr, Furry are constitutionally protected opinions. 7. The truth and/or substantial truth of the allegedly defamatory statements of Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry bars or otherwise limits the plaintiff from recovery, 8 Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Fury acted without malice in making the allegedly defamatory statements. 9. The doctrines of waiver, estoppels, fraud, laches, in pari delicto, ratification, avoidable consequences and/or unclean hands bar or otherwise limit the plaintiff from recovery 10. The negligence or other wrongful conduct of the plaintiff, which negligence or other wrongful conduct otherwise contributed to the plaintif?’s own injuries and damages, bars or otherwise limits the plaintiff from recovery.11, The negligence or other wrongful conduct of another, which negligence or other wrongful conduct caused or otherwise contributed to the plaintiff's injuries and damages, bars or otherwise limits the plaintiff from recovery. 12, An imtervening and/or superseding cause was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries and damages, which intervening and/or superseding cause relieves Ms. DiFranco and/or Mr. Furry from any liability. 13. A percentage of negligence or other culpable conduct is attributable to individuals or entities from whom the plaintiff may or may not have sought recovery. 14. The plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages were caused, in whole or in part, by the acts or omissions of third parties over which Ms. DiFranco and/or Mr. Furry had no control or duty to control 15, The plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, which failure bars or otherwise limits the plaintiff from recovery. 16. The plaintiff's request for duplicative recovery for the same alleged wrongful conduct is prohibited by the laws of the State of Ohio. 17, The plaintiff's complaint violates Rule 11 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, the statutory prohibition against frivolous conduct set forth in Ohio Rev. Code § 2323.51, and/or the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. 18. Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defense which become known throughout the course of discovery. WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendants Emilie DiFranco and David Furry pray that the Court dismiss the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, pray further that the Court enter judgment in favor of Ms, DiFranco and Mr. Furry, and against the plaintiff, on each of theplaintiff's claims for relief, pray further that the Court allow Ms. DiFranco and Mr. Furry to go hence and recover their costs incurred herein, including their expenses and reasonable attorney's fees, and pray further still for all other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS J. CABRAL (0033041) MARKUS E. APELIS (0083884) GALLAGHER SHARP Bulkley Building - Sixth Floor 1501 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Phone: (216) 241-5310 Fax: (216) 241-1608 Email: teabral@gallaghersharp.com napelis@gallaghersharp.com CHRISTOPHER P. FINNEY (0038998) FINNEY, STAGNARO, SABA & PATTERSON Co., LPA 7373 Beechmont Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 445230 Phone: (513) 533-2980 Fax: (513) 533-2990 Email: cfinney@fssp-law.com CURT C. HARTMAN (0064242) Law Firm OF CURT C. HARTMAN 3749 Fox Point Court Amelia, Ohio 45102 Phone: (513) 752-2878 Email: hartmanlawfirm@ fuse.net Attorneys for the Defendants tilie DiFranco and David Furry‘The Grievance Process 4 grievance sent to the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio or to a local bar association’s certified grievance committee will be reviewed to determine whether the grievance alleges a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, and/or Code of Judicial Conduct. If there is evidence that supports the allegation of violation, the grievance will be investigated. Following the investigation, if substantial, credible evidence is found that a violation has occurred, a formal complaint may be filed with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. A three-member panel ofthe Board will review the complaint and determine whether probable cause exists to certify it. Ifthe complaint is certified by the Board, a hearing may be held before a different three-member panel of the Board. The panel considers the evidence and ‘makes a recommendation to the full Board of Commissioners. The full Board then makes a recommendation to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Court has final say on whether to discipline an attomey or judge and what sanction should be administered. A srievance is confidential until the Board certifies it asa formal complaint. A grievance or complaint can be dismissed at any point in the process. ‘on vourname:_DiFRavco Emig My. 490-277-655 7 Last First MI Phone No. PERMANENT . ™ ADDRESS: 3367 td: QQG th St ea Epieview Park Cogn knee Otte 2é iy ‘County State Zip Code WHO ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT? | Please circle) GATORNEY 3 JUDGE namE:__4OGRAS 30 DV CHDEL PL. dhe- 40 F- S Toy ‘Last First MI Phone No. appress:_ Go 2 YT ENAR DEN DRIVE O12. YA Ly 3 State Zip Code Have you filed this grievance with any other agency or bar association? Yes X_ No tyes, provide name of that agency and date of filing:Yes N/A No IF YES, PLEASE ATTACH A COPY Did you receivea response’ Did this attorney represent you’ Yes_X_No Type of case: date the attorney was hired: _ /A, Does s/he still represent you?: _Yes.__/U/A_ No Did you pay the attorney a fee/retainer? _¥es_ _/A No Afyes, how much?:_V / Did you sign a written fee agreemenvcontract?_Yes_N/A No IF YES, PLEASE ATTACH ACOPY Has the attorney sued you for fees? Yes w/a No Have you brought civil or criminal court action against this attorney or judge? Yes _N/A_No tyes, provide name of court and case number JA Result of court action: ala Name and contact information for attorney currently representing you, if different than attorney about whom you are complaining: in Does this grievance involve a case that is still pending before a court? Yes _N/A No Ifyes, provide name of court and case number: NIA ‘What action or resolution are you seeking from this office?__PLEASE DETER MINE if OERASSH SHou.d CONTINue RACT) Le THE STATE oF oMo WITNESSES: List the name, address, and daytime telephone number of persons who can provide information, IF NECESSARY, ‘a support of your grievance. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FT Cl Briefly explain the facts of your grievance in chronological order, including dates and a description of the conduct committed by this legal professional. Attach COPIES (DO NOT SEND ORIGINALS) of any correspondence and documents that support your grievance. _X Pegase See ATTAcHEDd bist, * eo SAALE CERT o> SCHi2. = Of PRere Sslodad compuaer 2 3-4 kato DiRSeToR: CTY OF SoyTh KycciD ofp‘The Rules of the Supreme Court of Ohio reguire that investigations be confidential, Please keep confidential the fact that fi [the paty you are Sling your grievance against will receive notice of your grievance and may ye allegations. to Jia |ooy DateState of Ohio Department of Taxation - Judgment Liens for non payment of taxes Failure to file necessary corporate franchise tax reports or pay any such taxes within the time prescribed by law. Multiple instances of misrepresentation. Possible violation of Ohio Revised Code 2913.42 brought to the attention of law director Michael Lograsso - evidence provided - no action taken. Law director not prepared ~ incorrect information disseminated to city council and residents regarding pending referendum. Request for intervention of law director regarding matter of defamation and antagonistic behavior from city employees was ignored. Wrong interpretation of city code by law director begins chain of events to approve development in violation of city code of ordinances. Law director stated in writing his knowledge of property value with easement attached and then eliminates easement without using proper procedures outlined in Ohio Revised Code. Possible violations of Rule 8. c) engage in conduct involving di misrepresentation; d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; Misconduct jonesty, fraud, deceit, or Comment [2] Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. [5] Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of lawyers.Michael P. Lograsso 6245 Kenarden Drive Highland Heights, Ohio 44143 216-409-8704 Attorney Registration Number: 0058557 Director of Law City of South Euclid 1349 South Green Rad. South Euclid, Ohio 44121 216-381-0400JURY DEMAND Defendants Emilie DiFranco and David Furry, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 38 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable before the maximum number of jurors permitted by law THOMAS J. CABRAL (0033041) MARKUS E. APELIS (0083884) Attorneys for the Defendants Emilie DiFranco and David FuA true copy of the foregoing Defendants Emilie DiFranco’s and David Furry’s Joint Answer to Plaintiff's Compl was served by United States mail, postage prepaid, on this, the 5 day of March, 2013, upon the following: James M. Pasch, Esq. Joseph R. Medici, Esq. MILANO PASCH MEDIC! 2639 Wooster Road Rocky River, Ohio 44116 Attorneys for the Plaintiff Robert J. Foulds, Esq. DYSON, SCHMIDLIN & FOULDS Co., LPA 5843 Mayfield Road Cleveland, Ohio 44124 Attorney for the Defendant Robert Frey Collin P. Moeller, E sq. ANKUDA, STADLER, MOELLER & TYMINSKI, LLC. 815 East Superior Avenue, Suite 1615 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Attorney far the Defendant Robert Frey THOMAS J. CABRAL (0033041) MARKUS E. APELIS (0083884) Attorneys for the Defendants Emilie DiFranco and David Furry