Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA Case Number: 2009-SC-006200-O

LAHTI, KIMBERLY 123 Orange Trail Orlando, FL, 32810 (407) 457 -2343 Plaintiff(s) VS PRATHER, CHRIS & PADILLA, LORUHAMA 547 Orange Trail Orlando, FL, 32810 (407) 457 - 8822 Defendant(s) STATEMENT OF CLAIM The above named Plaintiff(s) sue(s) the above named Defendant(s) for: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 5. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 6. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 7. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 8. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 9. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 10. Without knowledge, therefore denied. WHEREFORE, the Defendants demand this court dismiss with prejudice the above paragraphs 4-10. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES As and for their affirmative defenses, the Defendants assert and state as follows:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part, since she had actual knowledge of the risk involved in allowing her dogs to roam freely on an electronic collar. Without supervision the plaintiff is at a negligent fault for leaving her dogs unattended and at risk of being hurt by a person or an animal. The electronic collar isnt a sufficient for of protection for her dogs and left them in a very vulnerable position to were they would be helpless being trapped on her property without her supervision. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Plaintiff claims are barred in whole or in part, due to her voluntarily understanding of the possible dangers of having her dogs outside and was aware of the defendants dogs and possible outcomes. By allowing her animals to be outside unattended she negligently holds some fault in this incident and should be held responsible for having understood the potential dangers. By her doing so she had rendered her dogs helpless to any form of an attack by any type of other animals and it just so happened to be that in this incident the other animals were those of her neighbor of which she was completely conscious of the prior history of the neighborhood dogs. WHEREFORE, Defendant request the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice, enter an Order declaring the Plaintiffs above claims void and unenforceable and Defendants attorney fees and costs and all such other relief as Defendants may prove themselves entitled. I HEREBY CERITFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. mail to the Clerk of the Orange Court in Orlando, FL, and to KIMBERLY LAHTI, 123 Orange Trail, Orlando, FL, 32810 this 8th day of April, 2013.

Respectfully submitted by, Angel Perez Attorney(s) Kimberly Lahti Plaintiff(s)

Вам также может понравиться