Advanced Legal Research and Writing

Spring 2021
Professor Glazer-Esh

SAMPLE
ANSWERS
**These samples are for guidance only, and are not necessarily
examples of “perfect” documents. In conjunction with samples found
in other sources, these samples offer a useful comparison for
analyzing drafting techniques. However, a sample form must always
be modified to comply with the applicable court rules, the Judge’s
(Professor’s) directions, the client’s needs, and other goals. The use
of these documents without thoughtful modifications may lead to
erroneous or unprofessional work. Utilized properly, however, these
samples can serve as additional learning tools and should be used as
directed by your Professor.
Advanced Legal Research & Writing
Professor Glazer-Esh
Sample Answer – York v. Jones case1

Key Facts:

You represent Samantha Jones, who has been sued by Charlotte York. Ms. York has alleged in
her complaint that Ms. Jones should be held strictly liable in tort for injuries Ms. York sustained
when she allegedly was attacked by a Pit Bull dog while on Ms. York’s sister’s driveway. Ms.
Jones’ driveway is connected to Ms. York’s sister’s driveway.

Ms. Jones tells you that the dog – whose name is Winston – that allegedly attacked Ms. York
belongs to her friend, Miranda Hobbs, and that Winston is not a Pit Bull. Winston was at Ms.
Jones’ house because she was dog-sitting for a few days. Ms. Jones indicated that, although
Winston did try to jump on an Uber Eats driver and that the driver began screaming when he did
so, Winston merely nipped at the Uber Eats driver’s pants and did not actually bite him. Ms.
Jones further indicated that she was not home when the alleged attack on Ms. York took place.
However, Ms. Jones’ Ring camera captured the incident and video footage shows that Ms. York
was having a FaceTime conversation on her cell phone and pacing back and forth between the
connecting driveways in the minutes leading up to the incident. Although Ms. York alleged in
her complaint that Ms. York was on her sister’s driveway at the time of the incident, Ms. Jones
tells you that Ms. York was actually on the part of the driveway that is on Ms. Jones’ property.

Assume the applicable hypothetical substantive law provides the following with respect to a dog
bite case:

1. A defendant who is not the owner of the dog cannot be held strictly liable in tort.

2. Under strict liability in tort, a defendant may assert the affirmative defense of trespass if a
plaintiff is not “lawfully on a defendant’s property.”

a. A person is “lawfully on a defendant’s property” when “the person is on the

property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of
this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when the
person is on the property upon invitation, expressed or implied, of the owner or
the owner’s agent.”

Consider how you will respond to each of the allegations in the complaint. Does your client have
any affirmative defenses available to her?

1
Problem and Sample York v. Jones Answer adapted from Nancy L. Schultz and Louis Sirico,
Legal Writing and Other Lawyering Skills (LexisNexis 4th ed. 2004) and Susan L. Brody, et al.,
Legal Drafting (Aspen Publishers 1994).
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 21-12356 – Civ – Jones/James

CHARLOTTE YORK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SAMANTHA JONES,

Defendant.
/

DEFENDANT SAMANTHA JONES’ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO

PLAINTIFF CHARLOTTE YORK’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Defendant, Samantha Jones (“Ms. Jones”), by and through undersigned counsel, files this

Answer and Affirmative Defense to Plaintiff Charlotte York’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint for

Damages (“Complaint”), as follows:

PARTIES

1. Ms. Jones lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth

of the allegations in paragraph 1.

2. Ms. Jones admits the allegations in paragraph 2.

JURISDICTION

3. Ms. Jones lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth

of the allegations in paragraph 3.

4. Ms. Jones lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth

of the allegations in paragraph 4.

5. Ms. Jones admits the allegations in paragraph 5.

1
 VENUE

6. Ms. Jones admits the allegations in paragraph 6.

FACTS

7. Ms. Jones denies the allegations in paragraph 7.

8. Ms. Jones denies the allegations in paragraph 8.

9. Ms. Jones lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth

of the allegations in paragraph 9.

10. Ms. Jones denies the allegations in paragraph 10.

COUNT I
STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT

11. Ms. Jones incorporates by reference her answers to paragraphs 1 through 10 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

12. Ms. Jones denies the allegations in paragraph 12.

13. Ms. Jones denies the allegations in paragraph 13.

14. Ms. Jones lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth

of the allegations in paragraph 14.

WHEREFORE, Ms. Jones requests that Plaintiff take nothing by the Complaint filed by

Plaintiff and that Ms. Jones be granted such other and further relief that the Court may deem

proper.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
TRESPASS

15. At the time of the injury alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff was not lawfully

on the premises where the alleged injury occurred and is, therefore, barred from recovery. Plaintiff

2
was neither performing a duty imposed by law or postal regulations, nor was she invited on the

property by Ms. Jones.

WHEREFORE, Ms. Jones requests that Plaintiff take nothing by the Complaint filed by

Plaintiff and that Ms. Jones be granted such other and further relief that the Court may deem

proper.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Ms. Jones demands a trial by jury on all claims properly triable by a jury.

Dated: May 22, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

Tom D. Barrister
Tom D. Barrister (Florida Bar Number 222222)
Attorney E-mail address: tbarrister@TDB.com
TDB Law Firm
567 Main Street
Miami, Florida 33128
Telephone: (305) 666-6666
Attorney for Defendant Samantha Jones

3
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA1

Case No. 06-000001 – Civ – Lenard/Klein

FRANK R. ZACK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JANE DOE and JOHN DOE,

Defendants.
_________________________________/

DEFENDANTS JANE DOE AND JOHN DOE’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF FRANK R. ZACK’S COMPLAINT

Defendants, Jane Doe and John Doe (“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned

counsel and pursuant to Rules 7, 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby jointly

answer the Complaint in this case as follows:

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

1. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 1, and therefore deny the same.

2. Admitted.

3. Admitted.

4. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 4 as phrased, but admit jurisdiction

is proper in the Southern District of Florida.

5. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 5, but admit venue is proper in the

Southern District of Florida.

1
This Sample Answer has been modified from its original version. The headings in this Sample
Answer mirror the headings used in the complaint to which this Sample Answer responds.
1
 Factual Allegations

6. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 6 because it does not specify when the alleged activities took place. Defendants

therefore deny the allegations in Paragraph 6.

7. Denied.

8. Defendants admit the parties entered into a Lending Agreement on or around

March 28, 2005 and state Plaintiff lent money at criminally usurious interest rates. Defendants

deny the remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8.

9. Defendants state the Funding Agreement is the best evidence of the terms contained

therein and deny any characterizations thereof.

10. Defendants state the Funding Agreement is the best evidence of the terms contained

therein and deny any characterizations thereof.

11. Denied.

12. Defendants state the Funding Agreement is the best evidence of the terms contained

therein and deny any characterizations thereof. Defendants further state the Agreement is

unenforceable because it seeks interest at criminally usurious rates and therefore, Defendants were

not obligated to “deliver the secured assets.”

13. Defendants state the Funding Agreement is the best evidence of the terms

contained therein and deny any characterizations thereof. Defendants further state the Agreement

is unenforceable because it seeks interest at criminally usurious rates and therefore, Defendants

were not obligated to “transfer the agreed upon shares.”

14. Denied.

2
 Count I - Injunction

15. Defendants adopt and re-allege the answers to Paragraphs 1 through 14 as though

fully set forth herein.

16. Denied.

17. Denied.

18. Denied.

19. Denied.

Count II – Injunction

20. Defendants adopt and re-allege the answers to Paragraphs 1 through 14 as though

fully set forth herein.

21. The best evidence of the parties’ obligations under the Lending Agreement is

contained therein and Defendants deny any characteristics thereof.

22. Defendants state the Agreement is unenforceable because it seeks interest at

criminally usurious rates and therefore, although Defendants were not obligated to “transfer said

shares.”

23. Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense

24. Plaintiff is barred from the relief he seeks in Counts I and II because he cannot

show that he lacks an adequate remedy at law, a prerequisite to injunctive relief, and another

Federal Court has already ruled as to this issue.

3
 Second Affirmative Defense

25. Plaintiff is barred from the relief he seeks in Count I because he has no such

entitlement under Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code and he has already released the only

collateral referenced with the Florida Secured Transactions registry.

Third Affirmative Defense

26. Plaintiff is barred from the relief he seeks in Counts I and II because the loan

agreement that he seeks to enforce is illegal and unenforceable and therefore any security

agreement securing this loan is also unenforceable.

WHEREFORE, Defendants request judgment be entered in their favor and for Plaintiff to

be denied any relief, and Defendants further request such other relief, as this Court finds just, fair

and equitable.

[The Dated field and Signature Block have been intentionally

omitted from this Sample Answer, but these items do need to be
included in an actual answer.]