IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 11-2052 CA 21 LTA LOGISTICS, INC A Florida corporation, and LESTER TRIMINO ANNETTE TRIMINO LESTER TRIMINO, SR.
Plaintiff's and Defendants in the counterclaim,

Enrique Varona
Defendant and Plaintiff in the counterclaim,

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COMES NOW, The Defendant and Plaintiff in the counterclaim, Enrique Varona, proceeding pro-se, (from hereon, "Varona") a human person and not a corporate fiction or statutory person, moves this Court for an Order pursuant to Rule 1.140 (f), Fla. R. Civ. P., striking

Plaintiff's affirmative defenses, and as grounds thereof would respectfully show the court as follows: 1. On the 22nd of September, 2011 Varona filed a five count amended counterclaim

against Plaintiff's (defendant's in the counterclaim). 2. On the 6th of October, 2011 Plaintiff's (defendant in the counterclaim) Motion to Dismiss the five count amended counterclaim was denied but, for count V of Emotional Distress.

3. On the 17th of October, 2011 Plaintiff's (defendants in the counterclaim) filed their answer of affirmative defenses to Varona's amended counterclaim. 4. Each and every one of the Plaintiff's (defendant in the counterclaim) Affirmative Defenses contained in paragraph no. 1 through 8 are legally insufficient and inmaterial, and even if all such alleged facts were true, would still fail to negate Varona's cause of action. In order to be legally sufficient an affirmative defense must necessarily negate or limit the alleged cause of action. See Tarwick, sll-4 (2005), relying upon, Florida East Coast Railway Co. v Peters, 73 So. 151 (Fla 1916); St. Paul Mercury Ins, Co. v Coucher, 837 So. 2d. 483 (Fla 5th DCA 2002). Affirmative Defenses must be certain and distinctly allege each essential element of that defense. Chris Craft Industries, Inc. v Van Vaikenberg, 267 So.2d 642, 645, (Fla. 1972). As the Supreme Court explained, Rule 1. 140, Fla. R. Civ. P., "provides that a motion to strike may be used to seek an order from the court striking any pleading, (1) *** any insufficient defenses or (2) "...any redundant, in-material, or

incompetent, or scandalous matter." Id. At 645. 5. Plaintiff's (defendants in the counterclaim) affirmative defenses no. (1) of breach of contract and no. (2) of "unclean hands" to a contract, "not in evidence", are

irrelevant and in-material since there is no contract. And there is no remedy related to this claim in the forms of equitable relief- specific performance, rescission or reformation. Affirmative defenses no. (1) & no. (2) should be stricken since none of these asserted affirmative defenses provides a legal defense to the allegations in Varona's amended counterclaim complaint; rather they simply contend (incorrectly) that the law does not provide for the remedy sought in the complaint. However not one of them correctly cites a binding legal precedent or statute which would prohibit

this Court from granting a judgment to Varona on the theories alleged in the complaint. 6. Plaintiffs (defendants in the counterclaim) affirmative defense no. (3) stating that

Varona is barred from any recovery by the Economic Loss Rule is irrelevant and inapplicable since the validity of a fraud claim rests on the Plaintiffs (defendants in the counterclaim) conduct and not on the types of damages and not on the

existence of an alleged underlying contract, the measure of damages for fraud is the benefit of the bargain, based on the defrauded party's expectations. In addition the Florida Supreme Court recently cogently limited the Economic Loss Rule, the Court held that "the Economic Loss Rule simply does not apply to any situation were there is no privity between the litigants." See, indemnity Ins Co, v American Aviation, Inc., 891 So. 2 d 532 (Fla. 2004). Therefore the Economic Loss Rule affirmative defense is inapplicable and irrelevant to this cause of action and should be stricken. 7. Plaintiffs (defendants in the counterclaim) affirmative defense no. (4) and no. (5) stating that Varona has improperly commingled several causes of action and has improperly re-alleged the same causes of action and should be barred from any recovery is factually incorrect since, see, "If Plaintiff (Varona) pleads several

contracts, and a breach or interference of each, he states several causes of action; but if he pleads but a single contract and a breach or interference of it in one or more particulars, he states but a single cause of action, and is immaterial how the complaint is paragraphed" citing Nelson v Henrichsen, supra...also see; "where

there are distinct and separate contracts, each gives rise to a separate cause of action." In 1 C. J. pp 1111, 1112 it is said. Plaintiff has also failed to file a demurrer

as required by law see, "A demurrer is the proper remedy where causes of action are

improperly united in a complaint." Bandmann v Davis 23 Mont, 382, 59 Pac 856. And has filed this reply to the complaint, therefore affirmative defenses no. (4) and no. (5) have no relevance to the causes of action on this complaint and should be stricken as well. 8. Plaintiff (defendants in the counterclaim) affirmative defenses contained in meet the same fate and these affirmative

paragraphs no. (6), no. (7), no. (8),

defenses should be stricken as immaterial to this cause of action. A "matter should be stricken as redundant or immaterial only if it is wholly irrelevant and can have no bearing on the equities and no influence at all on the decision." Gossett v Ullendorff, 114 Fla. 159, 154 So. 177 (1934). Pentecostal Holiness Church v Mauney, 270 So.2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Hence, none of the Plaintiff's affirmative defenses present a bona fide legal or factual issue that would serve to preclude a summary judgment if Varona brought forth evidence supporting its allegations. WHEREFORE, Enrique Varona, respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order striking Plaintiff's affirmative defenses, and grant such other relief as this court deems just and proper. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a correct copy of the foregoing was mailed on October 26, 2011, to Scott Egleston P.A. 12000 Biscayne Blvd suite 220, Miami, Florida 33181.

f\

tespe\ctfully submitted,

nriqu (.4823 3.W. 125 ct liamil PI 33186

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 11 20527 CA 21

LTA LOGISTICS, INC. A Florida corporation, and LESTER TRIMINO, ANNETTE TRIMINO, LESTER TRIMINO SR.,
Plaintiff's and Defendant's in the counterclaim,

V.

Enrique Varona,

f 5
Defendant and Plaintiff in the counterclaim,

NOTICE OF HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the undersigned will call up for hearing before the HONORABLE WILLIAM THOMAS one of the judges in the above styled Court at the Miami Dade County Court House at 73 West Flagler Street Miami Florida 33125 on Thursday December 1st, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. in Courtroom #8-2 or as soon thereafter as Defendant, Enrique Varona may be heard on:

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION N CASE NO:

vs.

ORDER GRANTING/DENYING PLAINTIFF'S/DEFENDANT'S Defendant(s),

THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on on Plaintiff's/Defendant's Motion

and the Court having heard arguments of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereupon ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion be, and the same is hereby

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida this > .. ...

^
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
117.01-554 3/11

Copy
DEC 15 2011
William L.Thomas Circuit Court Judge

__