52324329 v1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

_____________________________________
ZBIGNIEW MATYSIAK, ) 3:10-cv-01841(CSH)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
THE SPECTRUM SERVICES COMPANY, )
INC. and MATTHEW M. SHAMAS, )
)
) February 20, 2014
Defendants. )
_____________________________________)
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS


Pursuant to Rules 8 and 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
defendants in the above-captioned matter, The Spectrum Services Company, Inc.
(Spectrum) and Matthew M. Shamas, file the following Answer, Affirmative Defenses
and Counterclaims to the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint:
1. Deny, except to admit that this is an action brought by the plaintiff
alleging the same.
2. Deny, except to admit that these are the plaintiffs allegations.
3. Deny, except to admit that the plaintiff is seeking the same.
4. Paragraph Four of the Complaint contains no factual allegations against
the defendants and therefore no answer is required.
5. Paragraph Five of the Complaint contains no factual allegations against
the defendants and therefore no answer is required.
Case 3:10-cv-01841-CSH Document 63 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 8


52324329 v1
2
6. Upon information and belief the defendants admit that the plaintiff is a
resident of Connecticut. The defendants deny that the plaintiff was their employee.
7. Deny.
8. Admit.
9. Admit.
10. Deny, except to admit that Mr. Shamas decided what amounts to pay the
plaintiff in his capacity as an independent contractor.
11. Admit, except to deny that the plaintiff was an employee of the
defendants.
12. Deny, except to admit that Zbigniew Matysiak worked as an independent
painting contractor between approximately those dates.
13. Lack sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief.
14. Lack sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief.
15. Lack sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief.
16. Deny.
17. Lack sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief.
18. Deny.
19. Deny.
20. Deny.
21. Deny.
22. Deny.
23. Deny.
24. Deny.
Case 3:10-cv-01841-CSH Document 63 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 8


52324329 v1
3
25. Deny.
26. Admit, except to deny that the plaintiff was entitled to overtime pay.
27. Deny.
28. Deny.
29. Paragraph Twenty-nine of the Complaint contains no factual allegations
against the defendants and therefore no answer is required.
30. Paragraph Thirty of the Complaint contains no factual allegations against
the defendants and therefore no answer is required.
31. Paragraph Thirty-one of the Complaint contains no factual allegations
against the defendants and therefore no answer is required.
32. Paragraph Thirty-two of the Complaint contains no factual allegations
against the defendants and therefore no answer is required.
33. Paragraph Thirty-three of the Complaint contains no factual allegations
against the defendants and therefore no answer is required
34. Paragraph Thirty-four of the Complaint contains no factual allegations
against the defendants and therefore no answer is required
35. Deny.
36. Deny.
37. Deny.
38. Lack sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief.
39. Deny.
40. Lack sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief.
41. Deny.
Case 3:10-cv-01841-CSH Document 63 Filed 02/20/14 Page 3 of 8


52324329 v1
4
42. Lack sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief.
43. Deny.
44. Deny.
45. Deny.
46. Deny.
47. Deny.
48. Deny.
49. Deny.
50. Deny, except to admit that the plaintiff is alleging the same.
51. Deny.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ACCORD AND SATISFACTION
1. Following the termination of their business relationship at approximately
the end of 2009, the plaintiff and Spectrum had a dispute regarding additional
compensation the plaintiff claimed was due to him from Spectrum.
2. Spectrum offered to compromise the disputed claim by paying the plaintiff
an additional $20,000.00 in five equal installments.
3. The plaintiff accepted Spectrums offer in full and final settlement of his
disputed claims.
4. Spectrum made five payments of $4,000.00 to the plaintiff, on March 31,
2010, April 30, 2010, J une 3, 2010, J une 30, 2010 and J uly 30, 2010.
5. The plaintiff accepted each payment from Spectrum and signed a written
acknowledgement that he received each payment.
Case 3:10-cv-01841-CSH Document 63 Filed 02/20/14 Page 4 of 8


52324329 v1
5
6. The additional $20,000.00 Spectrum paid to the plaintiff constitutes an
accord and satisfaction of all disputed claims between the parties, including the amounts
the plaintiff claims are due to him in this lawsuit.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ESTOPPEL
1-5. Spectrum incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
Paragraphs 1 through 5 of the First Affirmative Defense as if fully set forth herein.
6. The plaintiff agreed to accept an additional $20,000.00 from Spectrum in
full and final settlement of his disputed claims.
7. Spectrum paid the plaintiff an additional $20,000.00 in reasonable reliance
on the plaintiffs agreement to accept this sum in full and final settlement of his disputed
claims.
8. Having agreed to compromise his disputed claims, and further, having
accepted the $20,000.00 payment from Spectrum, equity demands that the plaintiff be
estopped from denying his agreement and attempting to recover again by litigating his
claims here.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
1. Some or all of the plaintiffs claims are barred by the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. and/or Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-596, which provide that the
look-back period for wage claims is limited to two years.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.


Case 3:10-cv-01841-CSH Document 63 Filed 02/20/14 Page 5 of 8


52324329 v1
6
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM BREACH OF CONTRACT
1. Following the termination of their business relationship at approximately
the end of 2009, the plaintiff and Spectrum had a dispute regarding additional
compensation the plaintiff claimed was due to him from Spectrum.
2. Spectrum offered to compromise the disputed claim by paying the plaintiff
an additional $20,000.00 in five equal installments.
3. The plaintiff accepted Spectrums offer in full and final settlement of his
disputed claims.
4. The foregoing constitutes a valid and binding oral contract between the
parties.
5. Spectrum made five payments of $4,000.00 to the plaintiff, on March 31,
2010, April 30, 2010, J une 3, 2010, J une 30, 2010 and J uly 30, 2010.
6. By bringing this lawsuit, the plaintiff has breached his contract with
Spectrum that he would accept $20,000.00 in full and final settlement of his claims.
7. Spectrum has been damaged by the plaintiffs breach.

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT
OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

1. The plaintiff was fully aware at the time that he entered into the oral
contract with Spectrum that he was not otherwise entitled to the additional $20,000.00
that Spectrum paid to him.
2. The plaintiff was also fully aware that Spectrum had agreed to pay the
plaintiff the additional $20,000.00 in full and final settlement of his disputed claims.
Case 3:10-cv-01841-CSH Document 63 Filed 02/20/14 Page 6 of 8


52324329 v1
7
3. The plaintiff never intended to settle his disputed claims for $20,000.00
but he nevertheless accepted the $20,000.00 payment from Spectrum.
4. Once Spectrum had paid the plaintiff the $20,000.00 as agreed, the
plaintiff contacting Spectrum seeking more money. When Spectrum indicated that the
parties had already resolved their disputed claims with the payment of the $20,000.00, the
plaintiff filed this lawsuit.
5. The plaintiffs actions as set forth above constitute a breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
WHEREFORE, Spectrum respectfully requests the Court to enter the following
relief:
1. Damages in the amount of $20,000.00;
2. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and
2. Such other relief as the Court may determine in law or equity applies.

Respectfully submitted by,

THE DEFENDANTS,
SPECTRUM SERVICES CO., INC. and
MATTHEW M. SHAMAS

/s/ Lisa A. Zaccardelli
Lisa A. Zaccardelli (ct07983)
Nick R. Valenta (ct29407)
Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP
20 Church Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
Telephone (860) 331-2764
Facsimile (860) 278-3802
E-mail: lzaccardelli@hinckleyallen.com
nvalenta@hinckleyallen.com
-Its Attorneys-


Case 3:10-cv-01841-CSH Document 63 Filed 02/20/14 Page 7 of 8


52324329 v1
8

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that on February 20, 2014, a copy of the foregoing Answer,
Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims was filed electronically and served by mail on
anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to
all parties by operation of the Courts electronic filing system or by mail to anyone
unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.. Parties
may access this filing through the Courts CM/ECF system.




/s/ Lisa A. Zaccardelli_____
Lisa A. Zaccardelli








Case 3:10-cv-01841-CSH Document 63 Filed 02/20/14 Page 8 of 8