Parish Civil File 2

Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00156-WAG Document #: 8 Filed: 05/10/2017 Page 1 of 12
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
YVETTE MASON-SHERMAN INDIVIDUALLY,

AND ON BEHALF OF THE HEIRS AND
WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF
CHARLES MCDONALD, JR., DECEASED and
THE ESTATE OF CHARLES MCDONALD, JR.,
DECEASED PLAINTIFFS
V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2017-156
WAYNE PARISH, JIMMY RATLIFF, AND PERFORMANCE

OIL EQUIPMENT, INC. DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANT, WAYNE PARISHS,

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Defendant Wayne Parish by and through its undersigned counsel, and
responds to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint as follows:
FIRST DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim or cause of action upon which relief can be granted
against this Defendant.
SECOND DEFENSE
This Defendant incorporates each and every defense available to it as set forth in Rule
12(b)(1)(7) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure (M.R.C.P.) pursuant to which this
Defendant demands that the action filed herein against it be dismissed with prejudice.
THIRD DEFENSE
This Defendant generally denies all of the averments contained in the Complaint, and
each paragraph and subparagraph thereof, except such designated averments, paragraphs or
subparagraphs, as are expressly set forth to the contrary more fully herein below pursuant to Rule
8(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.

FOURTH DEFENSE
Should this Defendant be held liable to the Plaintiff, this Defendant is entitled to
contribution and apportionment of liability pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. '85-5-7. It would be
unconstitutional to hold this Defendant responsible for the criminal acts in question.
FIFTH DEFENSE
Defendant affirmatively pleads that some or all of the losses allegedly suffered by the
Plaintiff, and which are the subject of Plaintiffs Complaint, were cause entirely by the actions of
the Decedent, and therefore, the Plaintiff is not legally entitled to recover damages from this
Defendant
SIXTH DEFENSE
Defendant affirmatively pleads self-defense.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
Defendant affirmatively pleads Miss. Code. Ann. 97-3-15(3), also known as the Castle
Doctrine.
EIGHT DEFENSE
Defendant asserts that the Decedent was a trespasser and he did nothing willfully or
wantonly to injure the Decedent.
NINTH DEFENSE
Defendant asserts that the subject premises was reasonably safe at the time of the subject
incident
TENTH DEFENSE
Defendant asserts that the sole proximate cause of the Decedents injuries and damages
was the criminal conduct of the Decedent.
2
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
The imposition of exemplary or punitive damages in this case would deprive this
Defendant of property without due process of law and would deny to this Defendant the equal
protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and in violation of Article 3, Section 14 and Article 3, Section 24 of the
Constitution of the State of Mississippi. Therefore, these claims should be dismissed.
TWELFTH DEFENSE
The imposition of exemplary or punitive damages in this matter would constitute
imposition of an excessive fine in violation of Amendment VIII of the United States
Constitution, prohibiting excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishments and Article 3, Section
28 of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, prohibiting excessive fines. Therefore, these
claims should be dismissed.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
The imposition of exemplary or punitive damages in this matter violate the provisions of
the Contract Clause of Article I, Section X, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution,
prohibiting any law which impairs the obligation of contracts and of Article 3, Section 16 of the
Constitution of the State of Mississippi, prohibiting laws which impair the obligation of
contracts. Therefore, these claims should be dismissed.
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
This Defendant affirmatively pleads that he is not responsible for any injuries and
damages alleged by the Plaintiff which are pre-existing conditions which preceded this incident.
3
FIFTHEENTH DEFENSE
This Defendant reserves the right to affirmatively plead any and all other defenses and
affirmative defenses available to it which may become applicable through discovery and during
the trial of this cause.
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
The facts not having been fully developed, this Defendant adopts the following
affirmative defenses: Accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk,
contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration,
fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute
of frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or
affirmative defense as may be shown by the facts in this cause, including, but not limited to, the
right to claim indemnity from any or all of the other defendants and to file a cross-claim or other
pleading to assert said claim.
SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE
This Defendant avers that any award of punitive damages to the Plaintiff in this case
would be a violation of the constitutional rights and safeguards provided to Defendant under the
Constitution of the State of Mississippi and the Constitution of the United States of America
including, without limitations, that there are no constraining limitations placed on a jurys
discretion in considering the imposition or amount of punitive damages. There are no
meaningful trial court and appellate review mechanisms to constitutionally confirm any punitive
damages award, and imposition would allow a verdict obtained by passion and prejudice.
4
EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE
Imposition of punitive damages in this case would constitute a violation of this
Defendants constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.
NINTEENTH DEFENSE
Any award of punitive damages in this case would violate the constitutional rights and
safeguards provided to this Defendant under the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and/or Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and/or
under the due process clause of Article III, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of
Mississippi and that punitive damages and any method by which they might be assessed are
unconstitutionally vague and not rationally related to legitimate government interest. If
consideration of punitive damages is to be allowed, then the standard for proving the same, as
provided in Miss. Code Ann. Sections 11-1-63 and 11-1-65 (Supp. 1993), must be by clear and
convincing evidence.
TWENTIETH DEFENSE
The procedure and/or standards governing imposition of punitive damages are
impermissibly vague, arbitrary, improper and/or violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and/or the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America
and/or Article III, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi.
TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE
Any award of punitive damages in this Case would violate the procedural and/or
substantive safeguards provided to this Defendant under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and/or
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and/or under Article III, Section
5
14 and 26 of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, and that punitive damages are penal in
nature and, consequently, this Defendant is entitled to the same procedural and substantive
safeguards afforded to criminal defendants.
TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE
It violates the rights and safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of
America and/or the Constitution of the State of Mississippi to impose punitive damages against
this Defendant. To do so would be penal in nature and require a burden of proof which is less
than the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof required in criminal cases in this State, and
less than a unanimous jury verdict.
TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE
would violate the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and/or Article III,
Section 28 of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi in that said punitive damages would be
an imposition of an excessive fine.
TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
It will be unconstitutional to award any punitive damages as such would violate the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution and Article III, Section 14 of the
Mississippi State Constitution in that:
1. Said damages are intended to punish and deter this Defendant and thus this
proceeding is essentially criminal in nature;
2. This Defendant is being compelled to be a witness against himself in a proceeding
essentially and effectively criminal in nature, in violation of its right to due
process;
6
3. The Plaintiffs burden of proof to establish punitive damages in this proceeding,
effectively criminal in nature, is less than the burden of proof required in other
criminal proceedings, and thus violates this Defendants right to due process;
4. That inasmuch as this proceeding is essentially and effectively criminal in nature,
this Defendant is being denied the requirements of notice of the elements of the
offense, and the law and authorities authorizing punitive damages are so vague
and ambiguous they are in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth
Amendment and/or the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States and also in violation of Article III, Section 14 of the Constitution of the
State of Mississippi.
TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
would be in violation of the constitutional rights and safeguards provided to this Defendant,
under the Constitution of the State of Mississippi and the Constitution of the United States of
America including, without limitation, that there are no constraining limitations placed on a
jurys discretion in considering the imposition or amount of punitive damages, there are no
meaningful trial court and appellate review mechanisms to constitutionally confirm any punitive
damage award, imposition would allow a verdict tainted by passion and prejudice, and Plaintiff
impermissibly seeks a punitive damage award that bears an unconstitutional relationship to the
alleged actual amount in question.
7
TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
With respect to each and every cause of action, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover because
of any superseding and/or intervening acts and/or omissions of persons or entities other than
Defendants.
TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE
If Plaintiff has made or does make settlement with any person or party whatsoever for all
or any part of the damages claimed herein, then this Defendant is entitled to full or other credit
for the amount of such settlement for the damages otherwise recoverable against this Defendant
herein, with said settlement credit to be given in accord with the procedures and statutes so
provided.
TWENTY-EIGHT DEFENSE
The Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Miss. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and or 12(e), or,
in the alternative, Plaintiff must replead the Complaint in order to satisfy the requirements of
Miss. R. Civ. P. 8, 9 and 11. The recent Mississippi Supreme Court decision in Harolds Auto
Parts, Inc. et al v. Flower Mangialardi, et al No. 2004-IA-01308-SCT (Miss., August 26, 2004)
establishes that, to satisfy Rules 8, 9 and 11, Plaintiffs must plead specific facts and legal
conclusions that provide Defendants fair notice of each claim made against them and the grounds
thereof. The Complaint fails to meet this standard and must be dismissed, or Plaintiff must be
required to replead it.
TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff cannot recover against Defendant pursuant to any theory with regard to
bystander liability.
8
THIRTIETH
Plaintiff cannot recover against Defendant pursuant to any theory with regard to premises
liability.
THIRTY-FIRST
Defendant committed no act of negligence, gross negligence or any other wrongdoing
that caused or contributed to Plaintiffs alleged damages.
ANSWER
Defendants responds to Plaintiffs Complaint paragraph by paragraph as follows:
PARTIES
1. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
veracity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. Therefore, the allegations
are denied.
2. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Defendant admits that this court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter
of this action. However, Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 5.
6. Defendant admits the allegation contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
are denied.
9
are denied.
veracity of the allegations contained in first sentence of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
Therefore, the allegations are denied. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 10 are denied
veracity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. Therefore, the
allegations are denied.
12. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
13. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
18. As the allegations described in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint are directed towards
another Defendant, Defendant reserves response to this allegations. To the extent a response is
required, the allegations are denied.
CAUSES OF ACTION
20. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint (including
but not limited to subparagraphs: a., b., c., d., and e) of the Complaint.
10
DAMAGES
Defendant denies the allegations of the next unnumbered paragraph of the Plaintiffs
Complaint which begins with WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, and deny that
Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested.
AND NOW having fully answered the allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant,
Wayne Parish, requests that this Court grant the following relief:
a) A judgment in favor of Defendant dismissing all of Plaintiffs claims hereunder with
prejudice;
b) An award of all court costs and legal expenses including, but not limited to, attorneys
fees incurred in this matter; and,
c) That judgment be rendered for Defendant for such other relief as may be deemed by the
Court to be just and proper in the premises or other such relief that this Court may provide.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this the 10th day of May, 2017.
WAYNE PARISH
BY: /s/Robert L. Gibbs

ROBERT L. GIBBS
11
OF COUNSEL:
Robert L. Gibbs, MSB No. 99692

Tujuana S. McGee, MSB No. 104263
Gibbs Travis PLLC
1400 Meadowbrook Road, Suite 100
Jackson, Mississippi 39211
Telephone: (601) 487-2640
Facsimile: (601)366-4295
Email: rgibbs@gibbstravis.com
Email: tmcgee@gibbstravis.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing was duly served upon
all known counsel of record, this the 10th day of May, 2017, and upon all parties registered with
the Courts electronic filing system by operation of the Courts MEC system.
/s/ Robert L. Gibbs

ROBERT L. GIBBS
12
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
YVETTE MASON-SHERMAN, INDIVIDUALLY,

AND ON BEHALF OF THE HEIRS AND
WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF
CHARLES MCDONALD, JR., DECEASED, and
THE ESTATE OF CHARLES MCDONALD, JR.,
DECEASED PLAINTIFFS
V. CAUSE NO.: 2017-156
WAYNE PARISH, JIMMY RATLIFF, AND PERFORMANCE

OIL EQUIPMENT, INC. DEFENDANTS
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Jury Trial Demanded)
COME NOW, the Plaintiffs, Yvette Mason-Sherman, Individually, and as
Administrator of the Estate of Charles McDonald, Jr., and On Behalf of the Heirs and
Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Charles McDonald, Jr., Deceased, and The Estate of
Charles McDonald, Jr., Deceased (hereinafter Plaintiffs), by and through their
attorneys of record, and file this, their FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, and would
allege the following:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Yvette Mason-Sherman is an adult resident citizen of Mississippi,
residing in Hinds County, Mississippi. She brings suit on behalf of the wrongful
death beneficiaries of Charles McDonald, Jr., (Decedent), for the negligent
actions that caused his death.
2. Defendant Wayne Parish (Defendant Parish) is an adult resident citizen of
Mississippi, and can be served with process at his place of employment located
at 920 E. McDowell Road, Jackson, MS 39204.
1
3. Defendant Jimmy Ratliff (Defendant Ratliff), is an adult resident citizen of
Mississippi, and can be served with process at 137 Delvin Springs Drive,
Madison, MS 39110.
4. Defendant Performance Oil Equipment, Inc. (Defendant POE) is a domestic
corporation qualified to do business within the State of Mississippi, and may be
served with process upon its registered agent, Jimmy Ratcliff, located at 920
East McDowell Road, Jackson, MS 39204.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. The Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi has
exclusive jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this action. No other
Court has original jurisdiction of this matter. This civil action arises out of the
negligent acts and/or omissions of the Defendants committed in the State of
Mississippi against a resident of the State of Mississippi. This Court has
jurisdiction over this claim because this is an action at law seeking monetary
damages within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.
6. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. 11-11-3, since each
of the parties can be found there.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
7. At all pertinent times hereto, Defendant Ratliff was the President of POE.
Defendant Parish was the Vice-President of POE.
8. At all pertinent times hereto, the Decedent was a trespasser at POE.
9. On or about July 21, 2016, Plaintiff was transporting Decedent to the Henley-
Young Juvenile Justice Center, which is next door to Defendant POE.
2
10. Upon arrival at the juvenile justice center, Decedent fled Plaintiffs vehicle and
ran to POE. Defendant Parish exited the store with a gun and aggressively
approached Decedent in the parking lot. Subsequently, an altercation began
between Decedent and Defendant Parish. Decedent was shot by Defendant
Parish. Decedent suffered multiple gunshot wounds to the upper torso.
11. Decedent was transported to the University of Mississippi Medical Center
Jackson where he was pronounced dead shortly after arrival. Decedent expired
on July 21, 2016.
12. At all times pertinent Decedent was a trespasser of the Defendants. As a
trespasser, the Defendants owed a duty to Decedent to refrain from causing
willful and wanton injury.
13. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants failure to maintain the
premises in a reasonably safe manner, Decedent was willfully and wantonly
injured. He experienced excruciating pain and expired on July 21, 2016. Plaintiff
experienced and continues to experience excruciating pain and suffering as a
result of the death of Decedent.
14. Defendants failed to provide adequate security which would have deterred
Defendant Parish from exiting the store, in possession of a firearm, posing and
ultimately causing harm and the death of Decedent.
15. Defendants, at all times relevant hereto, failed to prevent wanton and willful injury
to Decedent on the premises.
3
16. Defendants owed a duty to Decedent to prevent willful and wanton injury on the
premises and to hire adequately trained employees and agents specifically
adequate training in firearms and the use of deadly force.
17. Defendants were the owners, agents, or principals of each other or in a joint
venture and were in control of the premises in some form.
18. Defendants, Jimmy Ratliff and Performance Oil Equipment, Inc., negligently
hired, trained, and retained Defendant Parish.
19. Defendants negligently entrusted a gun with Defendant Parish to carry and
secure the premises.
CAUSES OF ACTION
20. The following actions and/or inactions of the Defendants and its agents
constituted negligence and/or breach of duties owing from the Defendants to the
Decedent:
a. Failure to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring the Decedent;
b. Failure to warn of a known and serious hidden danger;
c. Failure to hire adequately trained employees and agents;
d. Intentional and negligently inflicting mental and emotional distress; and
e. For other acts, inactions, failures, omissions, negligent, intentional and
grossly negligent conduct to be shown at trial.
21. The foregoing actions and/or inactions of the Defendants and their agents
constituted gross negligence, to-wit; they willfully and wantonly injured Decedent
by consciously disregarding a known and hidden danger.
4
DAMAGES
22. As a direct and proximate result of the concurrent, intentional, willful, unlawful,
reckless, wanton, grossly negligent and/or unreasonably dangerous actions of
the Defendants, the Decedent expired on July 21, 2016, and on account of the
same, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages.
Also, Plaintiff is entitled to recover and hereby request from the Defendants,
jointly and severally, all additional damages which she is entitled to recover as a
result of the death of Decedent on July 21, 2016.
23. Further, as a direct and proximate result of the concurrent, intentional, willful,
unlawful, reckless, wanton, grossly negligent and/or unreasonably dangerous
actions of the Defendants, the Plaintiff suffered and experienced excruciating
pain, suffering, mental anguish, agony, loss of life, loss of society, and funeral
expenses. On account of the same, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages.
24. Defendants negligent acts and omissions were grossly negligent and/or in
reckless disregard for the Decedent, Plaintiff, and the publics rights and safety.
Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against the
Defendants.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff sues and demands a
judgment of and from the Defendants for actual and punitive damages together with all
costs of this action, inclusive of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
Respectfully submitted, this the 17TH day of March, 2017.
YVETTE MASON-SHERMAN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS
BY: /s/ Carlos E. Moore

Carlos E. Moore, MSB# 100685
5
Michael S. Carr, MSB# 102138

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
OF COUNSEL:
TUCKER MOORE LAW GROUP, LLP.

306 Branscome Drive
P. O. Box 1487
Grenada, MS 38902-1487
662-227-9940 phone
662-227-9941 fax
Email: carlos@carlosmoorelaw.com
OF COUNSEL:
CARR & CALDERN, PLLC

303 Cotton Row
P.O. Box 1818
Cleveland, MS, 38732
Phone: (662) 545-4445
Fax: 1 (662) 796-3689
Email: mcarr@carrcalderon.com
6

Parish Civil File 2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Parish Civil File 2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00156-WAG Document #: 8 Filed: 05/10/2017 Page 1 of 12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

YVETTE MASON-SHERMAN INDIVIDUALLY,

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2017-156

WAYNE PARISH, JIMMY RATLIFF, AND PERFORMANCE

DEFENDANT, WAYNE PARISHS,

responds to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint as follows:

against this Defendant.

8(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant affirmatively pleads self-defense.

wantonly to injure the Decedent.

was the criminal conduct of the Decedent.

Constitution and in violation of Article 3, Section 14 and Article 3, Section 24 of the

Constitution of the State of Mississippi. Therefore, these claims should be dismissed.

The imposition of exemplary or punitive damages in this matter would constitute

imposition of an excessive fine in violation of Amendment VIII of the United States

claims should be dismissed.

contracts. Therefore, these claims should be dismissed.

the trial of this cause.

contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration,

pleading to assert said claim.

discretion in considering the imposition or amount of punitive damages. There are no

Imposition of punitive damages in this case would constitute a violation of this

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

unconstitutionally vague and not rationally related to legitimate government interest. If

The procedure and/or standards governing imposition of punitive damages are

and/or Article III, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi.

safeguards afforded to criminal defendants.

less than a unanimous jury verdict.

an imposition of an excessive fine.

Mississippi State Constitution in that:

proceeding is essentially criminal in nature;

2. This Defendant is being compelled to be a witness against himself in a proceeding

essentially and effectively criminal in nature, in violation of its right to due

3. The Plaintiffs burden of proof to establish punitive damages in this proceeding,

4. That inasmuch as this proceeding is essentially and effectively criminal in nature,

Amendment and/or the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United

alleged actual amount in question.

required to replead it.

Defendant committed no act of negligence, gross negligence or any other wrongdoing

that caused or contributed to Plaintiffs alleged damages.

Defendants responds to Plaintiffs Complaint paragraph by paragraph as follows:

1. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

2. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

3. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

4. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. Defendant admits the allegation contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

7. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

8. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint.

9. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

veracity of the allegations contained in first sentence of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

veracity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. Therefore, the

allegations are denied.

12. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

13. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.

14. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.

15. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.

16. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.

17. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.

required, the allegations are denied.

19. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.

21. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.

22. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.