Answer: Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. D/B/A Ced Greentech vs. Gosolar NH Llc et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                COMMONWEALTH           OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUFFOLK, ss.                                           SUPERIOR COURT
                                                       CIVIL ACTION NO. 2184CV02048




CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL                                      11/30/2021 e-filed KG
DISTRIBUTORS, INC D/B/A CED
GREENTECH,
       Plaintiff,

Vv.


GOSOLAR NH, LLC, BRIAN PARE, AND
JAKE OTTOLINI,
      Defendants.


             DEFENDANT JAKE OTTOLINI’S ANSWER AND JURY DEMAND

       Now    comes   the Defendant    Jake Ottolini      (“Defendant”)   and   for his Answer   to the

Complaint filed against it by the Plaintiff Consolidate Electrical Distributors, Inc. d/b/a CED

Greentech (“Plaintiff”) states the following:

                                                PARTIES

        1       Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the truth of

the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

       2        Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

       3        Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the truth of

the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

       4        Admitted.

                                         JURISDICTION

       Defendant does not respond to the allegations in this Paragraph because they contain

conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading its required.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON                 TO ALL COUNTS

        5       Defendant repeats its responses to the preceding Paragraphs as though fully set

forth herein.

        6.      Defendant admits that Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of a contract that the

Plaintiff and Go SolarNH, LLC       entered into. Defendant does not respond to the remaining

allegations set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint because the document speaks for itself.
        7
                Defendant admits that Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of a contract that the

Plaintiff and GoSolarNH,     LLC   entered   into.   Defendant   does   not respond to the remaining

allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint because the document speaks for itself.

        8       Defendant does not respond to the allegations set forth in Paragraph         8 of the

Complaint because the document speaks for itself.

        9.      Defendant does not respond to the allegations set forth in Paragraph         9 of the

Complaint because the document speaks for itself.

        10.     Admitted.

        11.     Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

        12.     Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint

        13      Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.

        14      Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint

        15      Defendant does not respond to the allegations set forth in Paragraph        15 of the

Complaint because they contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading its required.

                                   Count I~ Breach of Contract
                                        GoSolar NH, LLC

        16.     Defendant repeats its responses to the preceding Paragraphs as though fully set

forth herein.
17.     Defendant does not respond to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17 of the

Complaint because they are not directed to the Defendant.

        18.     Defendant does not respond to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 of the

Complaint because they are not directed to the Defendant.

                                  Count Il - uantum Meruit
                                       GoSolar NH, LLC

        19.     Defendant repeats its responses to the preceding Paragraphs as though fully set

forth herein.

        20.     Defendant does not respond to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 of the

Complaint because they are not directed to the Defendant.

        21.     Defendant does not respond to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 21 of the

Complaint because they are not directed to the Defendant.

        22.     Defendant does not respond to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 22 of the

Complaint because they are not directed to the Defendant.

                                      Count II] — Guaranty
                                  Brian Pare and Jake Ottolini

        23.     Defendant repeats its responses to the preceding Paragraphs as though fully set

forth herein.

        24.     Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint to the

extent they pertain to him.

        25.     Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint to the

extent they pertain to him.

        26.     Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint to the

extent they pertain to him.
27.        Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint to the

extent they pertain to him.

                                         AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

           1          The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

           2          Any claims for relief by Plaintiff are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable

statutes of limitations.

           3          The Defendant fully performed its duties and obligations in accordance with the

parties’        agreement.

           4          Any claims for relief by Plaintiff are barred, in whole or in part, by the defenses of

waiver, laches, and/or unclean hands.

           5          Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages, if any.

           6.         Plaintiff has been paid all monies due and owing.
           7
                      Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the condition precedents to filing this action.

           WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter judgment:

                  In favor of defendant as to all Counts of the Complaint;

                  Awarding to Defendant its costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred herein; and

                  Granting to Defendant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and

                  proper.

                                                JURY DEMAND

           Defendant requests a trial by jury on all issues.
Defendant,
                                                  JAKE OTTOLINI,
                                                  By His Attorneys,


                                                   /s/ Kelly Martin Malone
                                                  Kelly Martin Malone (BBO No. 640048)
                                                  Caroline B. Lapish (BBO No. 669460)
                                                  Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.
                                                   175 Federal Street, 10th Floor
                                                  Boston, MA    02110-2210
                                                  (617) 482-0600
                                                  KMalone@apslaw.com
                                                  CLapish@apslaw.com




                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document was e-filed and
served via e-mail on November 30, 2021, to the following:

 Jeffrey S. Phillips, Esq.
 Daniel Tregar, Esq.
 Christopher S. Tolley, Esq.
 Phillips & Angley
 One Washington Mall
 Boston, MA 02108
jphillips@phillips-angley.com
 dtreger@phillips-angley.com
 ctolley@phillips-angley.com



                                                       /s/ Kelly Martin Malone
                                                     Kelly Martin Malone




1098086.v1