Preview
Filing # 58774010 E-Filed 07/10/2017 12:06:06 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17"
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
RONALD VOHS, CASE NO.: 17-007673 CACE 05
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSIMAR’S CLEANING SERVICES
CORP., INDUSTRIAL CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.,
AND COMCAST OF COLORADO/FLORIDA/
MICHIGAN/NEW MEXICO/PENNSYLVANIA
/WASHINGTON, LLC,
Defendants.
/
DEFENDANT COMCAST’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES & MOTION TO
SUBSTITUTE/DROP PARTY
The Defendant, COMCAST OF COLORADO / FLORIDA / MICHIGAN / NEW
MEXICO / PENNSYLVANIA / WASHINGTON, LLC. (misnamed in the Complaint as
COMCAST CORPORATION) by and through the undersigned counsel and in accordance with
the applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure files this Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Demand
for Jury Trial, and Motion to Substitute/Drop Party+ in response to the Complaint as follows:
1. The Defendant admits only that the Plaintiff has pled the minimum monetary
amount to trigger this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, all other allegations in paragraph | and
any inferences are expressly denied.
2. The Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 2 of the
Complaint.
3. The Defendant is without ample information to admit the allegation(s) contained
within paragraph 3 of the Complaint and denies the same.
4. The Defendant is without ample information to admit the allegation(s) contained
within paragraph 4 of the Complaint and denies the same.
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 7/10/2017 12:06:06 PM.****5. The Defendant is without ample information to admit the allegation(s) contained
within paragraph 5 of the Complaint and denies the same.
6. The Defendant is without ample information to admit the allegation(s) contained
within paragraph 6 of the Complaint and denies the same.
7. The Defendant admits the allegations contained within paragraph 7 of the
Complaint inasmuch as this is directed to Comcast of Colorado/Florida/Michigan/New
Mexico/Pennsylvania/Washington, LLC.
8. The Defendant admits only for the purposes of venue determination that the
location of the alleged occurrence giving rise to the instant lawsuit is located in Broward County,
Florida. Any and all other allegations and inferences are expressly denied.
9. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
10. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
11. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11of the Complaint.
12. Paragraphs 13 through 26 (COUNT I, COUNT II, and COUNT IIT) of the
Complaint do not pertain to this Defendant therefore neither admits nor denies said allegations.
To the extent that the allegations contained within paragraphs 13 through 26 (COUNT I,
COUNT II, and COUNT IID) of the Complaint purport to be directed and/or refer to this
Defendant, this Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge regarding said
allegations, and denies the same.
13. The Defendant re-adopts and re-alleges its above responses 1-12 above of the
Complaint in response to paragraph 27.
14. The Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 27 of the
Complaint.
15. The Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 28 (a-j) of the
Complaint.16. The Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 29 of the
Complaint.
17. The Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 30 of the
Complaint.
18. The Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 31 of the
Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19. The Defendant states that at the time and place of the incident described in the
Plaintiffs Complaint, the Plaintiff himself was careless and negligent thereby causing the alleged
injury and damage, and therefore the Plaintiff cannot recover herein against the Defendant; in the
alternative, the negligence of the Plaintiff contributed substantially to the alleged injury and damage
and any recover by the Plaintiff must be reduced proportionately to said negligence and carelessness.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff assumed the risk of injury to himself inasmuch
as the condition that is alleged in the Plaintiff's Complaint was such that it was known and obvious to
the Plaintiff.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff knew of the existence of the danger complained
of in the Complaint, realized and appreciated the possibility of injury as a result of the danger and,
having a reasonable opportunity to avoid it, voluntarily exposed himself to the danger.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff was a recipient of benefits from collateral
sources paid or payable which entitles the Defendant to a set off or reduction in the amount of any
verdict and/or judgment which may be entered against this Defendant in this cause.FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23. The Plaintiff's alleged injuries were solely the result of negligence on the part of third
parties who were not in the care, custody, control or supervision of this Defendant, and therefore,
Plaintiff is barred from recovery as against this Defendant. At this time this Defendant adopts the
theory of negligence contained within Count I, Count II, and Count III as a basis to name, and
specifically name Josimar’s Cleaning Services CORP., USA BR General Services CORP., and
Industrial Cable Services, INC., as Fabre defendants.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27. That at the time and place alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff was himself guilty of
negligence which proximately contributed to any injuries or damages he may have sustained in that
he failed to follow the doctor's orders and instructions and therefore any award to which he may be
entitled should be reduced accordingly, pursuant to the doctrine of comparative negligence.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28. The Plaintiff's claims for incidental medical bills incurred as a result of the alleged
injuries are exaggerated, unnecessary and unreasonable.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
29. The Plaintiff's claim for lost wages is exaggerated and unreasonable.
MOTION TO DROP/SUBSTITUTE PARTY
The Defendant, Comeast of Colorado / Florida / Michigan / New Mexico / Pennsylvania /
Washington, LLC. (misnamed in the Complaint as COMCAST CORPORATION.) by and through
the undersigned counsel and in accordance with the applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure,
including but not limited to Fla. R. Civ. P 1.250 files this Motion to Dismiss and as Grounds in
support thereof states:
30. The Plaintiff sued COMCAST CORPORATION, for negligence.31. This corporate defendant has absolutely no active or passive role in connection with
this matter.
32. The proper corporate entity is Comcast of Colorado / Florida / Michigan / New
Mexico / Pennsylvania / Washington, LLC.
34. Rule governing dropping parties is appropriate vehicle to drop a party where
plaintiff intends to dismiss only one of several parties: however, if there is only one defendant or
if plaintiff intends to dismiss action as to all defendants, operative rule is rule governing voluntary
dismissal by parties. National Bank of Commerce v. Jupiter Mortgage Corp., 890 So.2d 553 (Fla.
2™D.C.A. 2005)
35. In the case at bar the Plaintiff will continue to litigation against Comcast of
Colorado / Florida / Michigan / New Mexico / Pennsylvania / Washington, LLC. and is not
prejudiced by the dropping party identified/discussed herein.
WHEREFORE the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court Drop/Dismiss the
above-referenced entity from this lawsuit.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished
via electronic mail this 10" day of July, 2017, to: Yeemee Chan, Esq., Steinger, Iscoe & Greene,
P.A., 2400 E. Commercial Blvd., Suite 900, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308.
RUDD & DIAMOND, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant, Comcast
4000 Hollywood Blvd.
Presidential Circle, Suite 120-N
Hollywood, FL 33021
Tel. (954) 961-5059
Fax. (954) 961-8953
service@rudddiamond.com
By: /s/
Michael P. Rudd
FL Bar No.: 782416
And
Peter A. Diamond
17.11718/PAD/SM FL Bar No.: 0180051
Preview
Filing # 58774010 E-Filed 07/10/2017 12:06:06 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA RONALD VOHS, CASE NO.: 17-007673 CACE 05 Plaintiff, v. JOSIMAR’S CLEANING SERVICES CORP., INDUSTRIAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., AND COMCAST OF COLORADO/FLORIDA/ MICHIGAN/NEW MEXICO/PENNSYLVANIA /WASHINGTON, LLC, Defendants. / DEFENDANT COMCAST’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES & MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE/DROP PARTY The Defendant, COMCAST OF COLORADO / FLORIDA / MICHIGAN / NEW MEXICO / PENNSYLVANIA / WASHINGTON, LLC. (misnamed in the Complaint as COMCAST CORPORATION) by and through the undersigned counsel and in accordance with the applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure files this Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Demand for Jury Trial, and Motion to Substitute/Drop Party+ in response to the Complaint as follows: 1. The Defendant admits only that the Plaintiff has pled the minimum monetary amount to trigger this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, all other allegations in paragraph | and any inferences are expressly denied. 2. The Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 3. The Defendant is without ample information to admit the allegation(s) contained within paragraph 3 of the Complaint and denies the same. 4. The Defendant is without ample information to admit the allegation(s) contained within paragraph 4 of the Complaint and denies the same. *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 7/10/2017 12:06:06 PM.****5. The Defendant is without ample information to admit the allegation(s) contained within paragraph 5 of the Complaint and denies the same. 6. The Defendant is without ample information to admit the allegation(s) contained within paragraph 6 of the Complaint and denies the same. 7. The Defendant admits the allegations contained within paragraph 7 of the Complaint inasmuch as this is directed to Comcast of Colorado/Florida/Michigan/New Mexico/Pennsylvania/Washington, LLC. 8. The Defendant admits only for the purposes of venue determination that the location of the alleged occurrence giving rise to the instant lawsuit is located in Broward County, Florida. Any and all other allegations and inferences are expressly denied. 9. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 10. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 11. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11of the Complaint. 12. Paragraphs 13 through 26 (COUNT I, COUNT II, and COUNT IIT) of the Complaint do not pertain to this Defendant therefore neither admits nor denies said allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained within paragraphs 13 through 26 (COUNT I, COUNT II, and COUNT IID) of the Complaint purport to be directed and/or refer to this Defendant, this Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge regarding said allegations, and denies the same. 13. The Defendant re-adopts and re-alleges its above responses 1-12 above of the Complaint in response to paragraph 27. 14. The Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 15. The Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 28 (a-j) of the Complaint.16. The Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 17. The Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 18. The Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 31 of the Complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19. The Defendant states that at the time and place of the incident described in the Plaintiffs Complaint, the Plaintiff himself was careless and negligent thereby causing the alleged injury and damage, and therefore the Plaintiff cannot recover herein against the Defendant; in the alternative, the negligence of the Plaintiff contributed substantially to the alleged injury and damage and any recover by the Plaintiff must be reduced proportionately to said negligence and carelessness. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff assumed the risk of injury to himself inasmuch as the condition that is alleged in the Plaintiff's Complaint was such that it was known and obvious to the Plaintiff. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff knew of the existence of the danger complained of in the Complaint, realized and appreciated the possibility of injury as a result of the danger and, having a reasonable opportunity to avoid it, voluntarily exposed himself to the danger. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff was a recipient of benefits from collateral sources paid or payable which entitles the Defendant to a set off or reduction in the amount of any verdict and/or judgment which may be entered against this Defendant in this cause.FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23. The Plaintiff's alleged injuries were solely the result of negligence on the part of third parties who were not in the care, custody, control or supervision of this Defendant, and therefore, Plaintiff is barred from recovery as against this Defendant. At this time this Defendant adopts the theory of negligence contained within Count I, Count II, and Count III as a basis to name, and specifically name Josimar’s Cleaning Services CORP., USA BR General Services CORP., and Industrial Cable Services, INC., as Fabre defendants. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27. That at the time and place alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff was himself guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to any injuries or damages he may have sustained in that he failed to follow the doctor's orders and instructions and therefore any award to which he may be entitled should be reduced accordingly, pursuant to the doctrine of comparative negligence. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28. The Plaintiff's claims for incidental medical bills incurred as a result of the alleged injuries are exaggerated, unnecessary and unreasonable. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 29. The Plaintiff's claim for lost wages is exaggerated and unreasonable. MOTION TO DROP/SUBSTITUTE PARTY The Defendant, Comeast of Colorado / Florida / Michigan / New Mexico / Pennsylvania / Washington, LLC. (misnamed in the Complaint as COMCAST CORPORATION.) by and through the undersigned counsel and in accordance with the applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to Fla. R. Civ. P 1.250 files this Motion to Dismiss and as Grounds in support thereof states: 30. The Plaintiff sued COMCAST CORPORATION, for negligence.31. This corporate defendant has absolutely no active or passive role in connection with this matter. 32. The proper corporate entity is Comcast of Colorado / Florida / Michigan / New Mexico / Pennsylvania / Washington, LLC. 34. Rule governing dropping parties is appropriate vehicle to drop a party where plaintiff intends to dismiss only one of several parties: however, if there is only one defendant or if plaintiff intends to dismiss action as to all defendants, operative rule is rule governing voluntary dismissal by parties. National Bank of Commerce v. Jupiter Mortgage Corp., 890 So.2d 553 (Fla. 2™D.C.A. 2005) 35. In the case at bar the Plaintiff will continue to litigation against Comcast of Colorado / Florida / Michigan / New Mexico / Pennsylvania / Washington, LLC. and is not prejudiced by the dropping party identified/discussed herein. WHEREFORE the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court Drop/Dismiss the above-referenced entity from this lawsuit. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via electronic mail this 10" day of July, 2017, to: Yeemee Chan, Esq., Steinger, Iscoe & Greene, P.A., 2400 E. Commercial Blvd., Suite 900, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308. RUDD & DIAMOND, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant, Comcast 4000 Hollywood Blvd. Presidential Circle, Suite 120-N Hollywood, FL 33021 Tel. (954) 961-5059 Fax. (954) 961-8953 service@rudddiamond.com By: /s/ Michael P. Rudd FL Bar No.: 782416 And Peter A. Diamond 17.11718/PAD/SM FL Bar No.: 0180051