Preview
Filing # 68093283 E-Filed 02/16/2018 03:25:10 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 2018-CA-000652-O
vs.
ANTHONY BAILEY, GREGORY JAMES and
MANHEIM REMARKETING, INC.,
Defendant.
/
DEFENDANT, MANHEIM REMARKETING, INC.'S, ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED INTERPLEADER COMPLAINT
Defendant, MANHEIM REMARKETING, INC. (“Manheim”), hereby files this Answer
to Plaintiff's Amended Interpleader Complaint ("Complaint"), and further states as follows:
1. Manheim agrees that Plaintiff’s Complaint is an interpleader action filed pursuant
to Rule 1.240 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, with an amount in controversy in excess of
$15,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
2. The allegations in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are either unknown or
have not yet been verified; and therefore, Manheim requires proof thereof.
3. The allegations in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to Manheim;
and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof.
4. The allegations in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to Manheim;
and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof.
5. Manheim states that it is a foreign corporation and, at all times material to
Plaintiff’s Complaint, was registered with Florida’s Secretary of State and authorized to do
business in the State of Florida.
6. Manheim stipulates and agrees that this Court has jurisdiction over the instant
action.
7. Manheim stipulates and agrees that venue is proper in this Court.
8. Manheim states that, to the best of its knowledge at this time, the allegations in
paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Exhibit “A” to Plaintiff’s Complaint are true and
correct.
9. Manheim states that, to the best of its knowledge at this time, the allegations in
paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Exhibit “A” to Plaintiff’s Complaint are true and
correct.
10. The allegations in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to
Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof.
11. The allegations in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to
Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof.
12. The allegations in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to
Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof.
13. The allegations in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to
Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof.
2
14. Manheim states that it has indeed made a claim against the Bond; however, the
total amount of its claim, including the additional fees that were incurred in connection with the
re-sale of the two vehicles that are the subject of its claim totals $6,455.00.
15. The allegations in paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to
Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof..
16. The allegations in paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to
Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof.
17. The allegations in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to
Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof.
18. The allegations in paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to
Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof.
19. The allegations in paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to
Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof.
20. Manheim states that its transactions with Elite Level Auto which gave rise to its
claim in this action occurred during the Effective Period of the Bond.
21. Manheim states that, to the best of its knowledge at this time, the allegations in
paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are true and correct.
22. Manheim states that, to the best of its knowledge at this time, the allegations in
paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are true and correct.
23. The allegations in paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are not directed to
Manheim; and, therefore, no responsive pleading is required. However, Manheim does not
3
object or oppose Hudson’s stated intention to deposit the penal sum of the aforementioned motor
vehicle bond with the Registry of the Court.
24. The allegations in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to
Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof.
25. Manheim reserves the right to assert defenses and affirmative defenses, if and as
necessary.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, MANHEIM REMARKETING INC., respectfully requests a
Final Order or Judgment be entered in its favor, awarding to it the pro rata share of its claim
against the motor vehicle bond (Number CMS41001118), and further requests any additional
relief that is deemed fair and equitable under the circumstances.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this _16th __ day of February, 2018, I electronically filed
the foregoing with the Clerk of the Courts by using the E-Portal System pursuant to Florida Rule
of Judicial Administration 2.516 (a), which E-Portal will provide service upon Christopher T.
4
McRae, Esquire and Benjamin C. Patton, Esquire with McRae & Metcalf, P.A., 2612 Centennial
Place, Tallahassee, Florida 32308 at e-mail: cmcrae@mcraemetcalf.com;
bpatton@mcraemetcalf.com.
HILL, RUGH, KELLER & MAIN, P.L.
_/s/ Steven R. Main _______
STEVEN R. MAIN
Florida Bar No.: 0144551
390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1610
Post Office Box 2311
Orlando, Florida 32802-2311
(407) 926-7460
(407) 926-7461 facsimile
smain@hrkmlaw.com
filings@hrkmlaw.com
Counsel for Defendant, Manheim Remarketing, Inc.
5
Preview
Filing # 68093283 E-Filed 02/16/2018 03:25:10 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 2018-CA-000652-O vs. ANTHONY BAILEY, GREGORY JAMES and MANHEIM REMARKETING, INC., Defendant. / DEFENDANT, MANHEIM REMARKETING, INC.'S, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED INTERPLEADER COMPLAINT Defendant, MANHEIM REMARKETING, INC. (“Manheim”), hereby files this Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Interpleader Complaint ("Complaint"), and further states as follows: 1. Manheim agrees that Plaintiff’s Complaint is an interpleader action filed pursuant to Rule 1.240 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, with an amount in controversy in excess of $15,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 2. The allegations in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are either unknown or have not yet been verified; and therefore, Manheim requires proof thereof. 3. The allegations in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof. 4. The allegations in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof. 5. Manheim states that it is a foreign corporation and, at all times material to Plaintiff’s Complaint, was registered with Florida’s Secretary of State and authorized to do business in the State of Florida. 6. Manheim stipulates and agrees that this Court has jurisdiction over the instant action. 7. Manheim stipulates and agrees that venue is proper in this Court. 8. Manheim states that, to the best of its knowledge at this time, the allegations in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Exhibit “A” to Plaintiff’s Complaint are true and correct. 9. Manheim states that, to the best of its knowledge at this time, the allegations in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Exhibit “A” to Plaintiff’s Complaint are true and correct. 10. The allegations in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof. 11. The allegations in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof. 12. The allegations in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof. 13. The allegations in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof. 2 14. Manheim states that it has indeed made a claim against the Bond; however, the total amount of its claim, including the additional fees that were incurred in connection with the re-sale of the two vehicles that are the subject of its claim totals $6,455.00. 15. The allegations in paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof.. 16. The allegations in paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof. 17. The allegations in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof. 18. The allegations in paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof. 19. The allegations in paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof. 20. Manheim states that its transactions with Elite Level Auto which gave rise to its claim in this action occurred during the Effective Period of the Bond. 21. Manheim states that, to the best of its knowledge at this time, the allegations in paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are true and correct. 22. Manheim states that, to the best of its knowledge at this time, the allegations in paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are true and correct. 23. The allegations in paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are not directed to Manheim; and, therefore, no responsive pleading is required. However, Manheim does not 3 object or oppose Hudson’s stated intention to deposit the penal sum of the aforementioned motor vehicle bond with the Registry of the Court. 24. The allegations in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are unknown to Manheim; and therefore, such allegations are denied and Manheim requires proof thereof. 25. Manheim reserves the right to assert defenses and affirmative defenses, if and as necessary. WHEREFORE, Defendant, MANHEIM REMARKETING INC., respectfully requests a Final Order or Judgment be entered in its favor, awarding to it the pro rata share of its claim against the motor vehicle bond (Number CMS41001118), and further requests any additional relief that is deemed fair and equitable under the circumstances. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this _16th __ day of February, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Courts by using the E-Portal System pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516 (a), which E-Portal will provide service upon Christopher T. 4 McRae, Esquire and Benjamin C. Patton, Esquire with McRae & Metcalf, P.A., 2612 Centennial Place, Tallahassee, Florida 32308 at e-mail: cmcrae@mcraemetcalf.com; bpatton@mcraemetcalf.com. HILL, RUGH, KELLER & MAIN, P.L. _/s/ Steven R. Main _______ STEVEN R. MAIN Florida Bar No.: 0144551 390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1610 Post Office Box 2311 Orlando, Florida 32802-2311 (407) 926-7460 (407) 926-7461 facsimile smain@hrkmlaw.com filings@hrkmlaw.com Counsel for Defendant, Manheim Remarketing, Inc. 5