Preview
Filing # 40240618 E-Filed 04/13/2016 05:32:10 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
ACME ENTERPRISES, INC.,
CASE NO. 2015 CA-012402
Plaintiff,
vs.
TRIPLE EIGHT DELRAY, LLC,
and KARL ALTERMAN,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT KARL ALTERMAN’S ANSWER AND DEFENSES
Defendant, KARL ALTERMAN (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Alterman”
or as “Defendant’), , by and through his undersigned counsel, pursuant to the applicable
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, without waiving jurisdiction or any jurisdictional
defenses, including, but not limited to, lack of jurisdiction over the person, lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, insufficiency of service of process, insufficiency of
process, and failure to state a cause of action, as well as all defenses, both mandatory
and discretionary provided for under Florida law, answers the Plaintiff's Complaint filed
in this cause. In response thereto this Defendant states:
1. Defendant Alterman responds to the allegations within paragraphs 6, 7, 15
- 31, and 33 - 36 of Plaintiff's Complaint by denying same as framed and strict proof is
demanded thereon.
2. Defendant Alterman responds to the allegations within paragraphs 2 and 3
of Plaintiff's Complaint by stating that said allegations are not directed to this Defendant
and therefore, this Defendant is not compelled to respond or otherwise admit or deny
said allegations; however, to the extent that said allegations in any way refer to this
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 04/13/2016 05:32:10 PMDefendant or otherwise attempt to attribute any fault, liability, or responsibility to this
Defendant said allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded thereon.
3. Defendant Alterman responds to the allegations contained within
paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and this Defendant reiterates, re-alleges and
adopts by reference, Defendant's responses to Paragraphs 1 - 7 of Plaintiff's Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
4. Defendant Alterman responds to the allegations contained within
paragraphs 1, 4, 5, and 12 of Plaintiffs Complaint and tentatively admits for
jurisdictional purposes only, and subject to amendment and/or clarification hereafter,
that Defendant is a Florida resident. Defendant Alterman is without sufficient information
or knowledge at this time to allow it to admit to the truth of the remaining allegations
within paragraphs 1, 4, 5, and 12 as framed, and therefore tentatively denies same,
subject to amendment or clarification hereafter, and strict proof is demanded thereon
5. Defendant Alterman is without sufficient information or knowledge at this
time to allow it to admit to the truth of the allegations within paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 13,
and 74 as framed, ana therefore tentatively denies same, subject to amendment or
clarification hereafter, and strict proof is demanded thereon
6. Defendant Alterman responds to the allegations contained within
paragraph 32 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and this Defendant reiterates, re-alleges and
adopts by reference, Defendant's responses to Paragraphs 1 - 31 of Plaintiff's
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.7. Defendant Alterman specifically and generally denies any and _ all
remaining allegations contained in the Complaint that are not specifically admitted
above and strict proof is demanded thereon.
DEFENSES
8. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that the Complaint fails to
state a cause of action by failing to allege any damages actually due under the contract.
9. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that the Complaint fails to
state a cause of action by failing to attach all documents upon which the Complaint is
founded in violation of Rule 1.130, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
10. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that the Plaintiff is estopped
from bringing this action by his own actions both before the contract was signed and
after.
11. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that he was fraudulently
induced into signing the contract by the Plaintiff's failure to disclose several known, pre-
existing issues with the restaurant.
iZ. Detendant Aiterman wouid aitirmatively state that tne consideration
provided by the Plaintiff was a sham.
13. | Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that the Contract was illegal.
14. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that the Plaintiff defaulted
upon the contract prior to any alleged default by the Defendant.
15. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that he is entitled to a set-off
from any damages claimed the amounts which Plaintiff received from the re-lease of the
neanarh: ae admittad hy DL
propery, ao aunnuca vy ru16. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that this action is barred by
the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.
17. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that that to the extent the
Plaintiff seeks any equitable relief, this action is barred by the doctrine of laches.
18. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that the Plaintiff failed to
adequately mitigate its damages.
19. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that there has been an
insufficiency of process or an insufficiency of service of process.
20. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that the contract was
unconscionable.
21. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that to the extent the Plaintiff
seeks any equitable relief, recovery is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
22. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that any alleged default on
his part was due to intervening and superseding causes outside of his control, which
were either caused, or known about prior to occurrence, by the Plaintiff.
23. Defendant Aiterman turiner states due io the vague and ambiguous
manner in which the Plaintiff's Complaint is drafted and Defendant’s uncertainty as to
the nature of the specific contractual allegations and claims being directed against them
by the Plaintiff, or otherwise, how Defendant is allegedly liable to the Plaintiff under what
portions of the contract, Defendant is unable to adequately respond or otherwise
respond further unless and until the Plaintiff clarifies the allegations, if any, against
Defendant. Consequently, Defendant reserves and preserves all applicable remedies,
dafaneae nrivilanae raneac nf artinn enintarclaime tha rinht ta niurena attarnave
UCienses, privicges, Causes Cr acudn, COumcrcianits, wie mgm WwW pursue auciicysfees/costs, or otherwise, to include but not limited to, all defenses set forth within Rules
1.140, 1.140(b), 1.140(e), 1.140(f), and 1.140(h), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and
the defenses of accord and satisfaction, estoppel, spoliation, laches, statute of
limitations, failure to join an indispensable party, contractual defenses, the economic
loss doctrine, or any other defenses available pursuant to any terms or conditions
contained in any applicable agreement, as well as any other defenses, both mandatory
and discretionary, provided for under Florida law, as well as other rights and remedies
available to Defendants under applicable Florida law.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
24. Defendant Alterman demands a trial by jury on any and all issues of
fact.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 13, 2016, the foregoing was electronically filed
with the Clerk of the Courts by using the eFiling Portal, and that a copy was served via
Electronic Mail to: Peter B. Weintraub, Esquire, Weintraub & Weintraub, P.A., 2700
North Military Trail, Suite 355, Boca Raton, FL 33431, services@weintraublawfirm.com;
pbw@weintraublawfirm.com
/s/_P. Raul Alvarez, Jr.
P. RAUL ALVAREZ, JR., ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 775215
ARTHUR S. BARKSDALE, IV, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 40628
Aluinens VA Ota.
muvalGZ vw POON! & QUISy, FA.
390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone No. (407) 210-2796
Facsimile No. (407) 210-2795
Attorneys for Defendant
Designated Email Addresses:
pra@awispa.com; abarksdaie@awispa.com
mquilez@awtspa.com; kluick@awtspa.com
ran Thamnann 9 Ctaras DA
Preview
Filing # 40240618 E-Filed 04/13/2016 05:32:10 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ACME ENTERPRISES, INC., CASE NO. 2015 CA-012402 Plaintiff, vs. TRIPLE EIGHT DELRAY, LLC, and KARL ALTERMAN, Defendants. DEFENDANT KARL ALTERMAN’S ANSWER AND DEFENSES Defendant, KARL ALTERMAN (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Alterman” or as “Defendant’), , by and through his undersigned counsel, pursuant to the applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, without waiving jurisdiction or any jurisdictional defenses, including, but not limited to, lack of jurisdiction over the person, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, insufficiency of service of process, insufficiency of process, and failure to state a cause of action, as well as all defenses, both mandatory and discretionary provided for under Florida law, answers the Plaintiff's Complaint filed in this cause. In response thereto this Defendant states: 1. Defendant Alterman responds to the allegations within paragraphs 6, 7, 15 - 31, and 33 - 36 of Plaintiff's Complaint by denying same as framed and strict proof is demanded thereon. 2. Defendant Alterman responds to the allegations within paragraphs 2 and 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint by stating that said allegations are not directed to this Defendant and therefore, this Defendant is not compelled to respond or otherwise admit or deny said allegations; however, to the extent that said allegations in any way refer to this FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 04/13/2016 05:32:10 PMDefendant or otherwise attempt to attribute any fault, liability, or responsibility to this Defendant said allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded thereon. 3. Defendant Alterman responds to the allegations contained within paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and this Defendant reiterates, re-alleges and adopts by reference, Defendant's responses to Paragraphs 1 - 7 of Plaintiff's Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 4. Defendant Alterman responds to the allegations contained within paragraphs 1, 4, 5, and 12 of Plaintiffs Complaint and tentatively admits for jurisdictional purposes only, and subject to amendment and/or clarification hereafter, that Defendant is a Florida resident. Defendant Alterman is without sufficient information or knowledge at this time to allow it to admit to the truth of the remaining allegations within paragraphs 1, 4, 5, and 12 as framed, and therefore tentatively denies same, subject to amendment or clarification hereafter, and strict proof is demanded thereon 5. Defendant Alterman is without sufficient information or knowledge at this time to allow it to admit to the truth of the allegations within paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 13, and 74 as framed, ana therefore tentatively denies same, subject to amendment or clarification hereafter, and strict proof is demanded thereon 6. Defendant Alterman responds to the allegations contained within paragraph 32 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and this Defendant reiterates, re-alleges and adopts by reference, Defendant's responses to Paragraphs 1 - 31 of Plaintiff's Complaint as if fully set forth herein.7. Defendant Alterman specifically and generally denies any and _ all remaining allegations contained in the Complaint that are not specifically admitted above and strict proof is demanded thereon. DEFENSES 8. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action by failing to allege any damages actually due under the contract. 9. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action by failing to attach all documents upon which the Complaint is founded in violation of Rule 1.130, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that the Plaintiff is estopped from bringing this action by his own actions both before the contract was signed and after. 11. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that he was fraudulently induced into signing the contract by the Plaintiff's failure to disclose several known, pre- existing issues with the restaurant. iZ. Detendant Aiterman wouid aitirmatively state that tne consideration provided by the Plaintiff was a sham. 13. | Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that the Contract was illegal. 14. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that the Plaintiff defaulted upon the contract prior to any alleged default by the Defendant. 15. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that he is entitled to a set-off from any damages claimed the amounts which Plaintiff received from the re-lease of the neanarh: ae admittad hy DL propery, ao aunnuca vy ru16. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that this action is barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. 17. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that that to the extent the Plaintiff seeks any equitable relief, this action is barred by the doctrine of laches. 18. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that the Plaintiff failed to adequately mitigate its damages. 19. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that there has been an insufficiency of process or an insufficiency of service of process. 20. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that the contract was unconscionable. 21. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that to the extent the Plaintiff seeks any equitable relief, recovery is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. 22. Defendant Alterman would affirmatively state that any alleged default on his part was due to intervening and superseding causes outside of his control, which were either caused, or known about prior to occurrence, by the Plaintiff. 23. Defendant Aiterman turiner states due io the vague and ambiguous manner in which the Plaintiff's Complaint is drafted and Defendant’s uncertainty as to the nature of the specific contractual allegations and claims being directed against them by the Plaintiff, or otherwise, how Defendant is allegedly liable to the Plaintiff under what portions of the contract, Defendant is unable to adequately respond or otherwise respond further unless and until the Plaintiff clarifies the allegations, if any, against Defendant. Consequently, Defendant reserves and preserves all applicable remedies, dafaneae nrivilanae raneac nf artinn enintarclaime tha rinht ta niurena attarnave UCienses, privicges, Causes Cr acudn, COumcrcianits, wie mgm WwW pursue auciicysfees/costs, or otherwise, to include but not limited to, all defenses set forth within Rules 1.140, 1.140(b), 1.140(e), 1.140(f), and 1.140(h), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and the defenses of accord and satisfaction, estoppel, spoliation, laches, statute of limitations, failure to join an indispensable party, contractual defenses, the economic loss doctrine, or any other defenses available pursuant to any terms or conditions contained in any applicable agreement, as well as any other defenses, both mandatory and discretionary, provided for under Florida law, as well as other rights and remedies available to Defendants under applicable Florida law. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 24. Defendant Alterman demands a trial by jury on any and all issues of fact. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 13, 2016, the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Courts by using the eFiling Portal, and that a copy was served via Electronic Mail to: Peter B. Weintraub, Esquire, Weintraub & Weintraub, P.A., 2700 North Military Trail, Suite 355, Boca Raton, FL 33431, services@weintraublawfirm.com; pbw@weintraublawfirm.com /s/_P. Raul Alvarez, Jr. P. RAUL ALVAREZ, JR., ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 775215 ARTHUR S. BARKSDALE, IV, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 40628 Aluinens VA Ota. muvalGZ vw POON! & QUISy, FA. 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone No. (407) 210-2796 Facsimile No. (407) 210-2795 Attorneys for Defendant Designated Email Addresses: pra@awispa.com; abarksdaie@awispa.com mquilez@awtspa.com; kluick@awtspa.com ran Thamnann 9 Ctaras DA