Preview
Filing # 45347931 E-Filed 08/17/2016 03:07:17 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NUMBER: 50-2016-CA-004381
TAYMI MARRERO,
and JOHN LISMAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES LA SPINA, individually, and
STRATEGIC TURBINE INVENTORY
GROUP LLC,
Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFF TAYMI MARRERO’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO
DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
Plaintift/Counter-Defendant, TAYM] MARRERO (“Marrero”), serves her Answer and
Affirmative Defenses to Defendants, JAMES LA SPINA and STRATEGIC TURBINE
INVENTORY GROUP LLC’s (“STIG”) AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS, and states:
ANSWER
Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
1. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.
2. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.
RA teed Doe et Ab tt eV eee dee
AGIMMUCT LOL JULISUICUONaL purposes omy.
we
4. Denied
General Allegations
5. Admitted that Marrero was employed by STIG, but denied as to the remaining
allegations as Marrero was also a co-founder and part-owner of STIG.
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 08/17/2016 03:07:17 PM6. Admitted that Marrero was issued certain STIG property, but denied as to the
remaining allegations.
7. Admitted that La Spina terminated Marrero’s employment in January 2016, but
denied as to the remaining allegations.
8. Denied
Count I - Conversion
10. Marrero’s answers to these paragraphs are re-alleged as if fully set forth herein.
11. Admitted that Count I purports to be a claim for conversion, but denied as to the
validity of such claim.
12. Denied.
13. Denied.
14. Denied.
15. Denied.
16. Denied.
17. Denied.
i8. Denied.
Count II - Florida Computer Abuse and Data Recovery Act
1. Marrero’s answers to these paragraphs are re-alleged as if fully set forth herein.
2. Admitted that Count II purports to be a claim under the Florida Computer Abuse
and Data Recovery Act, but denied as to the validity of such claim.
3. Denied.
4. Denied.
5 Denied6. Denied.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, Taymi Marrero, having responded to
Defendants’ Counterclaims as set forth above, requests that Judgment be entered for
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant for the Counts answered above, that Defendants take nothing by
virtue of said Counts, attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 668.804(2), Florida Statutes, and for all
other relief deemed proper and just.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Marrero will rely on all defenses available at the time of
trial. For these reasons, she reserves the right to amend her Affirmative Defenses to include
additional defenses as necessary during the course of the lawsuit.
1. Waiver. Defendants’ claims are barred because Defendants waived any claims
stated by: (1) its own misconduct, fraud, lack of due diligence, and failure to abide by the terms
of the parties’ joint venture agreement (the “Agreement”); and/or (2) Defendants consenting to
Marrero possessing the “Company Property” and “Company Information.”
2. Consent and Ratification. Defendants’ claims are barred because Defendants,
either expressly or impitediy, consented io or ratified the taking, use or disposition of the
“Company Property” and “Company Information.” Marrero relied on said consent in possessing
such property.
3. In Pari Delicto. To the extent that this Court finds that Marrero committed any
of the purported wrongdoings alleged by Defendants - and she did not — Defendants are not
entitled to any recovery because Defendants were in pari delicto. Indeed, Defendants knew of,
actively participated in, and benefitted from the purported wrongdoings alleged by Defendants,
inaluding the annravad nncoaccinn af the “Camnany Dranart?? and “Camnany Infarmatinn ?
InGidGing ule approvea possession Oi ule UOmipany afopeiy ana UCnipany auonmaudcn,4. Equitable _Estoppel. Defendants are not entitled to any recovery and are
equitably estopped from asserting their claims due to engaging in inequitable (and/or bad faith)
conduct in the course of performing its obligations under the Agreement, as more specifically
described in paragraphs 20-28 of the Complaint (incorporated herein by reference).
5. No Damages. Defendants’ claims are barred in whole or in part because
Defendants have suffered no discernable damages, or their damages are de minimis.
6. Abandonment. Defendants’ claims fail as a matter of law because Defendants
abandoned the “Company Property” and “Company Information” and had no intent to reclaim
such property or information when Marrero possessed it.
7. Set-Off. Marrero is entitled to a set-off based on the damages she obtains from
her claims in the Complaint.
8. Ownership Interest. Defendants’ claim in Count 2 fails as a matter of law
because Marrero had an ownership interest in the files allegedly removed from her company
laptop, as any removed files came from her work product and/or her prior job at Kellstrom.
9. Failure to Meet Statutory Requirements. Defendants’ claim in Count 2 fails as
a matier of law because Marrero was an “Authorized User” as that term 1s defined in Section
668.802(1), Florida Statutes. As such, she could not have accessed the company laptop “without
authorization,” as required to be liable under Section 668.803, Florida Statutes. Likewise, the
company laptop was not a “protected computer” as that term is defined in Section 668.802(6),
Florida Statutes — a prerequisite to liability under Section 668.803, Florida Statutes.
10. Adequate Remedy at Law. Defendants have an adequate remedy at law to
recover for any violations of the statute alleged in Count 2 — a damages claim (pending its ability
ta nrnwe liahilite, and damaroac\ — that nrachidas a claim far iniunntive raliaf
W plOVe HavuiLy ana Gamagesy — ulae preciuaes @ Crain 10r iyUnCUve reates,CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 17, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the Clerk of the Courts by using the Florida Courts eFiling Portal, which will send electronic
notification to: Grant D. Petersen, Esq. (grant.petersen@ogletreedeakins.com).
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
Business Trial Group
s/Evan H. Frederick
Evan H. Frederick
Florida Bar No. 064819
James E, Fakhoury
Florida Bar No. 0118644
515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 2125
‘West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Telephone: (561) 227-5858
Facsimile: (561) 227-5859
EFrederick@forthepeople.com
JFakhoury@forthepeople.com
Preview
Filing # 45347931 E-Filed 08/17/2016 03:07:17 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: 50-2016-CA-004381 TAYMI MARRERO, and JOHN LISMAN, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES LA SPINA, individually, and STRATEGIC TURBINE INVENTORY GROUP LLC, Defendants. / PLAINTIFF TAYMI MARRERO’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintift/Counter-Defendant, TAYM] MARRERO (“Marrero”), serves her Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Defendants, JAMES LA SPINA and STRATEGIC TURBINE INVENTORY GROUP LLC’s (“STIG”) AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS, and states: ANSWER Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue 1. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. 2. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. RA teed Doe et Ab tt eV eee dee AGIMMUCT LOL JULISUICUONaL purposes omy. we 4. Denied General Allegations 5. Admitted that Marrero was employed by STIG, but denied as to the remaining allegations as Marrero was also a co-founder and part-owner of STIG. FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 08/17/2016 03:07:17 PM6. Admitted that Marrero was issued certain STIG property, but denied as to the remaining allegations. 7. Admitted that La Spina terminated Marrero’s employment in January 2016, but denied as to the remaining allegations. 8. Denied Count I - Conversion 10. Marrero’s answers to these paragraphs are re-alleged as if fully set forth herein. 11. Admitted that Count I purports to be a claim for conversion, but denied as to the validity of such claim. 12. Denied. 13. Denied. 14. Denied. 15. Denied. 16. Denied. 17. Denied. i8. Denied. Count II - Florida Computer Abuse and Data Recovery Act 1. Marrero’s answers to these paragraphs are re-alleged as if fully set forth herein. 2. Admitted that Count II purports to be a claim under the Florida Computer Abuse and Data Recovery Act, but denied as to the validity of such claim. 3. Denied. 4. Denied. 5 Denied6. Denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, Taymi Marrero, having responded to Defendants’ Counterclaims as set forth above, requests that Judgment be entered for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant for the Counts answered above, that Defendants take nothing by virtue of said Counts, attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 668.804(2), Florida Statutes, and for all other relief deemed proper and just. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Marrero will rely on all defenses available at the time of trial. For these reasons, she reserves the right to amend her Affirmative Defenses to include additional defenses as necessary during the course of the lawsuit. 1. Waiver. Defendants’ claims are barred because Defendants waived any claims stated by: (1) its own misconduct, fraud, lack of due diligence, and failure to abide by the terms of the parties’ joint venture agreement (the “Agreement”); and/or (2) Defendants consenting to Marrero possessing the “Company Property” and “Company Information.” 2. Consent and Ratification. Defendants’ claims are barred because Defendants, either expressly or impitediy, consented io or ratified the taking, use or disposition of the “Company Property” and “Company Information.” Marrero relied on said consent in possessing such property. 3. In Pari Delicto. To the extent that this Court finds that Marrero committed any of the purported wrongdoings alleged by Defendants - and she did not — Defendants are not entitled to any recovery because Defendants were in pari delicto. Indeed, Defendants knew of, actively participated in, and benefitted from the purported wrongdoings alleged by Defendants, inaluding the annravad nncoaccinn af the “Camnany Dranart?? and “Camnany Infarmatinn ? InGidGing ule approvea possession Oi ule UOmipany afopeiy ana UCnipany auonmaudcn,4. Equitable _Estoppel. Defendants are not entitled to any recovery and are equitably estopped from asserting their claims due to engaging in inequitable (and/or bad faith) conduct in the course of performing its obligations under the Agreement, as more specifically described in paragraphs 20-28 of the Complaint (incorporated herein by reference). 5. No Damages. Defendants’ claims are barred in whole or in part because Defendants have suffered no discernable damages, or their damages are de minimis. 6. Abandonment. Defendants’ claims fail as a matter of law because Defendants abandoned the “Company Property” and “Company Information” and had no intent to reclaim such property or information when Marrero possessed it. 7. Set-Off. Marrero is entitled to a set-off based on the damages she obtains from her claims in the Complaint. 8. Ownership Interest. Defendants’ claim in Count 2 fails as a matter of law because Marrero had an ownership interest in the files allegedly removed from her company laptop, as any removed files came from her work product and/or her prior job at Kellstrom. 9. Failure to Meet Statutory Requirements. Defendants’ claim in Count 2 fails as a matier of law because Marrero was an “Authorized User” as that term 1s defined in Section 668.802(1), Florida Statutes. As such, she could not have accessed the company laptop “without authorization,” as required to be liable under Section 668.803, Florida Statutes. Likewise, the company laptop was not a “protected computer” as that term is defined in Section 668.802(6), Florida Statutes — a prerequisite to liability under Section 668.803, Florida Statutes. 10. Adequate Remedy at Law. Defendants have an adequate remedy at law to recover for any violations of the statute alleged in Count 2 — a damages claim (pending its ability ta nrnwe liahilite, and damaroac\ — that nrachidas a claim far iniunntive raliaf W plOVe HavuiLy ana Gamagesy — ulae preciuaes @ Crain 10r iyUnCUve reates,CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 17, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Courts by using the Florida Courts eFiling Portal, which will send electronic notification to: Grant D. Petersen, Esq. (grant.petersen@ogletreedeakins.com). MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. Business Trial Group s/Evan H. Frederick Evan H. Frederick Florida Bar No. 064819 James E, Fakhoury Florida Bar No. 0118644 515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 2125 ‘West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Telephone: (561) 227-5858 Facsimile: (561) 227-5859 EFrederick@forthepeople.com JFakhoury@forthepeople.com