Preview
WIV UETIFA
Case 1:16-cv-12383-IT Document 59 Filed 09/15/17 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
EASTERN DIVISION
SABA HASHEM, Individually and
Derivatively on behalf of
D'ANGELO & HASHEM, LLC
Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO:
1:16-CV-12383-IT
ve
STEPHEN L. D'ANGELO
D'ANGELO LAW GROUP, LLC, and
nominally, D'ANGELO & HASHEM, LLC
Defendants
ANSWER TO INTERVENOR'S CROSS-COMPLAINT
The Defendants, Stephen L. D’Angelo, D’Angelo Law Group, LLC, and
D'Angelo & Hashem, LLC (collectively hereafter “Defendants”) hereby
answer the Cross-Complaint filed by Jennifer M. Carrion (hereafter
“Carrion”) against Saba Hashem (hereafter “Hashem”), D'Angelo & Hashem,
LLC (hereafter “D&H”), D'Angelo Law Group, LLC (hereafter “DLG”), and
Stephen L. D‘Angelo (hereafter “D’Angelo”) to the extent that such Cross-
Complaint includes specific allegations and claims against the
Defendants, the Defendants answer as follows:
1. This paragraph fails to set forth clear and concise factual
statements that may be either admitted or denied by the Defendants. To
the extent that it contains allegations against the Plaintiffs, the
Defendants are without specific knowledge of those facts and, therefore,
deny those allegations. Furthermore, as to the specific allegation
Page 1 of 6Case 1:16-cv-12383-IT Document59 Filed 09/15/17 Page 2 of 6
against D’Angelo and DLG regarding the alleged transfer of assets
formerly of D&H, the Defendants deny.
2. Defendants are without specific knowledge to either admit or
deny the allegations in this paragraph.
3. Defendants are without specific knowledge to either admit or
deny the allegations in this paragraph.
4. Admitted.
S. Admitted in part. D&H is a defunct entity which is no longer
in business. Any relationship between D’Angelo and Hashem was terminated,
at the latest, when Hashem was suspended from the practice of law, if
not earlier.
6. Admitted.
7. “Admitted.
8. Admitted in part. The Defendants refer to their answer to
paragraph 5 above.
9. Admitted.
10. Admitted.
11. Admitted.
12. Admitted.
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted.
15. Admitted.
16. Admitted.
17. No response is needed as the documents referenced in this
paragraph speak for themselves.
Page 2 of 6Case 1:16-cv-12383-IT Document 59 Filed 09/15/17 Page 3 of 6
18. No response is needed as the documents referenced in paragraph
17 above speak for themselves as to the amount owed to Carrion.
19. Defendants are without specific knowledge to either admit or
deny the allegations against Hashem. The Defendants deny the other
allegations in this paragraph.
20. Defendants are without specific knowledge to either admit or
deny the allegations against Hashem. The Defendants admit the other
allegations in this paragraph.
21. Defendants are without specific knowledge to either admit or
deny the allegations against Hashem. The Defendants deny the other
allegations in this paragraph.
22, Defendants are without specific knowledge to either admit or
deny the allegations in this paragraph.
23. Denied.
24, Denied.
25, Denied.
26. Admitted insofar as this paragraph states the contents of the
Second Amended Complaint filed by Hashem, which speaks for itself. The
Defendants neither admit nor deny here any of the allegations in the
Second Amended Complaint as they have already answered those allegations
in their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint.
27. No response is needed.
28, Admitted.
29. Denied.
30. Denied.
31. Admitted.
Page 3 of 632.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
relief.
38.
relief.
39.
40.
41,
42.
43.
Case 1:16-cv-12383-IT Document 59 Filed 09/15/17 Page 4 of 6
To
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
No response is needed.
No response is needed as this paragraph is a request for
the extend a response is needed, the Defendants deny.
No response is needed as this paragraph is a request for
the extend a response is needed, the Defendants deny.
No response is needed.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Admitted as to DLG operating at the same address.
to DLG using the same website as D&H.
44.
45.
46.
In her Cross-Complaint,
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense
Denied as
the Intervenor has failed to state a
claim against any of the Defendants upon which relief may be granted.
The Defendants’
Second Affirmative Defense
Intervenor’s damages, if any.
Page 4 of 6
actions were not the direct cause of theCase 1:16-cv-12383-IT Document 59 Filed 09/15/17 Page 5 of 6
Third Affirmative Defense
The Defendants’ actions were not the proximate cause of the
Intervenor’s damages, if any.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
If the Intervenor ever had claims against the Defendants, which
the Defendants expressly deny, the Intervenor has, by her actions or
by those of her agents, waived any rights to recover damages from the
Defendants.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
If the Intervenor ever had claims against the Defendants, which
the Defendants expressly deny, the Intervenor, by her actions or by
those of her agents, is estopped from prosecuting same and is thereby
barred from recovering any damages from the Defendants.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
If the Intervenor ever had claims against the Defendants, which
the Defendants expressly deny, the Intervenor’s claims are barred by
the doctrine of laches.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
The Intervenor’s alleged injuries were caused by the Plaintiff,
for whose conduct the Defendants are not legally responsible.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
If the Intervenor ever had claims against the Defendants, which
the Defendants expressly deny, the Intervenor is not entitled to
recover from the Defendants because of her failure to mitigate her
damages.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
Page 5 of 6Case 1:16-cv-12383-IT Document 59 Filed 09/15/17 Page 6 of 6
To the extent that the Intervenor has alleged that the Defendants
have committed fraud, the Intervenor has failed to plead those
allegations with the requisite particularity as to the circumstances
constituting fraud as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 9, and any such
allegations and related counts should be stricken from the Complaint.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants pray that this Court deny the relief
sought by the Intervenor in her Complaint.
THE DEFENDANTS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL ON ALL COUNTS SO TRIABLE
Respectfully Submitted,
Stephen L. D’Angelo,
D’Angelo Law Group, LLC, and
D’Angelo & Hashem, LLC,
Dated: 9-15-17 /s/ William J. Amann, Esq.
William J. Amann, Esq.
MA BBO # 648511
Craig, Deachman & Amann, PLLC
1662 Elm St., #100
Manchester, NH 03101
603-665-9111
wamann@cda-law.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served via
the Court's ECF filing system upon all counsel of record as of the
date indicated below.
Dated: 9-15-17 /s/ William J. Amann, Esq.
Page 6 of 6
Preview
WIV UETIFA Case 1:16-cv-12383-IT Document 59 Filed 09/15/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EASTERN DIVISION SABA HASHEM, Individually and Derivatively on behalf of D'ANGELO & HASHEM, LLC Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO: 1:16-CV-12383-IT ve STEPHEN L. D'ANGELO D'ANGELO LAW GROUP, LLC, and nominally, D'ANGELO & HASHEM, LLC Defendants ANSWER TO INTERVENOR'S CROSS-COMPLAINT The Defendants, Stephen L. D’Angelo, D’Angelo Law Group, LLC, and D'Angelo & Hashem, LLC (collectively hereafter “Defendants”) hereby answer the Cross-Complaint filed by Jennifer M. Carrion (hereafter “Carrion”) against Saba Hashem (hereafter “Hashem”), D'Angelo & Hashem, LLC (hereafter “D&H”), D'Angelo Law Group, LLC (hereafter “DLG”), and Stephen L. D‘Angelo (hereafter “D’Angelo”) to the extent that such Cross- Complaint includes specific allegations and claims against the Defendants, the Defendants answer as follows: 1. This paragraph fails to set forth clear and concise factual statements that may be either admitted or denied by the Defendants. To the extent that it contains allegations against the Plaintiffs, the Defendants are without specific knowledge of those facts and, therefore, deny those allegations. Furthermore, as to the specific allegation Page 1 of 6Case 1:16-cv-12383-IT Document59 Filed 09/15/17 Page 2 of 6 against D’Angelo and DLG regarding the alleged transfer of assets formerly of D&H, the Defendants deny. 2. Defendants are without specific knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 3. Defendants are without specific knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 4. Admitted. S. Admitted in part. D&H is a defunct entity which is no longer in business. Any relationship between D’Angelo and Hashem was terminated, at the latest, when Hashem was suspended from the practice of law, if not earlier. 6. Admitted. 7. “Admitted. 8. Admitted in part. The Defendants refer to their answer to paragraph 5 above. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. 17. No response is needed as the documents referenced in this paragraph speak for themselves. Page 2 of 6Case 1:16-cv-12383-IT Document 59 Filed 09/15/17 Page 3 of 6 18. No response is needed as the documents referenced in paragraph 17 above speak for themselves as to the amount owed to Carrion. 19. Defendants are without specific knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations against Hashem. The Defendants deny the other allegations in this paragraph. 20. Defendants are without specific knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations against Hashem. The Defendants admit the other allegations in this paragraph. 21. Defendants are without specific knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations against Hashem. The Defendants deny the other allegations in this paragraph. 22, Defendants are without specific knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 23. Denied. 24, Denied. 25, Denied. 26. Admitted insofar as this paragraph states the contents of the Second Amended Complaint filed by Hashem, which speaks for itself. The Defendants neither admit nor deny here any of the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint as they have already answered those allegations in their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. 27. No response is needed. 28, Admitted. 29. Denied. 30. Denied. 31. Admitted. Page 3 of 632. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. relief. 38. relief. 39. 40. 41, 42. 43. Case 1:16-cv-12383-IT Document 59 Filed 09/15/17 Page 4 of 6 To Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. No response is needed. No response is needed as this paragraph is a request for the extend a response is needed, the Defendants deny. No response is needed as this paragraph is a request for the extend a response is needed, the Defendants deny. No response is needed. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted as to DLG operating at the same address. to DLG using the same website as D&H. 44. 45. 46. In her Cross-Complaint, Denied. Denied. Denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES First Affirmative Defense Denied as the Intervenor has failed to state a claim against any of the Defendants upon which relief may be granted. The Defendants’ Second Affirmative Defense Intervenor’s damages, if any. Page 4 of 6 actions were not the direct cause of theCase 1:16-cv-12383-IT Document 59 Filed 09/15/17 Page 5 of 6 Third Affirmative Defense The Defendants’ actions were not the proximate cause of the Intervenor’s damages, if any. Fourth Affirmative Defense If the Intervenor ever had claims against the Defendants, which the Defendants expressly deny, the Intervenor has, by her actions or by those of her agents, waived any rights to recover damages from the Defendants. Fifth Affirmative Defense If the Intervenor ever had claims against the Defendants, which the Defendants expressly deny, the Intervenor, by her actions or by those of her agents, is estopped from prosecuting same and is thereby barred from recovering any damages from the Defendants. Sixth Affirmative Defense If the Intervenor ever had claims against the Defendants, which the Defendants expressly deny, the Intervenor’s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. Seventh Affirmative Defense The Intervenor’s alleged injuries were caused by the Plaintiff, for whose conduct the Defendants are not legally responsible. Eighth Affirmative Defense If the Intervenor ever had claims against the Defendants, which the Defendants expressly deny, the Intervenor is not entitled to recover from the Defendants because of her failure to mitigate her damages. Ninth Affirmative Defense Page 5 of 6Case 1:16-cv-12383-IT Document 59 Filed 09/15/17 Page 6 of 6 To the extent that the Intervenor has alleged that the Defendants have committed fraud, the Intervenor has failed to plead those allegations with the requisite particularity as to the circumstances constituting fraud as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 9, and any such allegations and related counts should be stricken from the Complaint. WHEREFORE, the Defendants pray that this Court deny the relief sought by the Intervenor in her Complaint. THE DEFENDANTS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL ON ALL COUNTS SO TRIABLE Respectfully Submitted, Stephen L. D’Angelo, D’Angelo Law Group, LLC, and D’Angelo & Hashem, LLC, Dated: 9-15-17 /s/ William J. Amann, Esq. William J. Amann, Esq. MA BBO # 648511 Craig, Deachman & Amann, PLLC 1662 Elm St., #100 Manchester, NH 03101 603-665-9111 wamann@cda-law.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served via the Court's ECF filing system upon all counsel of record as of the date indicated below. Dated: 9-15-17 /s/ William J. Amann, Esq. Page 6 of 6