Preview
t COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, ss. | SUPERIOR COURT (WOBURN)
' C.A. NO.: 1781CV00814
i
JUSTIN URBAN, *
Plaintiff;
i
v. \
FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
MAY 8 207
KEITH WESTON!
and \
INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL
SERVICES CORP.
Defendant
T
ANSWER|OF THE DEFENDANTS, KEITH WESTON AND INTERSTATE
ELECTRICAL SERVICES CORP. TO THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
£
eee rere
The defendants Keith Weston and Interstate Electrical Services Corp., answer the
FIRST DEFENSE
separately numbered paragraphs of the Complaint as follows:
i . THE PARTIES
a. 1 defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the allegations contained in this paragraph. Therefore the defendants are
unable to either admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph.
b. “ defendants admit that Keith Weston resides at 12 Westgate Road, Billerica,
Massachusetts, Middlesex County.
c. The defendants admit that Interstate electrical Corp. has a usual place of business
located at 70 Treble Cove Road, Billerica, Massachusetts Middlesex County.COUNT I:
1. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
|
2. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
3. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
4. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
5. The deféndant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
6. The _ denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
7. The alle, ations made in this paragraph do not purport to assert a claim against the
defendants, to the extent they do, the allegations are hereby expressly denied.
t COUNT II:
1. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
2. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
3. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
4. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
5. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
6. The sgaion made in this paragraph do not purport to assert a claim against the
defendants, to the extent they do, the allegations are hereby expressly denied.
SECOND DEFENSE
The Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4) for insufficiency
of process.
THIRD DEFENSE
The Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) for insufficiency
of process.FOURTH DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim against the defendants upon which relief can be granted
and, therefore, the Complain should be dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
FIFTH DEFENSE
The Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) for failure to join
a party.
| SIXTH DEFENSE
The Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(8) for misnomer of
a party.
! SEVENTH DEFENSE
The plaintiffs were more than 50% at fault in causing the alleged injuries and, therefore,
i
are barred from recovery by the comparative negligence statute, G.L. c. 231, sec. 85.
i
: EIGHTH DEFENSE
If the plaintiff is entitled to recover against the defendants, then any such recovery must be reduced
i
in accordance with the comparative negligence statute, G.L. c. 231, sec. 85, since the negligence
of the plaintiff was! ithe proximate cause of the injuries allegedly sustained.
NINTH DEFENSE
The acts or | missions which are alleged to-have caused the damages and/or injuries referred
to in the Complaint were committed by a third party who was not an agent or employee of the
defendants and for whose acts or omissions the defendants are not legally responsible.
| TENTH DEFENSE
The action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.i
i
, ELEVENTH DEFENSE
i
The plaintiff has failed to mitigate. Minimize or avoid damages, if any, alleged in the
|
plaintiffs Complaint; accordingly, any recovery must be reduced by the amount of damage
|
resulting from such failure.
!
fi TWELFTH DEFENSE
,
The plaintiff's claims against the defendant are barred by laches, waiver, estoppel and/or
[I
the applicable statute of limitations.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
The Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein, are barred in that plaintiff and/or
I
third-party plaintiff, by reason of its conduct and actions, has waived any right to assert the claims set
forth therein. :
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
i
\
This court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint and, therefore, the
Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
i FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
This court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant and, therefore, the Complaint
should be ‘nia pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
' SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
I
The Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper venue.
SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE
\
Any negligence on the part of the Defendant was superseded by new and independent
conduct, including negligence of the plaintiff, and/or other third parties, who owed a duty to the
t{
plaintiff and over whom Defendant had no control and which conduct Defendant could neither
I
anticipate nor reasonably foresee and which superseding conduct was not a consequence of
Defendant's alleged negligence but which was the cause of the injuries allegedly sustained by
plaintiff. |
The defendants reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses based upon
further investigation and discovery.
'
WHEREFORE, the Defendants demand that this action be dismissed and that judgment be
entered in the Defendants favor together with costs.
| THE DEFENDANTS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY.
| THE DEFENDANTS,
KEITH WESTON and
INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL SERVICES, CORP.
BY THEIR ATTORNEYS,
\
q
cbulger@bsctrialattorneys.com
| Boyle | Shaughnessy, P.C.
695 Atlantic Avenue, 11" Floor
mo Boston, MA 02111
| T: 617-451-2000
F: 617-451-5775
aCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Justin Urban v Keith Weston and Interstate Electrical Services Corp.
Middlesex Superior Court (Woburn), Civil Action No. 1781CV00814
Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 5(a) and/or Sup. Ct. R. 9A, I Scott M. Carroll / Christopher J.
Bulger, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANTS,
KEITH WESTON AND INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL SERVICES CORP. TO THE
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT has been served via first class mail, postage prepaid, on all parties
or their representative in this action as listed below:
Counsel for Plaintiff
: Richard S. McLaughlin, Esq.
4 Law Offices of Richard S. McLaughlin
6 Edgerly Place
Boston, MA 02116
SIGNED UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THIS YY DAY OF MAY.
Scott Ml. Céroll, BBOH 640852
f scarroll@bsctrialattérheys.com
: Christopher J. Bulgéf, BBO# 634589
t
cbulger@bsctrialattorneys.com
I Boyle | Shaughnessy, PC
|
695 Atlantic Avenue, 11" Floor
Boston, MA 02111
I T: 617-451-2000
i F: 617-451-5775BOYLE | SHAUGHNESSY LAW PC
@ BOYLE | SHAUGHNESSY LAW
tO 695 ATLANTIC AVENUE, 117 FLOOR
i : BOsTON, MA 02111
‘ | : (617) 451.2000 TEL
(617) 451.5775 FAX
www.bsctrialattorneys.com
f
| Scott M. Carroll - Shareholder
scarroll@bsctrialattorneys.com.
Christopher J. Bulger - Associate
cbulger@bsctrialattorneys.com
! May 4, 2017
Civil Clerk’s Office
Middlesex Superior Court
200 Trade Center |
-Woburn, MA 01801 ;
RE: — Justin Urban v. Keith Weston and Interstate Electrical Services Corp.
Middlesex Supetior Court'(Woburn), Civil Action No. 1781CV00814
BSL File No. ZA1.3862
Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed pleasd find the following with regard to the above referenced matter:
1) Answer of the Defendants, Keith Weston and Interstate Electrical Services Corp. to the
Plaintiff's Complaint. .
Kindly docket and file in the usual manner. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
' Very Truly yours,
|
i (A
; Scott MzCarroll
Christopher J. Bulger
CJB/dd
Enclosure
ce: Richard S. Memento Esq.
| pe
FILED
iN THE OFFIGE OF THE
CLERK OF COURTS:
HIE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
MAY = 8 2077
i | 2
[ Je ei 5 Giles
i
Massachusetts |- Connecticut - New Hampshire - Rhode Island - Maine - Vermont - New York
i
1
}
t
Preview
t COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, ss. | SUPERIOR COURT (WOBURN) ' C.A. NO.: 1781CV00814 i JUSTIN URBAN, * Plaintiff; i v. \ FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX MAY 8 207 KEITH WESTON! and \ INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL SERVICES CORP. Defendant T ANSWER|OF THE DEFENDANTS, KEITH WESTON AND INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL SERVICES CORP. TO THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT £ eee rere The defendants Keith Weston and Interstate Electrical Services Corp., answer the FIRST DEFENSE separately numbered paragraphs of the Complaint as follows: i . THE PARTIES a. 1 defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations contained in this paragraph. Therefore the defendants are unable to either admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph. b. “ defendants admit that Keith Weston resides at 12 Westgate Road, Billerica, Massachusetts, Middlesex County. c. The defendants admit that Interstate electrical Corp. has a usual place of business located at 70 Treble Cove Road, Billerica, Massachusetts Middlesex County.COUNT I: 1. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph. | 2. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph. 3. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph. 4. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph. 5. The deféndant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph. 6. The _ denies the allegations contained in this paragraph. 7. The alle, ations made in this paragraph do not purport to assert a claim against the defendants, to the extent they do, the allegations are hereby expressly denied. t COUNT II: 1. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph. 2. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph. 3. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph. 4. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph. 5. The defendant denies the allegations contained in this paragraph. 6. The sgaion made in this paragraph do not purport to assert a claim against the defendants, to the extent they do, the allegations are hereby expressly denied. SECOND DEFENSE The Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4) for insufficiency of process. THIRD DEFENSE The Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) for insufficiency of process.FOURTH DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a claim against the defendants upon which relief can be granted and, therefore, the Complain should be dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). FIFTH DEFENSE The Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) for failure to join a party. | SIXTH DEFENSE The Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(8) for misnomer of a party. ! SEVENTH DEFENSE The plaintiffs were more than 50% at fault in causing the alleged injuries and, therefore, i are barred from recovery by the comparative negligence statute, G.L. c. 231, sec. 85. i : EIGHTH DEFENSE If the plaintiff is entitled to recover against the defendants, then any such recovery must be reduced i in accordance with the comparative negligence statute, G.L. c. 231, sec. 85, since the negligence of the plaintiff was! ithe proximate cause of the injuries allegedly sustained. NINTH DEFENSE The acts or | missions which are alleged to-have caused the damages and/or injuries referred to in the Complaint were committed by a third party who was not an agent or employee of the defendants and for whose acts or omissions the defendants are not legally responsible. | TENTH DEFENSE The action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.i i , ELEVENTH DEFENSE i The plaintiff has failed to mitigate. Minimize or avoid damages, if any, alleged in the | plaintiffs Complaint; accordingly, any recovery must be reduced by the amount of damage | resulting from such failure. ! fi TWELFTH DEFENSE , The plaintiff's claims against the defendant are barred by laches, waiver, estoppel and/or [I the applicable statute of limitations. THIRTEENTH DEFENSE The Complaint, and each cause of action set forth therein, are barred in that plaintiff and/or I third-party plaintiff, by reason of its conduct and actions, has waived any right to assert the claims set forth therein. : FOURTEENTH DEFENSE i \ This court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint and, therefore, the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). i FIFTEENTH DEFENSE This court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant and, therefore, the Complaint should be ‘nia pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). ' SIXTEENTH DEFENSE I The Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper venue. SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE \ Any negligence on the part of the Defendant was superseded by new and independent conduct, including negligence of the plaintiff, and/or other third parties, who owed a duty to the t{ plaintiff and over whom Defendant had no control and which conduct Defendant could neither I anticipate nor reasonably foresee and which superseding conduct was not a consequence of Defendant's alleged negligence but which was the cause of the injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff. | The defendants reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses based upon further investigation and discovery. ' WHEREFORE, the Defendants demand that this action be dismissed and that judgment be entered in the Defendants favor together with costs. | THE DEFENDANTS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY. | THE DEFENDANTS, KEITH WESTON and INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL SERVICES, CORP. BY THEIR ATTORNEYS, \ q cbulger@bsctrialattorneys.com | Boyle | Shaughnessy, P.C. 695 Atlantic Avenue, 11" Floor mo Boston, MA 02111 | T: 617-451-2000 F: 617-451-5775 aCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Justin Urban v Keith Weston and Interstate Electrical Services Corp. Middlesex Superior Court (Woburn), Civil Action No. 1781CV00814 Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 5(a) and/or Sup. Ct. R. 9A, I Scott M. Carroll / Christopher J. Bulger, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANTS, KEITH WESTON AND INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL SERVICES CORP. TO THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT has been served via first class mail, postage prepaid, on all parties or their representative in this action as listed below: Counsel for Plaintiff : Richard S. McLaughlin, Esq. 4 Law Offices of Richard S. McLaughlin 6 Edgerly Place Boston, MA 02116 SIGNED UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THIS YY DAY OF MAY. Scott Ml. Céroll, BBOH 640852 f scarroll@bsctrialattérheys.com : Christopher J. Bulgéf, BBO# 634589 t cbulger@bsctrialattorneys.com I Boyle | Shaughnessy, PC | 695 Atlantic Avenue, 11" Floor Boston, MA 02111 I T: 617-451-2000 i F: 617-451-5775BOYLE | SHAUGHNESSY LAW PC @ BOYLE | SHAUGHNESSY LAW tO 695 ATLANTIC AVENUE, 117 FLOOR i : BOsTON, MA 02111 ‘ | : (617) 451.2000 TEL (617) 451.5775 FAX www.bsctrialattorneys.com f | Scott M. Carroll - Shareholder scarroll@bsctrialattorneys.com. Christopher J. Bulger - Associate cbulger@bsctrialattorneys.com ! May 4, 2017 Civil Clerk’s Office Middlesex Superior Court 200 Trade Center | -Woburn, MA 01801 ; RE: — Justin Urban v. Keith Weston and Interstate Electrical Services Corp. Middlesex Supetior Court'(Woburn), Civil Action No. 1781CV00814 BSL File No. ZA1.3862 Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed pleasd find the following with regard to the above referenced matter: 1) Answer of the Defendants, Keith Weston and Interstate Electrical Services Corp. to the Plaintiff's Complaint. . Kindly docket and file in the usual manner. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ' Very Truly yours, | i (A ; Scott MzCarroll Christopher J. Bulger CJB/dd Enclosure ce: Richard S. Memento Esq. | pe FILED iN THE OFFIGE OF THE CLERK OF COURTS: HIE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX MAY = 8 2077 i | 2 [ Je ei 5 Giles i Massachusetts |- Connecticut - New Hampshire - Rhode Island - Maine - Vermont - New York i 1 } t