Preview
Filing # 44869096 E-Filed 08/05/2016 10:33:23 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11° JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 2016-004811-CA-01
SERGE MYRTIL and MARIE MYRTIL,
Plaintiffs,
vs,
ROLANDO ORAMA GARCIA, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA
LUGO, and MEKKA MIAMI GROUP CORP,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT'S, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO’s
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
The Defendant, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO, files this Answer and Affirmative
Defenses to Plaintiffs’ operative, Second Amended Compiaint, and in support thereof would
show this Court the following:
1. The instant action arises out of an incident that occurred on or about February 1, 2015.
2. The Defendant, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO, admits that portion of paragraph ten
(10) that at all times material hereto she was a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The
remaining allegations contained in paragraph ten (10) or any inferences contained therein,
which are not expressly admitted are hereby denied and strict proof is demanded.
3. The Defendant, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO, admits that portion of paragraph
eleven (11) that upon information and belief, Rolando Orama Garcia operated a 2015 Ford
motor vehicle at or near US 1 and Riviera Drive, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The remaining
allegations in paragraph eleven (11), that she possessed any ownership interest or right to
control the use of the subject vehicle, or any inferences contained therein, are hereby denied
and strict proof is demanded. Further, any allegation which is not expressly admitted is hereby
denied and strict proof is demanded.MyYRTIL, ET. ux. v. GARCIA & LUGO.
Case No.: 2016-004811-CA-01
DEFENDANT'S, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO’S,
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to Second Amended Complaint
4, The Defendant, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO, denies each and every allegation not
expressly admitted herein, and demands strict proof thereof.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Defendant affirmatively pleads and is entitied to all of the legal defenses set forth
in the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, Florida Statute 627.737 et seq., including
but not limited to Plaintiffs failure to meet the Threshoid Requirements for recovery of non-
economic damages.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Defendant affirmatively pleads and is entitled to all of the legal defenses set forth
in the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, Florida Statute 627.736 et seq., including
but not limited to set-offs for the payment of Personal Injury Protection Benefits, and/or Med-
Pay Coverages under all relevant insuring policies, as applicable.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Defendant affirmatively pleads that she did not possess an actual property interest
in the subject vehicle, and is not vicariously liable for the subject motor vehicle accident.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Defendant affirmatively pleads that she was not the legal cause of loss, injury or
damage to the Plaintiff.MYRTIL, ET. Ux. v. GARCIA & LUGO
CASE No.: 2016-00481 1-CA-07
DEFENDANT'S, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LuGO’s,
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES fo Second Amended Complaint
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Defendant affirmatively pleads that Plaintiff's injuries and condition(s), if any, may
have pre-existed this incident and were not worsened or aggravated by the incident at issue.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Defendant affirmatively pleads that Plaintiff's conduct subsequent to the accident
may have caused or aggravated any injuries he claims to have resulted from the accident.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Defendant affirmatively pleads that the Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate his
purported damages and is therefore not entitled to recover for those damages which could have
been avoided through the exercise or use of reasonable care.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Defendant affirmatively pleads and is entitled to set-offs for all collateral sources
paid or payable to Plaintiff as promulgated by Florida Statute 768.76, Collateral sources of
Indemnity.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Defendant affirmatively pleads that Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action or clain
for prejudgment interest as compensatory damages are not “liquidated” until determined by a
jury. Prejudgment interest on compensatory damages is impermissible as a matter of law.
The Defendant, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO, reserves the right to amend Affirmative
Defenses upon the discovery of new information.MyYRTIL, ET. UX. V. GARCIA & Luco
CASE NO.: 2016-00481 1-CA-01
DEFENDANT'S, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO’S,
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to Second Amended Complaint
WHEREFORE the Defendant, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO, demands a jury trial on
all issues so triable, and all recoverable costs.
| HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been fumished
by E-Mail on August 4, 2016 to: Cosme Caballero, Esq., DEUTSCH & BLUMBERG, P.A.,
ccaballero@deutschblumberg.com and kdominguez@deutschblumberg.com, New World
Tower, Suite 2802, 100 North Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33132; and Reginald J. Clyne,
Esq/Florence M. Rubio, Esq., QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A., :
reginaid.clyne@aqpwblaw.com, florence.rubio@gqpwblaw.com, rctyne.pleadings@apwblaw.com
and idisiet.rodriguez@qpwblaw.com, 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4" Floor, Miami FL 33156.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVIS, GIARDINO & HRIVNAK, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant
201 Arkona Court, West Paim Beach, FL 33401
Office: (561 305 Fax; (561) 514-0309
WAYNE T. HRIVNAK
FBN: 0463167
Preview
Filing # 44869096 E-Filed 08/05/2016 10:33:23 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11° JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2016-004811-CA-01 SERGE MYRTIL and MARIE MYRTIL, Plaintiffs, vs, ROLANDO ORAMA GARCIA, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO, and MEKKA MIAMI GROUP CORP, Defendants. DEFENDANT'S, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO’s ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT The Defendant, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO, files this Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ operative, Second Amended Compiaint, and in support thereof would show this Court the following: 1. The instant action arises out of an incident that occurred on or about February 1, 2015. 2. The Defendant, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO, admits that portion of paragraph ten (10) that at all times material hereto she was a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The remaining allegations contained in paragraph ten (10) or any inferences contained therein, which are not expressly admitted are hereby denied and strict proof is demanded. 3. The Defendant, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO, admits that portion of paragraph eleven (11) that upon information and belief, Rolando Orama Garcia operated a 2015 Ford motor vehicle at or near US 1 and Riviera Drive, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The remaining allegations in paragraph eleven (11), that she possessed any ownership interest or right to control the use of the subject vehicle, or any inferences contained therein, are hereby denied and strict proof is demanded. Further, any allegation which is not expressly admitted is hereby denied and strict proof is demanded.MyYRTIL, ET. ux. v. GARCIA & LUGO. Case No.: 2016-004811-CA-01 DEFENDANT'S, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO’S, ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to Second Amended Complaint 4, The Defendant, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO, denies each and every allegation not expressly admitted herein, and demands strict proof thereof. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Defendant affirmatively pleads and is entitied to all of the legal defenses set forth in the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, Florida Statute 627.737 et seq., including but not limited to Plaintiffs failure to meet the Threshoid Requirements for recovery of non- economic damages. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Defendant affirmatively pleads and is entitled to all of the legal defenses set forth in the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, Florida Statute 627.736 et seq., including but not limited to set-offs for the payment of Personal Injury Protection Benefits, and/or Med- Pay Coverages under all relevant insuring policies, as applicable. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Defendant affirmatively pleads that she did not possess an actual property interest in the subject vehicle, and is not vicariously liable for the subject motor vehicle accident. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Defendant affirmatively pleads that she was not the legal cause of loss, injury or damage to the Plaintiff.MYRTIL, ET. Ux. v. GARCIA & LUGO CASE No.: 2016-00481 1-CA-07 DEFENDANT'S, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LuGO’s, ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES fo Second Amended Complaint FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Defendant affirmatively pleads that Plaintiff's injuries and condition(s), if any, may have pre-existed this incident and were not worsened or aggravated by the incident at issue. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Defendant affirmatively pleads that Plaintiff's conduct subsequent to the accident may have caused or aggravated any injuries he claims to have resulted from the accident. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Defendant affirmatively pleads that the Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate his purported damages and is therefore not entitled to recover for those damages which could have been avoided through the exercise or use of reasonable care. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Defendant affirmatively pleads and is entitled to set-offs for all collateral sources paid or payable to Plaintiff as promulgated by Florida Statute 768.76, Collateral sources of Indemnity. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Defendant affirmatively pleads that Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action or clain for prejudgment interest as compensatory damages are not “liquidated” until determined by a jury. Prejudgment interest on compensatory damages is impermissible as a matter of law. The Defendant, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO, reserves the right to amend Affirmative Defenses upon the discovery of new information.MyYRTIL, ET. UX. V. GARCIA & Luco CASE NO.: 2016-00481 1-CA-01 DEFENDANT'S, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO’S, ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to Second Amended Complaint WHEREFORE the Defendant, ALI ISABEL CASANOLA LUGO, demands a jury trial on all issues so triable, and all recoverable costs. | HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been fumished by E-Mail on August 4, 2016 to: Cosme Caballero, Esq., DEUTSCH & BLUMBERG, P.A., ccaballero@deutschblumberg.com and kdominguez@deutschblumberg.com, New World Tower, Suite 2802, 100 North Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33132; and Reginald J. Clyne, Esq/Florence M. Rubio, Esq., QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A., : reginaid.clyne@aqpwblaw.com, florence.rubio@gqpwblaw.com, rctyne.pleadings@apwblaw.com and idisiet.rodriguez@qpwblaw.com, 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4" Floor, Miami FL 33156. LAW OFFICE OF DAVIS, GIARDINO & HRIVNAK, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant 201 Arkona Court, West Paim Beach, FL 33401 Office: (561 305 Fax; (561) 514-0309 WAYNE T. HRIVNAK FBN: 0463167