Answer: MICROCHECK SYSTEMS INC (TEXAS CORPORATION) vs. ZIGROSSI & MURPHY L L C (TEXAS CORPORATION) (IND A

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                an ON im

CAUSE NUMBER 2004-59790

MICROCHECK SYSTEMS, INC. AND § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
MICROCHECK SOLUTIONS, INC.

8
vs. FOR|SFS3

=z or
t ><
ZIGROSSI & MURPHY, L.L.C., Individually § eu. 0
and d/b/a EDUCATED SOLUTIONS; § osez =
CHRIS ZIGROSSI; SCOTT MURPHY; MIKE § Hore _
SMITH Individually and d/b/a CMS 8 megs sn
TECHNOLOGY a/k/a CMS TECHNOLOGIES;§ fino &
MICHOICE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC; § Hse =
JIM HAYDEN; ALEX CAMPBELL; AND § = 3
JASON JABLECKI 8 125™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

—
—

THIRD PARTY DFENDANT’S ANSWER TO
SECO) IE. F

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, MicroCheck Systems, Inc. and MicroCheck Solutions, Inc.
(“MicroCheck”) and files this Answer to Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Mike Smith’s
(“Smith”) Compulsory Counterclaim and would respectfully show the Court as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

1. As authorized by Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,
MicroCheck enters a general denial of matters pled by Smith and request that the Court
require Smith to prove his charges and allegations by a preponderance of the evidence,
and/or clear and convincing evidence, as required by the Constitution and laws of the
State of Texas.

DEFENSES
2. In the alternative, Smith’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the

statute of frauds.

3, In the alterative, Smith’s claims are barred by his breach of duties both

3“A ~ am,

contractual and non-contractual to MicroCheck.

4. In the alternative, Smith’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the
equitable doctrines of laches, unclean hands, estoppel and waiver.

5. In the alternative, Smith’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the
statute of limitations.

6. In the alternative, Smith’s claims are barred in whole or in part by mutual
mistake, unilateral mistake, lack of mutual assent and/or lack of meeting of the minds.

7. In the alternative, Smith’s claims for tortious interference with contract
and/or prospective business relations are barred in whole or in part because Smith had no
contract or prospective business relations with which to interfere.

8. In the alternative, Smith’s claims for tortious interference with contract
and/or prospective business relations are barred in whole or in part by legal justification.

9. In the alternative, Smith’s claims for tortious interference with contract
and/or prospective business relations are barred in whole or in part because there is no
independently tortious or wrongful act supporting such claims.

10. ‘In the alternative, Smith’s claims for tortious interference with contract
and/or prospective business relations are barred in whole or in part because any such
contracts or prospective business relations would be illegal.

11. In the alternative, Smith’s claim for libel is barred in whole or in part by
the privilege of communications pertaining to litigation.

12. In the alternative, Smith’s claim for libel is barred in whole or in part
because the statements complained of are incapable of a defamatory meaning.

13. In the alternative, Smith’s claims for libel are barred in whole or in part“A A ~~ im

because the statements complained of were true.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, MicroCheck Systems, Inc. and
MicroCheck Solutions, Inc. pray that, upon final hearing, judgment be entered that Smith
take nothing and that they be dismissed with its costs.

Respectfully submitted,

SHE! » SERPE & W,

      

By:
Christopher D. DeMeo
State Bar No. 00796456
R. Edward Perkins
Texas Bar No. 15790410

2500 Two Houston Center

909 Fannin St.

Houston, Texas 77010

713/951-1000

713/951-1199 - fax

Attorney for Plaintiffs,

MicroCheck Systems, Inc., MicroCheck
Solutions, Inc, and Third-Party Defendant
John D. Manning

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This will certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been
forwarded to all counsel of record and pro se parties pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure on the 21st day of November, 2007.

Christopher D. DeMeo

1203393_1.DOC