Preview
Filing # 119808600 E-Filed 01/19/2021 09:44:25 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15™ JUDICAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 50-2020-CA-007534-XXXX-MB
TAYLOR BIBIAN as Personal Representative
of the Estate of JAMES VINCENT ROTI, JR.
Plaintiff,
Vv.
SHOMA AT ROYAL PALM CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION INC., and SHARLE MUNRO, individually
Defendants.
/
SHOMA AT ROYAL PALM CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.’S ANSWER AND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant, SHOMA AT ROYAL PALM CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
(“Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel, files this Answer and Affirmative Defenses
to Plaintiff, TAYLOR BIBIAN as Personal Representative of the Estate of James Vincent Roti,
Jr., (‘Plaintiff’), Amended Complaint.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 1 only to the extent plaintiff seeks
damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, but denies that it is
liable to plaintiff for those alleged damages.
2. Denied.
3. Defendant admits James Roti Jr. was a tenant of a privately owned townhome located at
2108 Shoma Drive, Royal Palm Beach, Florida. All other allegations contained in
paragraph 3 are denied.
‘Admitted.
Admitted.
Denied.
‘Denied.
NNW
1 mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 3.
? Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 4.
3 Misiabeied in the Amended Compiaint as Paragraph 5.
4 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 6.
CHEN. DAIAARCACUAAIINTY Cl INCEDU ARDIIV7ZN FLED N4M0INNDA NOAA-OE AN
Pn. PAL DLA VUUINE TT, PL, vUOL II mDnuecy, ULUAN, Uae.) vot miDefendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses
50-2020-CA-007534-XXXX-MB
11. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny, therefore denied.
12. *Defendant admits a document is attached as Exhibit “A” which purports to appoint
Plaintiff as the personal representative of the Estate of James Vincent Roti, Jr. Defendant
is without knowledge as to any other allegation in this paragraph, and is therefore denied.
13. Denied.
14. "Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny, and therefore denied.
15. All allegations in this paragraph are denied including subparts a through c.
COUNT I—- WRONGFUL DEATH AN
GLIGENCE C
T SHOMA
16. '? Defendant reavers and incorporates by references its responses to paragraphs numbered
1 through 14 in plaintiff's amended complaint.
17. “Denied.
18. Denied.
19. Denied.
20. "Denied.
21. '’Denied.
22. !°Defendant denies the allegation that Ms. Munro acted in any way on behalf of Shoma as
alleged in this paragraph. Further Defendant is without knowledge as to any other
allegation in the paragraph and therefore denies same.
5 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 7.
® Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 8.
7 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 9.
8 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 10.
3 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 11.
10 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 12.
11 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 13.
12 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 14.
13 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 15.
14 mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 16.
45 islabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 17.
16 \islabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 18.
* Misiabeied in the Amended Compiaint as Paragraph 19.
18 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 20.
18 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 21.Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses
50-2020-CA-007534-XXXX-MB
23.°Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations in this paragraph and therefore
denies same.
24. ?'Denied.
25.>*Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations in this paragraph and therefore
denies same.
26. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations in this paragraph and therefore
denies same.
27. “Denied.
28.>5Defendant denies all allegations in this paragraph including but not limited to
subparagraphs (a) through (h).
29. Denied.
30. Denied.
31. Denied.
32. Defendant denies all allegations in this paragraph including but not limited to
subparagraphs (a) through (s0
33. Denied.
COUNT II —- WRONGFUL DEATH AND NEGLIGENCE OF SHARLENE MUNRO.
INDIVIDUALLY
34. Defendant reavers and incorporates by references its responses to paragraphs numbered 1
through 14.
35 — 41. Paragraphs 35 through 41 and any subparts thereto are not directed at this Defendant
and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response to paragraphs 35 through 41
20 mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 22.
21 mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 23.
22 mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 24.
23 Misiabeied in the Amended Compiaint as Paragraph 25.
24 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 26.
25 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 27.Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses
50-2020-CA-007534-XXXX-MB
and any subparts thereto required from this Defendant, Defendant denies same and strict proof
thereof is requested.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Asa First Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim against Defendant upon which relief may be granted.
2. As a Second Affirmative Defense, this action is subject to the provisions of the Tort
Reform Act of 1998.
3. AS a Third Afrirmative Defense, Detendanis state that the decedent’s injuries and deain
were solely and proximately the result of the actions and/or negligence of other parties, persons,
firms, entities or corporations over whom this Defendant had no control or duty to control and
whose acts Defendant cannot be held legally responsible or liable for, including, but not limited
to: the decedent James Roti Jr., James Roti I, Taylor Bibian, Christine Roti, Anurag Jain,
Viktoriya Ryskind, Palm Beach Sherriff’s Office. See Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1993)
and Fla. Stat. $768.81. Defendants assert the right to all set-offs and limitations of liability pursuant
ta the dactrina af camnarative fanit Gee Td Nefandante recarve tha riaht ta cunnlament ar modify
WO ule GOCU Ie Gi COMparauve iatue, SOC 1G. CiCnGains TeScrve une igne w Suppaciuene Or macauy
this Affirmative Defense as discovery is ongoing.
4. As a Fourth Affirmative Defense, Defendants state that the Plaintiff's damages are the
result of one or more intervening, superseding causes rather than being a result of any negligence
on the part of Defendants, and therefore, the Plaintiff cannot recover against Defendants.
5. As a Fifth Affirmative Defense, Defendants state that any recovery by Plaintiff must be
reduced to the extent of collateral sources paid or available to Plaintiff, including any contractual
or charitable adjustments or write-offs.Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses
50-2020-CA-007534-XXXX-MB
6. As a Sixth Affirmative Defense, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate any
damages suffered as required under Florida law, and any recovery the Plaintiff may obtain should
be proportionately reduced as a result of this failure.
7. As a Seventh Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that any liability for damages must be
limited to Defendant’s proportionate share of fault determined in relation to the fault of Plaintiffs
and all actors contributing to Plaintiffs’ damages. Accordingly Plaintiffs are barred from recovery,
or alternatively, damages, if any, must be reduced in accordance with the Doctrine of Comparative
Negligence and applicable Florida Statutes, including, but not limited to, Florida Statute §768.81.
Defendant specifically reserves its right to amend and plead any and all Affirmative Defenses
that may become known to it during the course of discovery.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 19th day January, 2021, a true and correct copy of
the above and foregoing pleading was filed with the Clerk of the above styled Court using eFiling
Portal. We also certify that the foregoing document was served this day on all counsel of record
identified on the attached Service List via electronic mail.
Dated: January 19, 2021
TOON 0. MATA TT
LIOUN & WIDINUES LL
By: _/s//HALDON GREENBURG
Damian M. Fletcher
Haldon L. Greenburg
Attorneys for Shoma at Royal Palm
Condominium Asso
101 NE 3™ Avenue
Suite 1500Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses
50-2020-CA-007534-XXXX-MB
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
T. QSA_229_2092
LL FOI IL7I0LI
DFletcher@tysonmendes.com
HGreenbur@tysonmendes.com
SERVICE LIST
Jonathan T. Levy, Esa.
ROSENTHAL, LEVY, SIMON & SOSA
1401 Forum Way, Sixth Floor
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2289
(561)478-2500
Email: jlevy@rosenthallevy.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Preview
Filing # 119808600 E-Filed 01/19/2021 09:44:25 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15™ JUDICAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 50-2020-CA-007534-XXXX-MB TAYLOR BIBIAN as Personal Representative of the Estate of JAMES VINCENT ROTI, JR. Plaintiff, Vv. SHOMA AT ROYAL PALM CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC., and SHARLE MUNRO, individually Defendants. / SHOMA AT ROYAL PALM CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, SHOMA AT ROYAL PALM CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel, files this Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff, TAYLOR BIBIAN as Personal Representative of the Estate of James Vincent Roti, Jr., (‘Plaintiff’), Amended Complaint. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 1 only to the extent plaintiff seeks damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, but denies that it is liable to plaintiff for those alleged damages. 2. Denied. 3. Defendant admits James Roti Jr. was a tenant of a privately owned townhome located at 2108 Shoma Drive, Royal Palm Beach, Florida. All other allegations contained in paragraph 3 are denied. ‘Admitted. Admitted. Denied. ‘Denied. NNW 1 mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 3. ? Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 4. 3 Misiabeied in the Amended Compiaint as Paragraph 5. 4 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 6. CHEN. DAIAARCACUAAIINTY Cl INCEDU ARDIIV7ZN FLED N4M0INNDA NOAA-OE AN Pn. PAL DLA VUUINE TT, PL, vUOL II mDnuecy, ULUAN, Uae.) vot miDefendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses 50-2020-CA-007534-XXXX-MB 11. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny, therefore denied. 12. *Defendant admits a document is attached as Exhibit “A” which purports to appoint Plaintiff as the personal representative of the Estate of James Vincent Roti, Jr. Defendant is without knowledge as to any other allegation in this paragraph, and is therefore denied. 13. Denied. 14. "Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny, and therefore denied. 15. All allegations in this paragraph are denied including subparts a through c. COUNT I—- WRONGFUL DEATH AN GLIGENCE C T SHOMA 16. '? Defendant reavers and incorporates by references its responses to paragraphs numbered 1 through 14 in plaintiff's amended complaint. 17. “Denied. 18. Denied. 19. Denied. 20. "Denied. 21. '’Denied. 22. !°Defendant denies the allegation that Ms. Munro acted in any way on behalf of Shoma as alleged in this paragraph. Further Defendant is without knowledge as to any other allegation in the paragraph and therefore denies same. 5 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 7. ® Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 8. 7 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 9. 8 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 10. 3 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 11. 10 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 12. 11 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 13. 12 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 14. 13 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 15. 14 mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 16. 45 islabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 17. 16 \islabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 18. * Misiabeied in the Amended Compiaint as Paragraph 19. 18 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 20. 18 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 21.Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses 50-2020-CA-007534-XXXX-MB 23.°Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations in this paragraph and therefore denies same. 24. ?'Denied. 25.>*Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations in this paragraph and therefore denies same. 26. Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations in this paragraph and therefore denies same. 27. “Denied. 28.>5Defendant denies all allegations in this paragraph including but not limited to subparagraphs (a) through (h). 29. Denied. 30. Denied. 31. Denied. 32. Defendant denies all allegations in this paragraph including but not limited to subparagraphs (a) through (s0 33. Denied. COUNT II —- WRONGFUL DEATH AND NEGLIGENCE OF SHARLENE MUNRO. INDIVIDUALLY 34. Defendant reavers and incorporates by references its responses to paragraphs numbered 1 through 14. 35 — 41. Paragraphs 35 through 41 and any subparts thereto are not directed at this Defendant and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response to paragraphs 35 through 41 20 mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 22. 21 mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 23. 22 mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 24. 23 Misiabeied in the Amended Compiaint as Paragraph 25. 24 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 26. 25 Mislabeled in the Amended Complaint as Paragraph 27.Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses 50-2020-CA-007534-XXXX-MB and any subparts thereto required from this Defendant, Defendant denies same and strict proof thereof is requested. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Asa First Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief may be granted. 2. As a Second Affirmative Defense, this action is subject to the provisions of the Tort Reform Act of 1998. 3. AS a Third Afrirmative Defense, Detendanis state that the decedent’s injuries and deain were solely and proximately the result of the actions and/or negligence of other parties, persons, firms, entities or corporations over whom this Defendant had no control or duty to control and whose acts Defendant cannot be held legally responsible or liable for, including, but not limited to: the decedent James Roti Jr., James Roti I, Taylor Bibian, Christine Roti, Anurag Jain, Viktoriya Ryskind, Palm Beach Sherriff’s Office. See Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1993) and Fla. Stat. $768.81. Defendants assert the right to all set-offs and limitations of liability pursuant ta the dactrina af camnarative fanit Gee Td Nefandante recarve tha riaht ta cunnlament ar modify WO ule GOCU Ie Gi COMparauve iatue, SOC 1G. CiCnGains TeScrve une igne w Suppaciuene Or macauy this Affirmative Defense as discovery is ongoing. 4. As a Fourth Affirmative Defense, Defendants state that the Plaintiff's damages are the result of one or more intervening, superseding causes rather than being a result of any negligence on the part of Defendants, and therefore, the Plaintiff cannot recover against Defendants. 5. As a Fifth Affirmative Defense, Defendants state that any recovery by Plaintiff must be reduced to the extent of collateral sources paid or available to Plaintiff, including any contractual or charitable adjustments or write-offs.Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses 50-2020-CA-007534-XXXX-MB 6. As a Sixth Affirmative Defense, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate any damages suffered as required under Florida law, and any recovery the Plaintiff may obtain should be proportionately reduced as a result of this failure. 7. As a Seventh Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that any liability for damages must be limited to Defendant’s proportionate share of fault determined in relation to the fault of Plaintiffs and all actors contributing to Plaintiffs’ damages. Accordingly Plaintiffs are barred from recovery, or alternatively, damages, if any, must be reduced in accordance with the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence and applicable Florida Statutes, including, but not limited to, Florida Statute §768.81. Defendant specifically reserves its right to amend and plead any and all Affirmative Defenses that may become known to it during the course of discovery. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 19th day January, 2021, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing pleading was filed with the Clerk of the above styled Court using eFiling Portal. We also certify that the foregoing document was served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List via electronic mail. Dated: January 19, 2021 TOON 0. MATA TT LIOUN & WIDINUES LL By: _/s//HALDON GREENBURG Damian M. Fletcher Haldon L. Greenburg Attorneys for Shoma at Royal Palm Condominium Asso 101 NE 3™ Avenue Suite 1500Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses 50-2020-CA-007534-XXXX-MB Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 T. QSA_229_2092 LL FOI IL7I0LI DFletcher@tysonmendes.com HGreenbur@tysonmendes.com SERVICE LIST Jonathan T. Levy, Esa. ROSENTHAL, LEVY, SIMON & SOSA 1401 Forum Way, Sixth Floor West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2289 (561)478-2500 Email: jlevy@rosenthallevy.com Attorneys for Plaintiff