flores amended suit against warren

Upload: stop-the-scammers

Post on 03-Jun-2018

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/12/2019 Flores Amended Suit against Warren

    1/5

    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

    SERVICE DOGS BY WARRENRETRIEVERS, INC., a Virginia Case No. 2014-CA-001805-OCorporation, as successor in interest to

    Guardian Angel Service Dogs, Inc.

    Plaintiff,

    vs.

    JOEL FLORES and JOVANA FLORES,

    Defendants.

    ___________________________________

    JOEL FLORES and JOVANA FLORES,individually and as next of friend of JoelAlexander Flores, a minor

    Counter-Plaintiffs,

    vs.

    SERVICE DOGS BY WARRENRETRIEVERS, INC., a VirginiaCorporation, as successor in interest toGuardian Angel Service Dogs, Inc.

    Counter-Defendant.

    AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

    Defendants, Joel and Jovana Flores, (hereinafter Defendants or Counter-Plaintiffs) files this

    Amended Counterclaim, in response to Service Dogs By Warren Retrievers, Inc., (herein after

    Plaintiff or Counter-Defendant) complaint, and states as follows:

  • 8/12/2019 Flores Amended Suit against Warren

    2/5

    Counter-Plaintiffs, Joel and Jovana Flores, sue Counter-defendant, SERVICE DOGS BY

    WARRENRETRIEVERS, INC., and states as follows:

    1. This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00 exclusive of interest and filing fees.2. Counter-Plaintiffs, JOEL AND JOVANA FLORES, are residents of Orange County,

    Florida.

    3. Counter-defendant, SERVICE DOGS BY WARREN RETRIEVERS, INC., principleplace of business is in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Counter-defendant is doing

    business in Orange County, FL

    4. This action is for damages greater than $15,000.00.

    5. All conditions precedent to the bringing of this counterclaim have been performed,waived, or excused.

    COUNT I

    (Breach of Contract)

    6. Paragraphs 1 thru 4 above are hereby incorporated by reference.7. On or around February 26, 2012, the Counter-Defendant delivered a black Labrador

    retriever to the Counter-Plaintiffs residence via a trainer named James Faulkner.

    8. The Counter-Plaintiffs only agreement at the time, was a verbal agreement with theCounter-Defendant that a service dog would be delivered and trained to perform as a

    Diabetic Alert Dog. The Counter-Plaintiffs only responsibility would be to further the

    dogs obedience training, with the assistance of a trainer provided to them by the

    Counter-Defendant, and agree to fundraise for a period a two years.

    9. Upon receipt of the dog, the Counter-Plaintiffs received a contract that they had noprevious knowledge about and were told to sign it, or the dog would be taken back and

    they would forfeit any monies previously paid. (EXHIBIT A)

  • 8/12/2019 Flores Amended Suit against Warren

    3/5

    10.Both the written contract and the verbal agreement between the parties were for a servicedog. The Counter-Plaintiffs received a puppy that did not qualify as a service dog without

    intensive training and with no guarantee that the dog would ever be able to perform as a

    service dog.

    11.The Counter-Defendant failed to provide adequate training and intentionally withheldtraining from the Counter-Plaintiffs causing the dog to not be fully trained or to be able to

    perform as a service dog. The Counter-defendant also intentionally ceased all contact

    with the Counter-Plaintiffs in January of 2013, and informed each employee of his

    organization to do the same.

    12.The Counter-Plaintiffs have been damaged by the Counter-Defendants breach.COUNT II

    (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

    13.Paragraphs 1 thru 11 above are hereby incorporated by reference14.The Counter-Plaintiffs were led to believe that the animal they were receiving from the

    Counter-defendant would act as a Diabetic Alert Dog, a dog that is trained to alert its

    handler to fluctuations in blood glucose levels in order to prevent dangerous levels of

    glucose in the blood.

    15.The Counter-Defendant intentionally misled the Counter-Plaintiffs to believe that uponarrival, the dog would immediately begin alerting to their sick child. Upon arrival, the

    dog was behaving in a manner that the Counter-Defendant claimed to be an alert which

    was later determined not to be a trained alert but typical puppy behavior.

    16.The Counter-Defendant intentionally misled the Counter-Plaintiffs to believe that the dogwould be scent trained/scent imprinted, which is crucial to training a diabetic alert dog,

  • 8/12/2019 Flores Amended Suit against Warren

    4/5

    and only after their child began to get sick, did the Counter-Plaintiffs discover that the

    dog was never trained.

    17.The Counter-Defendant intentionally delivered to the Counter-Plaintiffs an untrainedpuppy that was not capable of performing the service that the Counter-Defendants were

    paying for. The Counter-Defendant preyed on the Counter-Plaintiffs by exploiting their

    childs illness and deceiving them to believe the child would suffer great injury if they

    did not obtain a service dog from the Counter-Defendant.

    18.As a result of the Counter-Defendants intentional misrepresentation of the puppy thatwas delivered to the Counter-Plaintiffs, and the Counter-Defendants breach of contract,

    the puppy was never properly or fully trained to operate as promised. The puppy

    consistently missed alerts and falsely alerted and as a result, the Counter-Plaintiffs and

    the minor child were forced to check the childs sugars excessively which eventually

    caused the child to burnout. A diabetes burnout is medically defined as a state in

    which patients grow tired of managing their disease and then simply ignore it for a period

    of time, or worse, forever. Also referred to as depression. This burnout resulted in

    the childs diabetes becoming severely uncontrolled, at which time the child was

    hospitalized for the first time since diagnosis and continually struggles to regain control

    of his disease.

    19.As a result of the Counter-Defendants intentional misrepresentation of the puppy, theCounter-Plaintiff, Jovana Flores, was forced to leave her job to care for the puppy and to

    continue training with the puppy as the Counter-Defendant made no attempt to provide

    training times that would not interfere with the Counter-Plaintiffs job.

  • 8/12/2019 Flores Amended Suit against Warren

    5/5

    20.The Counter-Plaintiffs have been damaged physically and emotionally by the Counter-Defendants intentional infliction.

    WHERFORE, Counter-plaintiffs demand judgment against the Counter-Defendant for all

    damages incurred, together with its costs and interests; an award of punitive damages; and any

    such other relief this court deems appropriate.

    DATED this 10hday of June, 2014.

    Respectfully submitted,

    __________________ ___________________Jovana Flores Joel Flores

    DEFENDANTS/COUNTER PLAINTIFFS

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I certify that a copy of this Amended COUNTERCLAIM was mailed via First classmail to the person listed below on June 11, 2014.

    Alvaro C. Sanchez

    1714 Cape Coral Parkway East,Cape Coral, Florida [email protected]

    Respectfully submitted,

    __________________ ___________________Jovana Flores Joel Flores

    [email protected]/COUNTER PLAINTIFFS