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

SERVICE DOGS BY WARREN RETRIEVERS, INC., a Virginia Case No. 2014-CA-001805-O Corporation, as successor in interest to Guardian Angel Service Dogs, Inc. Plaintiff, vs. JOEL FLORES and JOVANA FLORES, Defendants. ___________________________________ JOEL FLORES and JOVANA FLORES, Counter-Plaintiffs, vs. SERVICE DOGS BY WARREN RETRIEVERS, INC., a Virginia Corporation, as successor in interest to Guardian Angel Service Dogs, Inc. Counter-Defendant.

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM

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

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

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

ANSWER

1. Admit

2. Admit

3. Admit that the Complaint purports to state an action for damages that exceeds fifteen

thousand dollars ($15,000).

COUNT I

4. Requires no answer

5. Admit

6. Admit

7. Admit

8. Deny

9. Deny

10. Deny

11. Requires no answer

12. Requires no answer

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense

1. The Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.

Plaintiff breached its contractual obligations by not providing a fully trained service dog

as contracted. The Plaintiff provided the Defendants with a puppy, unable to perform as a

service dog, and failed to provide the proper training for dog.

Second Affirmative Defense

2. The Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the Defendants were

fraudulently induced by the Plaintiff to sign the contract in question. The Plaintiff failed

to disclose the existence of a contract to the Defendants until after the Defendants had

paid money to the Plaintiff. The Defendants were forced to sign the contract or lose the

dog and any monies they had paid.

Third Affirmative Defense

3. The contract is unconscionable. The Defendants had no input into the forming of the

contract. The contract provides for the protection of the Plaintiff only and gives no

bargaining power to the Defendants upon Plaintiff’s breach of contract.

Fourth Affirmative Defense

4. Estoppel. The Plaintiff informed the Defendants that all monies due were to be fundraised

on behalf of the Plaintiff and provided the Defendants with a letter to assist with

fundraising. (EXHIBIT A). Plaintiff was not legally registered to fundraise in the state of

Florida. In October, 2012, the Plaintiff made contact with the Defendants and stated that

the Defendants were not to make any payments or do any fundraising because the

Defendants were witnesses on behalf of the Plaintiff in a separate civil matter.

COUNTER CLAIM

Defendants/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., principle

place of business is in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Counter-defendant is doing

business in Orange County, FL

4. All conditions precedent to the bringing of this counterclaim have been performed,

waived, or excused.

COUNT I

(Breach of Contract)

5. Paragraphs 1 thru 4 above are hereby incorporated by reference.

6. 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.

7. The Counter-Plaintiffs’ only agreement at the time, was a verbal agreement with the

Counter-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

dog’s 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.

8. Upon receipt of the dog, the Counter-Plaintiffs’ received a contract that they had no

previous knowledge about and were told to sign it, or the dog would be taken back and

they would forfeit any monies previously paid.

9. Both the written contract and the verbal agreement between the parties were for a service

dog. 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.

10. The Counter-Defendant failed to provide adequate training and intentionally withheld

training 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.

11. The Counter-Plaintiffs’ have been damaged by the Counter-Defendant’s breach.

COUNT II

(Emotional Distress)

12. Paragraphs 1 thru 11 above are hereby incorporated by reference

13. 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 it’s

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

glucose in the blood.

14. The Counter-Defendant misled the Counter-Plaintiffs to believe that upon arrival, the dog

would immediately begin alerting to their sick child. The Counter-Plaintiffs did not know

at the time that the dog was actually alerting for treats and not because it had been trained

to detect glucose levels.

15. The Counter-Defendant misled the Counter-Plaintiffs to believe that the dog would be

scent trained/scent imprinted, which is crucial to training a diabetic alert dog, and only

after their child began to get sick, did the Counter-Plaintiffs discover that the dog was

never trained.

16. As a result of the dog’s consistent missed alerts and false alerts, the child was forced to

check his sugars excessively which eventually caused the child to “burnout.” A diabetes

burnout is 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 child’s 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.

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 15th day of May, 2014.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________ ___________________ Jovana Flores Joel Flores

7450 Golden Glenn Drive Orlando, FL 32807

407-716-5210 407-391-3622 (fax)

jovanaflores@aol.com DEFENDANTS/COUNTER PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of ANSWER and COUNTERCLAIM was mailed via first class mail and emailed to the person listed below on May 15, 2014.

Alvaro C. Sanchez 1714 Cape Coral Parkway East, Cape Coral, Florida 33904 alvaro@capecoralattorney.com Respectfully submitted,

__________________ ___________________ Jovana Flores Joel Flores

7450 Golden Glenn Drive Orlando, FL 32807

407-716-5210 407-391-3622 (fax)

jovanaflores@aol.com DEFENDANTS/COUNTER PLAINTIFFS