miller family answer to suit
TRANSCRIPT
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE, DISTRICT COURT DIVISION
IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SERVICE DOGS BY WARREN
RETRIEVERS, INC., F/K/A Case No. 2012-CVD-000497
GUARDIAN ANGEL SERVICE
DOGS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMY LYNN MILLER,
Defendant.
___________________________________
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
NOW COMES, the Defendant, Amy Lynn Miller, and in answer to the Complaint of Plaintiff,
Service Dogs by Warren Retrievers, Inc., f/k/a Guardian Angel Service Dogs, Inc., states and
alleges as follows:
ANSWER
As to the following paragraphs, the defendant answers as follows:
1. Admits
2. Admits
3. Admits
4. Admits
5. Admits
6. Leave to proof- defendant neither admits nor denies but leaves plaintiff to prove facts at
trial.
7. Without Knowledge
8. Requires no answer
9. Admits
10. Deny
11. Leave to proof- defendant neither admits nor denies but leaves plaintiff to prove facts at
trial.
12. Requires no answer
13. Admit in part- Defendant admits the Plaintiff provided a dog, but denies the allegation
that it was a service dog
14. Deny
15. Deny
16. Deny
17. Deny
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 Defendant with an untrained 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 Defendant was
fraudulently induced into by the Plaintiff to sign the contract in question. The Plaintiff
failed to disclose the existence of a contract to the Defendant until after the Defendant
had paid money to the Plaintiff. The Defendant was forced to sign the contract under the
threat of losing any and all monies the Defendant had previously paid to the Plaintiff for
the dog, if she did not sign the contract.
Third Affirmative Defense
3. The contract is unconscionable. The Defendant 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 Defendant upon Plaintiff’s breach of contract.
DATED this 2nd
day of May, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 5, 2014, I emailed a true and accurate copy of this Answer and
Affirmative Defenses via email to Plaintiff’s counsel, John B. Walker at [email protected].
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Amy Lynn Miller
DEFENDANT