8/12/2019 Spizzirri Answer to Warren suit

1/3

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POTTAWATTAMIE COUNTY

SERVICE DOGS BY WARRENRETRIEVERS, INC., F/K/A Case No. LACV111413

Guardian Angel Service Dogs, Inc.

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL SPIZZIRRI AND JEANA

SPIZZIRRI,

Defendants.

___________________________________

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants, Michael and Jeana Spizzirri, (hereinafter Defendants ) files this Answer and

Affirmative Defenses in response to Service Dogs By Warren Retrievers, Inc., (herein after

Plaintiff) complaint, and states as follows:

ANSWER

1. Admits to allegations in Paragraphs 1 thru 4 of Plaintiffs petition.2. Denies allegations in Paragraphs 5 and 6.3. Admits to Paragraphs 7 and 84. Denies Paragraph 9 and further states that the Defendants did not default on payment.

Plaintiff defaulted on services after Defendant paid for services.

5. Denies Paragraph 10 and further states that the service dog was delivered to theDefendants prior to the signing of any agreement. The Plaintiff refused to communicate

8/12/2019 Spizzirri Answer to Warren suit

2/3

with the Defendants regarding any return or settlement agreement for the dog. The dog

legally belongs to the Defendants.

6. Denies paragraphs 11 thru 13.7. Denies paragraph 14 and states that the Plaintiff refused to communicate with the

Defendants and that access was never denied.

8. Denies paragraph 15 and states that the Defendants paid an outside source to completethe dogs training which is specific to the Defendants child.

9. Denies the remaining paragraphs of the petition.AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense

10.The Plaintiffs 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. The Plaintiffs knowingly

and intentionally withheld information about the puppys medicalcondition.

Second Affirmative Defense

11.The Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the Defendants werefraudulently 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

8/12/2019 Spizzirri Answer to Warren suit

3/3

12.The contract is unconscionable. The Defendants had no input into the forming of thecontract. The contract provides for the protection of the Plaintiff only and gives no

bargaining power to the Defendants upon Plaintiffs breach of contract.

Fourth Affirmative Defense

13.Estoppel. The Plaintiff informed the Defendants that all monies due were to be fundraisedon behalf of the Plaintiff and provided the Defendants with a letter to assist with

fundraising. Plaintiff was not legally registered to fundraise in the state of Iowa. The

Plaintiff repeatedly told the Defendants that their only obligation would be to assist in

fundraising and that the dog would not and could not ever be removed from the

possession of the Defendant if the Defendants failed to pay any money to the Plaintiff as

long as the Defendants tried to hold fundraisers. The Plaintiff further stated that the

contract was only enforceable against those who did not hold fundraising events.

WHERFORE, the Defendants request the Courts dismiss this case, with prejudice, and

request immediate return of the dog that was taken from them.

DATED this 10th

day of June, 2014.