Spectrum Counterclaim

52324329 v1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

_____________________________________ ZBIGNIEW MATYSIAK, ) 3:10-cv-01841(CSH) ) Plaintiff, ) )

v. ) )

THE SPECTRUM SERVICES COMPANY, ) INC. and MATTHEW M. SHAMAS, ) ) ) February 20, 2014 Defendants. ) _____________________________________)

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS

Pursuant to Rules 8 and 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

defendants in the above-captioned matter, The Spectrum Services Company, Inc.

(“Spectrum”) and Matthew M. Shamas, file the following Answer, Affirmative Defenses

and Counterclaims to the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint:

1. Deny, except to admit that this is an action brought by the plaintiff

alleging the same.

2. Deny, except to admit that these are the plaintiff’s allegations.

3. Deny, except to admit that the plaintiff is seeking the same.

4. Paragraph Four of the Complaint contains no factual allegations against

the defendants and therefore no answer is required.

5. Paragraph Five of the Complaint contains no factual allegations against


Case 3:10-cv-01841-CSH Document 63 Filed 02/20/14 of 8

52324329 v1

2

6. Upon information and belief the defendants admit that the plaintiff is a

resident of Connecticut. The defendants deny that the plaintiff was their employee.

7. Deny.

8. Admit.

9. Admit.

10. Deny, except to admit that Mr. Shamas decided what amounts to pay the

plaintiff in his capacity as an independent contractor.

11. Admit, except to deny that the plaintiff was an employee of the

defendants.

12. Deny, except to admit that Zbigniew Matysiak worked as an independent

painting contractor between approximately those dates.

13. Lack sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief.



16. Deny.


18. Deny.

19. Deny.

20. Deny.

21. Deny.

22. Deny.

23. Deny.

24. Deny.


52324329 v1

3

25. Deny.

26. Admit, except to deny that the plaintiff was entitled to overtime pay.

27. Deny.

28. Deny.

29. Paragraph Twenty-nine of the Complaint contains no factual allegations

against the defendants and therefore no answer is required.

30. Paragraph Thirty of the Complaint contains no factual allegations against


31. Paragraph Thirty-one of the Complaint contains no factual allegations


32. Paragraph Thirty-two of the Complaint contains no factual allegations


33. Paragraph Thirty-three of the Complaint contains no factual allegations

against the defendants and therefore no answer is required

34. Paragraph Thirty-four of the Complaint contains no factual allegations

against the defendants and therefore no answer is required

35. Deny.

36. Deny.

37. Deny.


39. Deny.


41. Deny.


52324329 v1

4


43. Deny.

44. Deny.

45. Deny.

46. Deny.

47. Deny.

48. Deny.

49. Deny.

50. Deny, except to admit that the plaintiff is alleging the same.

51. Deny.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – ACCORD AND SATISFACTION

1. Following the termination of their business relationship at approximately

the end of 2009, the plaintiff and Spectrum had a dispute regarding additional

compensation the plaintiff claimed was due to him from Spectrum.

2. Spectrum offered to compromise the disputed claim by paying the plaintiff

an additional $20,000.00 in five equal installments.

3. The plaintiff accepted Spectrum’s offer in full and final settlement of his

disputed claims.

4. Spectrum made five payments of $4,000.00 to the plaintiff, on March 31,

2010, April 30, 2010, June 3, 2010, June 30, 2010 and July 30, 2010.

5. The plaintiff accepted each payment from Spectrum and signed a written

acknowledgement that he received each payment.


52324329 v1

5

6. The additional $20,000.00 Spectrum paid to the plaintiff constitutes an

accord and satisfaction of all disputed claims between the parties, including the amounts

the plaintiff claims are due to him in this lawsuit.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – ESTOPPEL

1-5. Spectrum incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 5 of the First Affirmative Defense as if fully set forth herein.

6. The plaintiff agreed to accept an additional $20,000.00 from Spectrum in

full and final settlement of his disputed claims.

7. Spectrum paid the plaintiff an additional $20,000.00 in reasonable reliance

on the plaintiff’s agreement to accept this sum in full and final settlement of his disputed

claims.

8. Having agreed to compromise his disputed claims, and further, having

accepted the $20,000.00 payment from Spectrum, equity demands that the plaintiff be

estopped from denying his agreement and attempting to recover again by litigating his

claims here.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

1. Some or all of the plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Fair Labor Standards

Act, 29 U.S.C. §§201 et seq. and/or Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-596, which provide that the

look-back period for wage claims is limited to two years.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.


52324329 v1

6

FIRST COUNTERCLAIM – BREACH OF CONTRACT

1. Following the termination of their business relationship at approximately

the end of 2009, the plaintiff and Spectrum had a dispute regarding additional

compensation the plaintiff claimed was due to him from Spectrum.

2. Spectrum offered to compromise the disputed claim by paying the plaintiff

an additional $20,000.00 in five equal installments.

3. The plaintiff accepted Spectrum’s offer in full and final settlement of his

disputed claims.

4. The foregoing constitutes a valid and binding oral contract between the

parties.

5. Spectrum made five payments of $4,000.00 to the plaintiff, on March 31,

2010, April 30, 2010, June 3, 2010, June 30, 2010 and July 30, 2010.

6. By bringing this lawsuit, the plaintiff has breached his contract with

Spectrum that he would accept $20,000.00 in full and final settlement of his claims.

7. Spectrum has been damaged by the plaintiff’s breach.

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM – BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT

OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

1. The plaintiff was fully aware at the time that he entered into the oral

contract with Spectrum that he was not otherwise entitled to the additional $20,000.00

that Spectrum paid to him.

2. The plaintiff was also fully aware that Spectrum had agreed to pay the

plaintiff the additional $20,000.00 in full and final settlement of his disputed claims.


52324329 v1

7

3. The plaintiff never intended to settle his disputed claims for $20,000.00

but he nevertheless accepted the $20,000.00 payment from Spectrum.

4. Once Spectrum had paid the plaintiff the $20,000.00 as agreed, the

plaintiff contacting Spectrum seeking more money. When Spectrum indicated that the

parties had already resolved their disputed claims with the payment of the $20,000.00, the

plaintiff filed this lawsuit.

5. The plaintiff’s actions as set forth above constitute a breach of the

covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

WHEREFORE, Spectrum respectfully requests the Court to enter the following

relief:

1. Damages in the amount of $20,000.00;

2. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and

2. Such other relief as the Court may determine in law or equity applies.

Respectfully submitted by,

THE DEFENDANTS, SPECTRUM SERVICES CO., INC. and MATTHEW M. SHAMAS

/s/ Lisa A. Zaccardelli Lisa A. Zaccardelli (ct07983) Nick R. Valenta (ct29407)

Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP 20 Church Street Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Telephone (860) 331-2764 Facsimile (860) 278-3802 E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected] -Its Attorneys-


52324329 v1

8

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that on February 20, 2014, a copy of the foregoing Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF system.

/s/ Lisa A. Zaccardelli_____ Lisa A. Zaccardelli


Spectrum Counterclaim

Documents

Transcript of Spectrum Counterclaim