Waiting Angels Response to Complaint

8/14/2019 Waiting Angels Response to Complaint

1/43

1

UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTIN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

AMANDA & REECE HEINRICH,PHILLY & MICHAEL TAVOLILLA,

ANTHONY & JILL CASASSA,DAVID & TONI FLENNIKEN,JON & REGINA LUNDY,ROBIN & CURTIS WRIGHT,ODALYS & HAROLD SAENZ,

Plaintiffs

v. Case No. 5:06-cv-000168JGSHon.: Joseph G. Scoville

WAITING ANGELS ADOPTIONSERVICES, INC.

a Michigan For-Profit Corporationand SIMONE BORAGGINAand JOSEPH J. BEAUVAIS,Individuals,

Defendants

_____________________________________________________________________/JONI M. FIXEL (P56712) KENNETH J. HARDIN II (P44681)FIXEL LAW OFFICES, PLLC HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Defendants4990 Northwind Drive, Ste. 121 30150 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 345East Lansing, MI 48823 Bingham Farms, MI 48025(517) 332-3390 (248) 723-9900_____________________________________________________________________/

DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

NOW COME Defendants, WAITING ANGELS ADOPTION SERVICES, INC.,

SIMONE BORAGGINA, and JOSEPH J. BEAUVAIS, by and through their attorneys,

HARDIN AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. and for their Answer to Plaintiffs Second Amended

Complaint, which was filed by Plaintiffs June 13, 2008 and improperly labeled a First

Amended Complaint, Defendants state as follows:

Case 5:06-cv-00168-JGS Document 40 Filed 07/24/2008 Page 1 of 43


2/43

2

PARTIES

1. In answer to Paragraph 1, Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations set

forth therein, for the reason that Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or

information upon which to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and therefore leave

Plaintiffs to their proofs.





















3/43

3







8. In answer to Paragraph 8, Defendants admit that Waiting Angels Adoption

Services, Inc. (Waiting Angels) is a Michigan for-profit corporation that formerly, but

no longer, had its principal place of business at the location stated in Paragraph 8; the

remainder of Paragraph 8 is denied as untrue.

9. In answer to Paragraph 9, Defendants admit that Simone Boraggina is a citizen of

the United States residing in the State of Michigan, and that she was co-founder,

President and co-director of Waiting Angels; denied as untrue that Simone Boraggina

works for Waiting Angels at the present.

10. In answer to Paragraph 10, Defendants admit that Joseph Beauvais is a citizen of

the United States residing in the State of Michigan, and that he was co-founder,

Secretary, Treasurer and co-director of Waiting Angels; denied as untrue that Joseph

Beauvais works for Waiting Angels at the present.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 11 for the reason

the Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegation, and leave Plaintiffs to their proofs.



4/43

4







INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS




15. In answer to Paragraph 15, Defendants admit that Waiting Angels received from

Plaintiffs Amanda and Reece Heinrich (Heinrich Plaintiffs) an application form, and a

check for $1,000, but Defendants deny as untrue that the fee is referred to as an agency

retainer agreement.

16. In answer to Paragraph 16, the first sentence thereof, reading Plaintiffs Heinrich

were required to complete a dossier and to have a home study completed at their own

expense, is admitted; the second sentence of Paragraph 16, reading [a]fter the Plaintiffs

Heinrich received the final Immigration approval to complete the dossier (called being

paper ready), they were ready to sign a final contract with [Waiting Angels], is neither

admitted nor denied by Defendants for the reason that Defendants lack knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and Plaintiffs are left to

their proofs. In answer to the remainder of Paragraph 16, the allegations therein are

denied as untrue.



5/43

5

17. In answer to Paragraph 17, the allegations as to the date and amount of the invoice

are admitted, but the allegation that such fees were unspecified are denied as untrue.

18. In answer to Paragraph 18, the allegations therein are admitted, except for the

allegation that Plaintiffs Heinrich fell in love with this boy, which is neither admitted

nor denied by Defendants for the reason that Defendants lack knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and Plaintiffs are left to their proofs in

this regard.

19. In answer to Paragraph 19, Defendants admit that, on or about June 15, 2005, the

Heinrich Plaintiffs signed an adoption agreement with Waiting Angels, and that the

Heinrich Plaintiffs wired $12,000 in relation to a referral (which is not the same thing as

a match, as is alleged); as to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 19, and also as to

the Plaintiffs reference to the adoption agreement as an illusory contract, Defendants

deny same as untrue.

20. In answer to Paragraph 20, the allegations as to the date and amount of the

invoice are admitted, but the allegation that such fees were unspecified is denied as

untrue.

21. In answer to Paragraph 21, Defendants deny the allegations therein as untrue,

except to the extent that they may have received a request for an update on the status of

the Heinrich Plaintiffs adoption case on or about August 16, 2005, and also admitting

that Defendant Boraggina made the statement as set forth in Paragraph 21 as part of a

broader e-mail which is taken out of context in Plaintiffs Paragraph 21, which e-mail

speaks for itself.

22. In answer to Paragraph 22, admitted.



6/43

6

23. In answer to Paragraph 23, Defendants admit that on or about October 10, 2005,

Defendant Boraggina made the statement as set forth in Paragraph 23 as part of a broader

e-mail which is taken out of context in Plaintiffs Paragraph 23, and Defendants further

assert that the e-mail communication in its entirety speaks for itself.

24. In answer to Paragraph 24, Defendants admit that on or about January 30, 2006,

Simone Boraggina advised the Heinrich Plaintiffs that the adoption was kicked out of

PGN, and that PGN approval was necessary to complete a Guatemalan adoption. The

remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 24 are denied as untrue.

25. In answer to Paragraph 25, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein for

the reason that they are untrue.

26. In answer to Paragraph 26, Defendants deny as untrue the allegation therein that

the Heinrich Plaintiffs had to hire another adoption facilitator on or about February 25,

2006; as to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 26, Defendants neither admit nor deny

such allegations for the reason the Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, and leave Plaintiffs to their proofs.

27. In answer to Paragraph 27, Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations

regarding what Plaintiffs were told by Adoption Supervisors for the reason the

Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegation, and leave Plaintiffs to their proofs, but Defendants deny as untrue any

allegation alluded to in Paragraph 27 regarding the lack of a requirement for embassy

approval.


regarding whether the Heinrich Plaintiffs sent an e-mail in March, 2006 requesting an



7/43

7

itemized statement, for the reason the Defendants lack knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, and leave Plaintiffs to their

proofs, and as to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 28, Defendants deny such

allegations as untrue.


regarding whether the Heinrich Plaintiffs sent an e-mail every two weeks in an unstated

time frame for the purpose of an update on the adoption, for the reason that the allegation

is vague as it is without timeframe, and because the Defendants lack knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, and leave Plaintiffs

to their proofs, and as to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 29, Defendants deny

such allegations as untrue.

30. In answer to Paragraph 30, Defendants deny the allegations therein to the extent

that it implies that the e-mail contained therein, which when read as a whole speaks for

itself and requires no response, was Defendants only response to various inquiries by the

Heinrich Plaintiffs.

31. In answer to Paragraph 31, Defendants deny the allegations therein for the reason

that they are untrue.

32. In answer to Paragraph 32, Defendants admit only that the Heinrich Plaintiffs

accepted the referral to Selvin Anibal Chocooj Bac when that child was approximately

nine (9) days old; in further answer, Defendants neither admit nor deny whether the

Heinrich Plaintiffs then ...gave their hopes, dreams and their hearts... to that child,

because the Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegation, and leave Plaintiffs to their proofs; in answer to the remaining



8/43

8

allegations contained in Paragraph 32, Defendants deny such allegations for the reason


33. In answer to Paragraph 33, Defendants deny the allegation that the adoption

service agreement with Plaintiffs David Kruger and Toni Flenniken (hereafter, the

Flenniken Plaintiffs) was an illusory contract; in answer to the remainder of Paragraph

33, Defendants admit such allegations.







36. In answer to Paragraph 36, as to the allegations concerning alleged conversations

between the Flenniken Plaintiffs and the consulates office, and also as to when the

Flenniken Plaintiffs heard anything, Defendants neither admit nor deny such

allegations as set forth therein, for the reason that Defendants are without sufficient

knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and

therefore leave Plaintiffs to their proofs; the remaining allegations of Paragraph 36 are

vague in that they reference various actions allegedly directed to, or committed by,

Defendants, without specifying any particular Defendant, and for that reason

Defendants request a more definite statement as to such allegations and hereby deny them

as untrue.



9/43

9

37. In answer to Paragraph 37, as to the allegations concerning alleged conversations

between the Flenniken Plaintiffs and the consulates office, and also as to whether the

Flenniken Plaintiffs ...called several times to the Defendants for a Federal Express

tracking number..., and as to what the Flennikens did with the tracking number,

Defendants neither admit nor deny such allegations, for the reason that Defendants are

without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth

thereof, and therefore leave Plaintiffs to their proofs; Defendants admit that the materials

for the consulates review were shipped from Waiting Angels on January 3, 2006, and

deny as untrue that this was eleven (11) days after the Flenniken Planitiffs were told the

paperwork was mailed.

38. In answer to Paragraph 38, Defendants respond, as to allegations of what the

adoption agreement promised, that the contract speaks for itself; as to the allegations in

Paragraph 38 that the Flenniken Plaintiffs asked about receiving a photo update and

medical report, and that the Flenniken Plaintiffs were advised that the information had

been requested of the Guatemalan adoption attorney but that it had not yet been provided,

admitted.









10/43

10



43. In answer to Paragraph 43, as to the allegations concerning alleged inquiries by

the Flenniken Plaintiffs to third parties, Defendants neither admit nor deny such

allegations, for the reason that Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or


Plaintiffs to their proofs; Defendants admit that the Flenniken Plaintiffs indicated a desire

to visit their daughter in March, 2006, and that Simone Boraggina once indicated that

DNA might be complete by early or mid March, and later indicated that it might be

completed as late as early April; Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations set

forth in Paragraph 43 for the reason that they are untrue.



45. In answer to Paragraph 45, Defendants deny the allegation that they continually

frustrated the Flenniken Plaintiffs as untrue; as to the remainder of the allegations set

forth in Paragraph 44, Defendants neither admit nor deny such allegations, for the reason

that Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a

belief as to the truth thereof, and therefore leave Plaintiffs to their proofs.








11/43

11

48. In answer to Paragraph 48, as to the allegations concerning the Flenniken

Plaintiffs activities, Defendants neither admit nor deny such allegations, for the reason

that Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a

belief as to the truth thereof, and therefore leave Plaintiffs to their proofs; Defendants

deny the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 48 for the reason that they are

untrue.

49. In answer to Paragraph 49, Defendants deny the allegation that their fees were

exorbitant, and that it was only when in Guatemala that Toni Flenniken decided to remain

there and foster baby Maria, as untrue; as to the remainder of the allegations set forth in

Paragraph 44, Defendants neither admit nor deny such allegations, for the reason that

Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief

as to the truth thereof, and therefore leave Plaintiffs to their proofs.









52. In answer to Paragraph 52, Defendants admit that the Flenniken Plaintiffs were

advised by Waiting Angels that the Flenniken Plaintiffs representations to those from

whom they took baby Maria were deceitful and dishonest, and that they should return



12/43

12

baby Maria to that facility for the time being; Defendants deny the allegation that they

berated the Flenniken Plaintiffs as it is untrue.

53. In answer to Paragraph 53, Defendants respond that the allegations contained

therein are vague as they do not state a timeframe for the activities alleged; Defendants

further admit in certain context not stated in Paragraph 53 Defendant Beauvais did send

an e-mail requesting payment of the remaining adoption service fees, and did receive a

reply indicating David Flennikens opinion that the remaining fees were not due per the

contract until the case was out of PGN; the remainder of the allegations set forth in

Paragraph 53 are denied as untrue.







57. In answer to Paragraph 57, Defendants deny the allegation that the adoption

service agreement with Plaintiffs Anthony and Jill Casassa (hereafter, the Casassa

Plaintiffs) was an illusory contract; in answer to the remainder of Paragraph 57,

Defendants admit such allegations.

58. In answer to Paragraph 58, Defendants request a more definite statement, as the

allegations contained therein refer to Defendants without stating to which Defendant

they are referring; without waiving that request Defendants admit that the Casassa

Plaintiffs were advised that the twins, Joselyn Fabiola Jimenez Samayoa and Jerson



13/43

13

Geovani Jimenez Samayoa, were reclaimed by their birth mother. The remainder of

Paragraph 58 is denied for the reason that the allegations contained therein are untrue.

59. In answer to Paragraph 59, Defendants deny as untrue the allegation that no

photos or medical information were sent to the Casassa Plaintiffs over a four month

period of being matched with the Samayoa twins. In answer to the remainder of

Paragraph 59, Defendants request a more definite statement, as the allegations contained

therein refer to Defendants without stating to which Defendant they are referring;

without waiving that request Defendants admit that the Casassas were advised that the

attorney would forward more referrals for the Casassa Plaintiffs to consider adopting.





61. In answer to Paragraph 61, Defendants deny as untrue any insinuation that

Defendants could not obtain birth certificates for babies that were being displayed on

Waiting Angels website, but neither admit nor deny the allegation as to what the Casassa

Plaintiffs were told, for the reason that Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or


Plaintiffs to their proofs. As to the allegations contained in the first two sentences of

Paragraph 61, Defendants request a more definite statement, as the allegations contained

therein refer to Defendants without stating to which Defendant they are referring;

without waiving that request, Defendants admit that at a date uncertain the Casassa

Plaintiffs asked about photos on the Waiting Angels website of children offered for



14/43

14

adoption, and that the Jill Casassa was advised that referrals for those children had not

been sent as the adoption of those children was through an attorney other than the one

that had been handling the adoption of the Samayoa twins.























15/43

15


forth therein with regard to the timing of the Tavolilla Plaintiffs e-mailing notice that

they would not adopt Marvin Enrique Botello Perez, for the reason that Defendants are

without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth

thereof, and therefore leave Plaintiffs to their proofs, but Defendants admit that the

Tavolilla Plaintiffs did send an e-mail so advising; Defendants deny the remainder of the

allegations contained in Paragraph 71 for the reason that they are untrue.

72. In answer to Paragraph 72, Defendants request a more definite statement as to

what it is alleged that Defendant Simone Boraggina was responding; without waiving that

request, Defendants deny the contents of Paragraph 72 as untrue, with the exception of

the admission of the fact that, upon information and belief, one or both of the Tavolilla

Plaintiffs were advised that money may have been wired on their behalf to an attorney in

Guatemala.













16/43

16


forth therein as to the Tavolilla Plaintiffs emotional status, for the reason that Defendants

are without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the

truth thereof, and therefore leave Plaintiffs to their proofs. The remaining allegations

contained in Paragraph 76 are admitted.

77. In answer to Paragraph 77, Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence

thereof, which relates to communications between the Defendants and the Tavolilla

Plaintiffs; the allegations in Paragraph 77 which state that the Tavolilla Plaintiffs were

advised that the attorney was searching for a new referral for them are admitted.




Plaintiffs to their proofs, except that the Defendants deny as untrue.













17/43

17







86. In answer to Paragraph 86, Defendants admit that the Lundy Plaintiff(s)

communicated a desire to adopt a girl, and that they wired $12,350.00 to Waiting Angels

for that adoption, and that they paid $700.00 for foster fees. The remainder of Paragraph

86 is denied as untrue.















18/43

18












Plaintiffs to their proofs, except that the Defendants deny as untrue; Defendants further

state that, as to the alleged contents of the e-mail excerpted in Paragraph 95, such

document speaks for itself.








Plaintiffs to their proofs. Defendants further request a more definite statement, as the



19/43

19


they are referring.



they are referring; without waiving that request, Defendants neither admit nor deny the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 100, for the reason that Defendants are without

sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth thereof,

and therefore leave Plaintiffs to their proofs.


















20/43

20












they are referring, and also because the allegation does not state who was allegedly

traveling to Guatemala; without waiving that request, Defendants neither admit nor deny

the allegations set forth in Paragraph 105, for the reason that Defendants are without











21/43

21






and therefore leave Plaintiffs to their proofs, except that Defendants deny as untrue any

allegation that they promised they would provide missing information to the Lundy

Plaintiffs by a certain date.







allegation that they promised they would provide missing medical information to the

Lundy Plaintiffs this week.







allegation that they promised they would have documents by a certain date.



22/43


23/43

23

114. In answer to Paragraph 114, Defendants deny as untrue the allegations therein that

the contract between Waiting Angels, and Plaintiffs Robin and Curtis Wright, (hereafter,

the Wright Plaintiffs), was illusory, or that the contract was faxed after Waiting Angels

was paid, and Defendants further deny that the $14,350.00 was for a retainer fee, or

that the Wright Plaintiffs based their decision to utilize the services of Waiting Angels in

whole or in part on the profit or non-profit status of that entity posted on the website; the

remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 114, concerning the children to whom

the Wright Plaintiffs were referred, are admitted.

115. In answer to Paragraph 115, Defendants deny the allegations therein for the

reason that they are untrue.

116. In answer to Paragraph 116, admitted that on or about January, 2006, the Wright

Plaintiffs wired Waiting Angels $14,350.00 to begin the process of facilitating the

adoption of another child, but denied as untrue as to allegations that the contract was to

adopt baby Estafany Alejandra Lopez Marroquin.





forth therein regarding whether the Wright Plaintiffs made the inquiries alleged therein or

expressed concern as alleged, for the reason that Defendants are without sufficient

knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and

therefore leave Plaintiffs to their proofs; further, Defendants deny the remaining

allegations in Paragraph 119 for the reason that they are untrue.



24/43

24

120. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in Paragraph 120 for the

reason the Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegation, and leave Plaintiffs to their proofs.






the allegation, and leave Plaintiffs to their proofs, except that Defendants deny as untrue

any allegation or insinuation in Paragraph 122 that Defendants did not forward fees to the

appropriate party for the payment of foster care for the child in question.










127. In answer to Paragraph 127, Defendants admit that payment of approximately

$628.96 was paid by the Saenz Plaintiffs on or about January 17, 2006 for the processing

of the foreign birth certificate of Harold Saenz, but Defendants neither admit nor deny the



25/43

25

remaining allegations in Paragraph 127 for the reason the Defendants lack knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, and leave Plaintiffs

to their proofs.






reason that they are untrue, except only that Defendants admit that the Saenz Plaintiffs

were not paper-ready, their dossier was not complete, and Waiting Angels required

payment of $350 per month for foster fees until the Saenz Plaintiffs were paper-ready.

131. In answer to Paragraph 131, Defendants request a more definite statement, as to

the allegations contained therein which refer to Defendants without stating to which

Defendant they are referring; without waiving that request, Defendants neither admit nor

deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 131, for the reason that Defendants are without


and therefore leave Plaintiffs to their proofs, except that the allegations set forth in

Paragraph 131 which claim certain statements were made by Defendant Joseph Beauvais

are denied as untrue.







26/43

26








reason that they are untrue, except that, as to any allegations regarding conversations

between the Saenz Plaintiff(s) and third parties, Defendants neither admit nor deny such

allegations for the reason the Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, and leave Plaintiffs to their proofs.















27/43

27

























28/43

28

ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C.1341, 1343















COUNT ONE

Defendants re-state all preceding answers to Paragraphs 1 through 160 as though

fully set forth herein.

161. No response is required, however Defendants object to Paragraph 161 as vague,

ambiguous, lacking in definite statement, overbroad, and referencing paragraphs that did

not precede Paragraph 161.

162. There is no Paragraph 162; no response is required.



29/43

29

163. In answer to Paragraph 163 and each and every one of its subparts and sub-

subparts, Defendants deny the allegations therein for the reason that they are untrue.





166. In answer to Paragraph 166 and each and every one of its subparts, Defendants

deny the allegations therein for the reason that they are untrue.



COUNT TWO




ambiguous, lacking in definite statement, and overbroad.





COUNT THREE





30/43

30


ambiguous, lacking in definite statement, overbroad, and referencing paragraphs that did

not precede Paragraph 161.









176. In answer to Paragraph 176 and its subparts, Defendants deny the allegations

therein for the reason that they are untrue.



COUNT FOUR









31/43


32/43

32







COUNT SEVEN

















33/43

33

COUNT EIGHT















COUNT NINE









34/43

34











COUNT TEN













35/43


36/43

36









WHEREFORE, Defendants, WAITING ANGELS ADOPTION SERVICES,

INC., SIMONE BORAGGINA, and JOSEPH J. BEAUVAIS, by and through their

attorneys, HARDIN AND ASSOCIATES, P.C., request of this Honorable Court a finding

of no cause of action against each of the Plaintiffs, dismissal of the case, an award of

attorney fees, costs and sanctions in favor of Defendants for having to defend this

frivolous and baseless action, and any other relief in the favor of Defendants.

Respectfully Submitted,

HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, PC/s/ Kenneth J. Hardin II

Kenneth J. Hardin II (P44681)Nicole L. Thompson (P64876)30150 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 345Bingham Farms, MI 48025Attorneys for Defendant

July 24, 2008 248-723-9900



37/43

37




Plaintiffs



a Michigan For-Profit Corporationand SIMONE BORAGGINAand JOSEPH J. BEAUVAIS,Individuals

Defendants


DEFENDANTS FIRST AMENDED SPECIAL AND/OR

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Now Come Defendants, WAITING ANGELS ADOPTION SERVICES, INC.,


HARDIN AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. and for their First Amended Special and/or

Affirmative Defenses, state as follows:

1. Pursuant to MCR 2.203, objection is made to the failure to join allpossible claims against this Defendant, and Defendant does not waive the requirements of

MCR 2.203.



38/43

38

2. Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.3. There is no genuine issue of material fact and Defendant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.

4. The claims are barred by the statute(s) of limitations.5. The Plaintiffs claims are barred by the equitable doctrines of estoppel,

waiver and/or laches.

6. This claim is otherwise barred by operation of law.7. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages.8.

Plaintiff has failed to plead fraud with the requisite specificity.

9. Any claims for equitable relief are barred by the doctrine of uncleanhands.

10. These claims are barred by res judicata and/or the doctrine of collateralestoppel.

11. There is a failure of proximate cause which bars this action as a matter oflaw.

12. The claims are barred because there is either no case or controversy.13. Plaintiffs damages are subject to setoff.14. Plaintiffs claims for damages were caused by third parties over whom

Defendants had no control and for whose actions Defendants are not legally responsible.

15. Plaintiffs were not damaged.16. Plaintiffs claims are barred by consent.17. Plaintiffs claims are barred by acquiescence.18. Plaintiffs assumed the risk.



39/43

39

19. The doctrine of equal involvement applies.20. The Plaintiffs claims are subject to an agreement to arbitrate and/or

mediate.

21. The Plaintiffs breached the contract in question.22. The claims are barred by the doctrine of election of remedies.23. Defendant Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc. is no longer a business

and is not/never was an enterprise as contemplated by the civil R.I.C.O. laws.

24. The doctrine of contribution applies to the Plaintiffs claims.25.

Defendants rely upon the doctrine comparative negligence.

26. That pursuant to the Tort Reform Act, MCL 600.2955(a), if it is shownthat Plaintiff(s) was(were) impaired by alcohol or if Plaintiff(s) was(were) under the

influence of an illicit drug(s), and use or consumption of the drug(s) or alcohol was 50%

or more responsible for the incident or emotional harm claimed, Plaintiff(s) is (are), by

law, not entitled to recovery of damages from the Defendants.

27. Other entities, parties, corporations, partnerships, or individuals not aparty to this lawsuit are wholly or partly responsible for Plaintiffs alleged injuries and

these Defendants disclaim liability for their alleged wrongful actions proportionate to

their degree of fault up to and including 100% of Plaintiffs claimed damages.

28. Defendants state that Plaintiffs alleged injuries were caused in whole orin part by the negligence and/or fault of the Plaintiff(s); and, further, to the extent that the

negligence or fault of the Plaintiff(s) was greater than the aggregate fault of Defendant(s)

and/or a non-party, Plaintiffs are not entitled to non-economic damages pursuant to

MCLA 600.2959.



40/43

40

29. The Plaintiffs claims are barred by release.

30. The Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.

31. Plaintiffs lack standing.

32. The Plaintiffs alleged injuries were caused by a superseding, intervening

cause over which the Defendants had no control.

33. The claims are barred by ratification.

34. The doctrine of in pari delicto applies to Plaintiffs claims.

35. Plaintiffs seek a duplicate recovery which should not be allowed.

36. The parole evidence rule bars Plaintiffs claims, which claims sound in

contract though stated otherwise.

37. The claims are barred by the Statute(s) of Frauds.

32. Defendants hereby reserve the right to add additional defenses as they

become known during the course of this matter.


HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, PC/s/ Kenneth J. Hardin II

Kenneth J. Hardin II (P44681)Nicole L. Thompson (P64876)30150 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 345Bingham Farms, MI 48025Attorneys for Defendant

July 24, 2008 248-723-9900



41/43

41




Plaintiffs




Defendants_____________________________________________________________________/JONI M. FIXEL (P56712) KENNETH J. HARDIN II (P44681)FIXEL LAW OFFICES, PLLC HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Defendants4990 Northwind Drive, Ste. 121 30150 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 345East Lansing, MI 48823 Bingham Farms, MI 48025(517) 332-3390 (248) 723-9900_____________________________________________________________________/

DEFENDANTS RELIANCE ON JURY DEMAND

NOW COME Defendants, WAITING ANGELS ADOPTION SERVICES, INC.,


HARDIN AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. and hereby state their reliance on the Jury Demand

made by Plaintiffs.

Respectfully Submitted,HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, PC/s/ Kenneth J. Hardin II

Kenneth J. Hardin II (P44681)30150 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 345Bingham Farms, MI 48025Attorneys for Defendant

July 24, 2008 248-723-9900



42/43

42




Plaintiffs




Defendants


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 24, 2008, I electronically filed the Defendants Answer toPlaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, Amended Affirmative Defenses, and Relianceon Jury Demand, along with this Certificate of Service. Notice of this filing will be sentto all parties listed below by operation of the Courts electronic filing system. Parties mayaccess this filing through the Courts system.

Joni M. Fixel

Fixel Law [email protected]



43/43


HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

By: /s/ Nicole L. Thompson__Kenneth J. Hardin II (P44681)Nicole L. Thompson (P64786)Attorneys for Plaintiff30150 Telegraph Rd., #345Bingham Farms MI 48025

Dated: July 24, 2008 (248) 723-9900


Waiting Angels Response to Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Waiting Angels Response to Complaint