Defendant's Answer in Feaster Vs. McCoy et al

8/11/2019 Defendant's Answer in Feaster Vs. McCoy et al

1/8

SMITHBRIDGE, LLPBY: Andrew M Smith, EsquireAttny lD:78062Two Penn Center1500 JFK Blvd, Suite 900Philadelphia, PA 19T02(2rs) s64-s29rCounsel for Defendant

IN THE COURT OF'COMMON PLEASPHILADELPHIA COUNTY

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRANDI FEASTER

PlaintifiV.

LESEAN MCCOY,JOHN DOE alWa BIG JOHN ,PREMIER LUXURY RENTALS. INC.

May Term, 2013No.0773

Defendants.

DEF'ENDANT'S ANSWER

AND NOW COMES Defendant Lesean McCoy (hereinafter Defendant ), by and

through his undersigned counsel, to respond and aver to PlaintifPs complaint as follows:

1. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief asto the truth of the averments contained in the correspondingparagraph of Plaintiff s Complaint.

2. Admitted in part denied in part. Defendant McCoy is an individual who at the time of thefiling of the complaint owned a residence in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. plaintiffs have not

properly served Defendant McCoy or even soughtto obtain his residence, but rather used his celebrity

status as an NFL football player to simply aver he is employed by the Philadelphia Eagles. Moreover,

Defendant is no longer a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Defendant specifically

reserves the right to move for dismissal of the within action based on personal jurisdiction.

Case ID: 130500773

Filed and Attested by PROTHONOTARY

04 SEP 2013 04:00 pm A. STAMATO


2/8

3. Denied. At no time relevant to any of the allegations contained in the complaint wasDefendant McCoy the employer of any person involved in this matter. Strict proof is demanded attrial..

4. Denied. John Doe, also known as Big John ( Big John ) was not employed by

Defendant McCoy at any time relevant hereto. Specifically, Big John is not a bodyguard, agent,

servant, workman, employee or representative of Defendant McCoy and at no time during the night's

events was Big John acting within the course and scope of his relationship with Defendant McCoy. Strict

proof is demanded at trial.

5. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however tothe extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at tial.

6. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information suffrcient to form a belief asto the truth of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph of PlaintifPs Complaint.

7. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief asto the truth of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff s Complaint.

8. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Defendant Premier rented aparry bus; however thatbus was rented and used by twenty (20) people. It is denied that it was a partlz bus for McCoy and strict

proof is demanded as to who was responsible for the bus.

9. Denied. Answering Defendant cannot confirm the height and weight of Big John.Answering Defendant admits he is approximately 5'11 and 200 lbs. Answering Defendant cannot admit

or deny the height and weight of Plaintiff, strict proof is demanded at trial.

10. Denied. In fact, Plaintiffadmitted in a text message to her friend Jess that McCoynever physically struck her. Plaintiff also stated she wanted to keep McCoy's name out of the lawsuit;

however her lawyers named McCoy first in the caption of the lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff advised thisfriend Jess that plaintiff s lawyers needed Jess to corroborate Plaintiffs versions of events otherwise

she would have no case. Defendant denies Plaintiff s allegations, demands strict proof at trial.

I 1. Denied. Again, Plaintiff admitted in a text message to her friend Jess that McCoy neverphysically touched Plaintiff.

Case ID: 130500773


3/8

COUNT 1

12. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference his answers to Paragraphs l-11 as

though fully set forth at length.

13. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however tothe extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at1lrial.

14. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however tothe extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial.

I 5. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however tothe extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded atlirial. At no time was any member of

Defendant's party, including Big John, an employee, agent, servant, workman, or representative of

Defendant acting within the scope and course of their relationship with Defendant.


WHEREFORE, Defendant Lesean McCoy requests that judgment be entered in his

favor and against Plaintiff and further issue an award in favor of Defendant against Plaintiff for

all reasonable costs, attorney fees and expenses related to this litigation.

COUNT II17. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference his answers to Paragraphs 1-16 as


18. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however tothe extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded

at tial.19. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to

the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at t.ial. As previously stated, at no time

was any member of Defendant's paft5r, including Big John, an employee , agent,servant, workman, or

representative of Defendant acting within the scope and course of their relationship with Defendant.

Case ID: 130500773


4/8

20' Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however tothe extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial.


favor and against Plaintiff and further issue an award in favor of Defendant against plaintiff for


COUNT III2L Answering Defendant incorporates by reference his answers to Paragraphs 1-20 as


22. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however tothe extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at tial. As previously stated, at no timewas any member of Defendant's partSr, including Big John, an employee, agent, servant, workman, or


23. Denied.24. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to

the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at hial.




COUNT IV

25. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference his answers to paragraphs 1-24 as


26. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however tothe extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded atf:ial. As previously stated, at no time

Case ID: 130500773


5/8

was any member of Defendant's part5l, including Big John, an employee, agent) servant, workman, or


27 . Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary.

a. Deniedb. Denied. Big John was not employee, agent, servant, workman, or representative

of Defendant acting within the scope and course of his relationship with Defendant.

c' Denied. Big John was not employee, agent, servant, workman, or representativeof Defendant acting within the scope and course of his relationship with Defendant. Furthermore,

Defendant was under no duty to rescue.

d. Denied. Big John was not employee, agent, servant, workman, or representativeof Defendant acting within the scope and course of his relationship with Defendant.

e. Denied. Big John was not employee, agent, servant, workman, or representativeof Defendant acting within the scope and course of his relationship with Defendant.

f. Denied. Big John was not employee, agent, servant, workman, or representativeof Defendant acting within the scope and course of his relationship with Defendant.

g' Denied. Big John was not employee, agent, servant, workman, or representativeof Defendant acting within the scope and course of his relationship with Defendant.

h. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary;however to the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial.

i. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary;however to the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial.

j Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response ls necessary;however to the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded attrial.

k. Denied.

28. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however tothe extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded attrial.

Case ID: 130500773


6/8




COUNTS V and VI

29-36' These paragraphs of the complaint and the claims set forth therein are against

named defendants other than this answering Defendant McCoy and therefore no response is

necessary.

COUNT VII

37 . Answering Defendant incorporates by referencehis answers to Parugraphs 1-28 as


38. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however tothe extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at fial. As previously stated, at no timewas any member of Defendant's paft5z, including Big John, an employee, agent, servant, workman, or







Andrew M. Smith, EsquireDated: a ll ltr

Case ID: 130500773


7/8

DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Improper Venue. Venue is proper against an individual where the individual maybe served, the cause of action arose or a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the

cause of action arose. Pennsvlvania Rules of Civil Procedure $ 302. Defendant was not a

resident of Philadelphia County at arry time during the initiation, or pendency of the original

cause of action. The incident and all related transactions occurred in New Jersev. Therefore.

venue is not proper in Philadelphia County

2' Lack of Jurisdiction. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over DefendantMcCoy.

3. Failure to Serve Process. Pwsuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 402, service of process mustbe made upon the Defendant. Plaintiff has failed to make proper and sufficient service of the

Complaint upon the Defendants.

4. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.5. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and Defendant reserves the

right to move for dismissal of the Complaint.

6. Plaintiff s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.7 - Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff s fraud, misrepresentations,

inducement and/or its own actions or omissions.

8. In the event that the Plaintiff requests damages for delay pursuant to Rule 238 of thePennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, answering Defendant challenge the applicability and

constitutionality of said rules and places same at issue.

9 ' Defendants reserye the right to supplement these affirmative defenses as investisationand discovery herein continues.

Case ID: 130500773


8/8

WIIEREFORE, Defendants request that judgment be entered in their favor and against plaintiff

denying Plaintiff s request for relief and awarding Defendant all reasonable

expenses.

Andrew M Smith, EsquireAttorney for Defendants

VERIFICATION

l, Andrew M. Smith, Esquire, attorney for Defendant McCoy in the within action, hereby

state that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter are true and correct to thebest of my knowledge, information and belief after reasonable investigation.

This Verification is made subject to the penarties4f 1g pa.c.s. 54904 relating tounsworn falsification to authorities.

Andrew M. ith, Esquire

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on September 4,2013 service of a true and correct copy of the within

Answer and New Matter was made upon all counsel of record in accordance with the

Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure through the ECF filing

By:

Case ID: 130500773

Documents

Defendant's Answer in Feaster Vs. McCoy et al