PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover PDF Search Help Contact



Doc11 Sound Extreme Counterclaim Answer 02 07 12 .pdf



Original filename: Doc11-Sound-Extreme-Counterclaim-Answer-02-07-12.pdf
Title: Microsoft Word - Document15
Author: James Harrington

This PDF 1.5 document has been generated by PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2 / Acrobat Distiller 9.4.6 (Windows); modified using iText 2.1.7 by 1T3XT, and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 07/07/2012 at 01:59, from IP address 75.95.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 1192 times.
File size: 126 KB (7 pages).
Privacy: public file




Download original PDF file









Document preview


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION

SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:11cv283-GCM
v.
SOUND EXTREME ENTERTAINMENT
COMPANY, LLC; SOUND EXTREME
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; and
BENJAMIN A. SIKORSKI,
Defendants.

ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM
The Plaintiff, Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation (“Slep-Tone”), by its
counsel, hereby answers the counterclaim of Defendant Sound Extreme
Entertainment Company, LLC (“SEEC”) as follows:

MOTION TO DISMISS
Slep-Tone moves to dismiss the counterclaim of SEEC for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.

1
Case 3:11-cv-00283-GCM Document 11 Filed 02/07/12 Page 1 of 7

ANSWER
Slep-Tone answers the allegations of the counterclaim of SEEC in likenumbered paragraphs as follows:
96.

Slep-Tone admits that the counterclaim purports to be such an action but
denies that SEEC has stated a claim or that it is entitled to relief.

97.

Slep-Tone admits that jurisdiction over the counterclaim is proper in this
Court.

98.

Slep-Tone admits that venue is proper in this Court.

99.

Upon information and belief, admitted.

100. Slep-Tone is without sufficient information to determine the truth or falsity
of this allegation, and it is therefore denied.
101. Denied.
102. Admitted.
103. Admitted.
104. Denied. A true copy of an exemplar of the letter in question, in its entirety,
is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
105. Denied.
106. The allegation constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is required, denied.

2
Case 3:11-cv-00283-GCM Document 11 Filed 02/07/12 Page 2 of 7

107. The allegation constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is required, denied.
108. Denied.
109. Slep-Tone admits that it desires to “make an example” of SEEC, but because
SEEC has attempted to engage in spoliation of evidence, which it undertook
in order to support its false contention that it was operating only four
karaoke systems simultaneously. Slep-Tone’s communications to the
Karaoke Venues are similar to those it routinely undertakes in other cases
and are not part of Slep-Tone’s effort to “make an example” of SEEC. To
the extent not otherwise admitted, the allegations of this paragraph are
denied.
110. Slep-Tone did not demand that any karaoke venue stop doing business with
SEEC; consequently, the allegations of this paragraph are denied.
111. Denied.
112. Denied.
113. Denied.
114. Denied.
115. Denied.
116. Slep-Tone repeats its responses thereto.
117. Denied.
3
Case 3:11-cv-00283-GCM Document 11 Filed 02/07/12 Page 3 of 7

118. Slep-Tone is without sufficient information to determine the truth or falsity
of the allegation, which is therefore denied.
119. Denied.
120. Slep-Tone repeats its responses thereto.
121. Denied.
122. Denied.
123. Slep-Tone repeats its responses thereto.
124. Denied.
125. Denied.
126. Denied.
127. Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1.

The Plaintiff’s communications to the Karaoke Venues are the subject of a
legal privilege.

2.

The Defendant has unclean hands and is therefore prevented from asserting
the counterclaims.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that the Defendant have and recover nothing of
the Plaintiff on its counterclaims.
4
Case 3:11-cv-00283-GCM Document 11 Filed 02/07/12 Page 4 of 7

Respectfully submitted this the 7th day of February, 2012.
HARRINGTON LAW, P.C.

By: s/James M. Harrington
James M. Harrington
N.C. State Bar No. 30005
jharrington@harringtonlawpc.com
Attorney for the Plaintiff
HARRINGTON LAW, P.C.
PO Box 403
Concord, North Carolina 28026-0403
Telephone: 704-315-5800
Facsimile: 704-625-9259

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document is being filed
on the date indicated below using the Clerk’s CM/ECF system, which will send a
Notice of Electronic Filing to counsel of record as indicated below:
John C. Nipp

Date: February 7, 2012

-

jnipp@summalaw.com

s/ James M. Harrington

5
Case 3:11-cv-00283-GCM Document 11 Filed 02/07/12 Page 5 of 7

Case 3:11-cv-00283-GCM Document 11 Filed 02/07/12 EXHIBIT
Page 6 of 7

A

Case 3:11-cv-00283-GCM Document 11 Filed 02/07/12 Page 7 of 7


Related documents


doc11 sound extreme counterclaim answer 02 07 12
stollznow response to complaint 2014dec10
smith answer
doc08 expressway sc answer counter claim 06 28 12
doc199 harrington findings of fact 7 13 12 main
panama 203 plaintiff s motion for entry of consent judgment re shawn p kelley


Related keywords