Date: 09-05-2012
Case Style: Quanxi Technologies, LLC d/b/a Ace Network Consulting
Case Number: CJ-2011-2416
Judge: Jefferson D. Sellers
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Scott Riley Eudey, Ross & Eudey, PLLC, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Defendant's Attorney: James K. Secrest, II, Secrest, Hill & Butler, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Description: Quanxi Technologies, LLC d/b/a Ace Network Consulting sued Bloodlands, Inc. d/b/a Core Business & Financial Services d/k/a Fiducial, Nathan Brimm, Karen Garrison, and Patricia Snyder on breach of contract theories.
The claims made by the Plaintiff are not available.
Comes now defendants, Bloodlands, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, d/b/a CofeBusiness and Financial Services f/kla Fiducial; Nathan Brim; Karen Garrison; and Patricia Snyd&jby and through undersigned counsel, who state the following as their answer to plaintiff’s petition. Defendants generally deny each and every: allegation contained in plaintiffs petition which is not hereinafter specifically admitted.
1. Defendant is currently without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiffs petition and therefore denies them.
2. Regarding the allegations contained in paragraphs 2-10 of plaintiff’s petition, defendant Bloodlands admits it is an Oklahoma corporation with an active office in Tulsa County performing various accounting services. Defendants Brim, Garrison, and Snyder were accounting employees of Bloodlanèls during the dates alleged by plaintiff. Defendant is
currently without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraphs 2-10 of plaintiff’s petition, and therefpre must deny the same.
3. Regarding the allegations contained in paragraphs 11-44 of plaintiff’s petition, defendants admit an accounting relationship was entered into with plaintiff on or about the date alleged. Regarding the remaining allegations contained in paragraphs 11-44 of plaintiffs petition, defendants expess1y deny that any deceit, fraudulent wrongdoing, intent to ham, malice, contractual breach, or failure to adhere to applicable standards of care were committed in an individdal or agency capacity.
Further Answering
4. Defendant demands strict proof of the amount and reasonableness of any and all attorney’s fees alleged, as well as a&iy interest, costs, or other relief requested or alleged, including authority that provides fqr it.
5. Any award of punitive damages babed upon any standard of proof that is less than “clear and convincing” evidence would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Cnstithtion, and the Due Process Clause of the Oklahoma Constitution.
6. Any award of punitive damages based upon vague and undefined standards of liability would violate the Due Process Cimise of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the Due Process Clause of the Oklahoma Constitution.
7. Plaintiffs claim for punitive damaáes is in contravention of each defendant’s rights under each of the following constitutional provisions:
A. The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution;
B. The Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution;
C. The prohibition ag4inst cx post facto laws embodied in Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution;
D. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution;
E. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution;
F. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution;
G. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
H. The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
I. The Right to Trial by Jury contained in the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution; and
J. The Equal Protectidn Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; as well as the corresponding provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution.
8. The Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is improper for the following reasons:
A. there are no standards provided by Oklahoma law for the imposition of punitive damages, and, therefore, defendants have not been put on notice and given the opportunity to anticipate the punitive liability and/or the potential size of theaward;
B. the procedures to be followed could permit the award of multiple punitive damages for the sanhe act or omission;
C. the procedures under which punitive damages are awarded and the instructions used wiider Oklahoma law, jointly and separately, are vague and ambiguous and, thus, fail to eliminate the effects of, and to guard against, impermissible jury passion;
D. present Oklahoma law does not provide for sufficiently objective and specific standards to be used by the jury in its deliberations on whether to award punitive damages and, if so, on the amount to be awarded;
E. present Oklahoma law does not provide for a meaningffil opportunity for challenging the ratjnal basis for, and the excessiveness of, any award of punitive damages;
F. present Oklahoma! procedures may permit the admission of evidence relative to punitive damages in the same proceeding during which liability is determined;
0. present Oklahoma procedures permit the imposition of joint and several judgments against multiple co-defendants for different acts or degrees of wrong doing or culpability;
H. present Oklahoma jrocedures fail to permit the reduction of any award for punitive damages bsed on the culpability of the plaintiff.
9. Defendants expressly incorporate ty reference limitations regarding the determination and enforceability of punitive damages mandated by the United States Supreme Court BMW of N.A. Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996); State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003); Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008). AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES
1. Plaintiff fails to state a claim uponwhich relief may be granted.
2. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of comparative negligence.
3. In the event liability is found, defendants were not the actual or proximate cause due an unavoidable casualty or fault of third parties over which defendants had no control.
4. Estoppel.
5. Laches.
6. Payment.
7. Release.
8. Resjudicata.
Outcome: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Quanxi Technologies, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, cl/b/a Ace Network Consulting and dismisses its causes of action with prejudice to right of filing any further action against the Bloodlands, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, cl/b/a Core Business and Financial Services f/k/a Fiducial; Nathan Brim; Karen Garrison; and Patricia Snyder, all issues of law and fact having been fuiiy compromised and settled.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
