Date: 02-15-2013

Case Style: Bryan P. Butler v. Mask Development, LLC

Case Number: CJ-2012-2139

Judge: Mary Fitzgerald

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Sara C. Smith and James E. Weger

Defendant's Attorney: Truman B. Rucker

Description: Bryan P. Butler sued Mask Development, LLC, Mary Kean, Aaron Talton, Shawn Linfoot, Kristin Vannaconne and Keane Realtors, Inc. on negligence theories:

1. Plaintiff Bryan Butler is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklaho4i.

2. Defendant Mask Development, LLC is an Oklahoma Limited Liability Compy doii1g business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

3. Defendant Mary Keane is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, the Managing Partner of Mask Development, LLC, and a licensed real estate broker in the State of Oklahoma.

4. Defendant Aaron Talton is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma and a Member of Mask Development. LLC.

5. Defendant Shawn Linfoot is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, a Member of Mask Development, LLC, and a licensed architect.

6. Defendant Kristin Vannaconne is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, and a Member of Mask Development, LLC.

7. Defendant Keane Realtors, Inc. is an Oklahoma Corporation doing business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

8. The actions which give rise to the claims set forth in this Petition occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

9. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in Tulsa County.
CAUSES OF ACTION- NEGLIGENT CONSTRUCTION, BREACH OF CONTRACT,
AND BREACH OF WARRANTY

10. On or about April 27, 2009, Butler purchased a condominium from Defendants commonly known as 1419 S. Rockford Avenue, Unit C, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120, which Defendants conveyed to Butler via General Warranty Deed.

11. In approximately May 2009, Butler discovered significant leaks around select windows and water damage to drywall in the condominium.

12. Butler made Defendants aware of the leaks and water damage and gave them an opportunity to remedy the problem.

13. Throughout the next couple of years, the leaks and water damage continued and Butler began to discover more leaks and water damage throughout the condominium.

14. Again, Butler made Defendants aware of the leaks and water damage and gave them an opportunity to remedy the problem.

15. As of April 2012, the leaks and the water damage to the condominium remain and Defendants have failed to properly remedy the problems.

16. Upon information and belief, Defendants owed a duty to Butler to perform work and services for Butler skillfully, carefully, diligently, and in a workmanlike manner as possessed by a reasonably prudent contractor of ordinary skill, competency, and standing in their particular trade.

17. Upon information and belief, the leaks and water damage to the condominium is a result of Defendants’ negligent construction.

18. Defendants’ failure to remedy the leaks and water damage constitute breach of contract and breach of warranty.

19. As a result of Defendant’s professional negligence, negligent construction, breach of contract, and breach of warranty, Butler has been damaged in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Bryan Butler respectfully requests the Court grant judgment in his favor and against Defendants Mask Development, LLC, Mary Keane, Aaron Talton, Shawn Linfoot, Kristin Vannaconne, and Keane Realtors, Inc. for professional negligence, negligent construction, breach of contract, and breach of warranty, and award Plaintiff his attorney fees and costs incurred in this matter, and any further relief this Court deems just and equitable.


Defendant Aaron Talton appeared and answered as follows:

1. That this Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Petition except that which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.

2. That this Defendant admits the allegations of.. Paragraph
1 of Plaintiff’s Petition. .

3. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
2 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

4. That this Defendant admits that Defendant, Mary Keane, is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, that Defendant, Mary Keane, is the Managing Member of Defendant, Mask Development, LLC, and that Defendant, Mary Keane, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Oklahoma, but denies the
remaining allegations of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

5. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
4 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

6. That this Defendant admits that Defendant, Shawn Linfoot, is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

7. That this Defendant admits that Defendant, Kristin Vannaconne, correctly identified as Kristin Yannaccone, is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

8. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
7 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

9. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
8 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

10. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
9 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

11. That this Defendant denies that he sold the condominium described in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition (hereafter the “Condominium”) to Plaintiff, admits that Defendant, Mask Development, LLC, sold the Condominium to Plaintiff on April 27, 2009, via General Warranty Deed, and denies the remaining
allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

12. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

13. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
12 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

14. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

15. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
14 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

16. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

17. That Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition contains only allegations of law for which this Defendant is not required to answer. To the extent that an answer is required by this Defendant to Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition, this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that he breached any duties owed to Plaintiff and demands proof thereof.

18. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
17 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that he constructed the Condominium and demands proof thereof.

19. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
18 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

20. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
19 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that he is a registered professional in any capacity and demands proof thereof.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21. That certain or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22. That Plaintiff’s claims against this Defendant are barred by limited warranties and the terms and conditions of the contract and limited warranty between Plaintiff and Defendant, Mask Development, LIJC.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23. That should this Defendant be found guilty of negligence, which is not admitted but is expressly denied, such negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages, if any.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24. That any damages suffered by Plaintiff, which are not admitted but specifically denied, were directly and proximately caused by the superseding, intervening acts or omissions on the part of third parties which were beyond the control or right of
control of this Defendant, thereby precluding Plaintiff from recovery against this Defendant.

25. That this Defendant reserves the right to amend his Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition upon completion of discovery.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Aaron Talton, prays for judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, for costs of this action and any other relief which the Court deems just and equitable.

Defendant Mary Keane appeared and answered as follows:

1. That this Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Petition except that which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.

2. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paraaph
1 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Para:graph
2 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

4. That this Defendant admits that she is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, that she is the Managing Member of Defendant, Mask Development, LLC, and that she is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Oklahoma, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

5. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
4 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

6. That this Defendant admits that Defendant, Shawn Linfoot, is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

7. That this Defendant admits that Defendant, Kristin Vannaconne, correctly identified as Kristin Yannaccone, is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

8. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
7 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

9. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
8 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

10. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
9 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

11. That this Defendant denies that she sold the condominium described in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition (hereafter the “Condominium”) to Plaintiff, admits that Defendant, Mask Development, LLC, sold the Condominium to Plaintiff on April 27, 2009, via General Warranty Deed, and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

12. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

13. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
12 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

14. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

15. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
14 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

16. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

17. That Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition contains only allegations of law for which this Defendant is not required to answer. To the extent that an answer is required by this Defendant to Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition, this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that she breached any duties owed to Plaintiff and demands proof thereof.

18. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
17 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that she constructed the Condominium and demands proof thereof.

19. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
18 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

20. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
19 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that she is a registered professional in any capacity and demands proof
thereof.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21. That certain or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22. That Plaintiff’s claims against this Defendant are barred by limited warranties and the terms and conditions of the contract and limited warranty between Plaintiff and Defendant, Mask Development, LLC.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23. That should this Defendant be found guilty of negligence, which is not admitted but is expressly denied, such negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages, if any.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24. That any damages suffered by Plaintiff, which are not admitted but specifically denied, were directly and proximately caused by the superseding, intervening acts or omissions on the part of third parties which were beyond the control or right of control of this Defendant, thereby precluding Plaintiff from recovery against this Defendant.

25. That this Defendant reserves the right to amend her Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition upon completion of discovery.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mary Keane, prays for judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff, for costs of this action and any other relief which the Court deems just and equitable.

Defendant Mask Development, LLC appeared and answered as follows:

1. That this Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Petition except that which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.

2. That this Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph
1 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Pargraph
2 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

4. That this Defendant admits that Defendant, Mary Keane, is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, that Defendant, Mary Keane, is the Managing Member of this Defendant, and that Defendant, Mary Keane, is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Oklahoma, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

5. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
4 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

6. That this Defendant admits that Defendant, Shawn Linfoot, is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

7. That this Defendant admits that Defendant, Kristin Vannaconne, correctly identified as Kristin Yannaccone, is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

8. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
7 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

9. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph B of Plaintiff’s Petition.

10. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
9 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

11. That this Defendant admits that it sold the condominium described in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition (hereafter the “Condominium”) to Plaintiff on April 27, 2009, via General Warranty Deed but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that any other Defendants held title to or conveyed the Condominium to Plaintiff and demands proof thereof.

12. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

13. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
12 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

14. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

15. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
14 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

16. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

17. That Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition contains only allegations of law for which this Defendant is not required to answer. To the extent that an answer is required by this Defendant to Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition, this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that it breached any duties owed to Plaintiff, specifically denies that any other Defendants owed any legal duties to Plaintiff and demands proof thereof.

18. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
17 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that any other Defendant constructed the Condominium and demands proof thereof.

19. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
18 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

20. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
19 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that it or any Defendant is a registered professional in any capacity and demands proof thereof.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21. That certain or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22. That Plaintiff’s claims are barred by limited warranties and the terms and conditions of the contract and limited warranty between Plaintiff and this Defendant.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23. That should this Defendant be found guilty of negligence, which is not admitted but is expressly denied, such negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages, if any.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24. That any damages suffered by Plaintiff, which are not admitted but specifically denied, were directly and proximately caused by the superseding, intervening acts or omissions on the part of third parties which were beyond the control or right of control of this Defendant, thereby precluding Plaintiff from recovery against this Defendant.

25. That this Defendant reserves the right to amend its Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition upon completion of discovery.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mask Development, LLC, prays for judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, for costs of this action and any other relief which the Court deems just and equitable.

Defendant Kristin Yannaccone appeared and answered as follows:

1. That this Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Petition except that which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.

2. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
1 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
2 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

4. That this Defendant is without sufficient informaion to admit the allegations of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

5. That this Defendant is without sufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

6. That this Defendant is without sufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

7. That the correct name for this Defendant is Kristin Yannaccone, and that this Defendant admits that she is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

8. That this Defendant is without sufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

9. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
8 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

10. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
9 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

11. That this Defendant denies that she sold the condominium described in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition (hereafter the “Condominium”) to Plaintiff, admits that Defendant, Mask Development, LLC, sold the Condominium to Plaintiff on April 27, 2009, via General Warranty Deed, and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

12. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

13. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
12 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

14. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

15. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
14 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

16. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

17. That Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition contains only allegations of law for which this Defendant is not required to answer. To the extent that an answer is required by this Defendant to Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition, this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that she breached any duties owed to Plaintiff and demands proof thereof.

18. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
17 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that she constructed the Condominium and demands proof thereof.

19. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
18 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

20. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
19 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that she is a registered professional in any capacity and demands proof thereof.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21. That certain or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22. That Plaintiff’s claims against this Defendant are barred by limited warranties and the terms and conditions of the contract and limited warranty between Plaintiff and Defendant, Mask Development, LLC.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23. That should this Defendant be found guilty of negligence, which is not admitted but is expressly denied, such negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages, if any.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24. That any damages suffered by Plaintiff, which are not admitted but specifically denied, were directly and proximately caused by the superseding, intervening acts or omissions on the part of third parties which were beyond the control or right of control of this Defendant, thereby precluding Plaintiff from recovery against this Defendant.

25. That this Defendant reserves the right to amend her Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition upon completion of discovery.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Kristin Yannaccone, prays for judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff, for costs of this action and any other relief which the Court deems just and equitable.

Defendant Shawn Linfort appeared and answered as follows:

1. That this Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Petition except that which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.

2. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
1 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
2 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

4. That this Defendant is without sufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

5. That this Defendant is without sufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

6. That this Defendant admits that he is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

7. That this Defendant is without sufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

8. That this Defendant is without sufficient information to admit the allegations of Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

9. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
8 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

10. That this Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph
9 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

11. That this Defendant denies that he sold the condominium described in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition (hereafter the “Condominium”) to Plaintiff, admits that Defendant, Mask Development, LLC, sold the Condominium to Plaintiff on April 27, 2009, via General Warranty Deed, and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

12. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

13. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
12 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

14. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

15. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
14 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

16. That this Defendant is without sufficient proof to admit the allegations of Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

17. That Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition contains only allegations of law for which this Defendant is not required to answer. To the extent that an answer is required by this Defendant to Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition, this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that he breached any duties owed to Plaintiff and demands proof thereof.

18. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
17 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that he constructed the Condominium and demands proof thereof.

19. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
18 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands proof thereof.

20. That this Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph
19 of Plaintiff’s Petition, specifically denies that he is a registered professional in any capacity and demands proof thereof.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21. That certain or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22. That Plaintiff’s claims against this Defendant are barred by limited warranties and the terms and conditions of the contract and limited warranty between Plaintiff and Defendant, Mask Development, LLC.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23. That should this Defendant be found guilty of negligence, which is not admitted but is expressly denied, such negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages, if any.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24. That any damages suffered by Plaintiff, which are not admitted but specifically denied, were directly and proximately caused by the superseding, intervening acts or omissions on the part of third parties which were beyond the control or right of control of this Defendant, thereby precluding Plaintiff from recovery against this Defendant.

25. That this Defendant reserves the right to amend his Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition upon completion of discovery.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Shawn Linfoot, prays for judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, for costs of this action and any other relief which the Court deems just and equitable.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: