IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY

Transcription

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY RUBIE ELLIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No CV04606 ) Division 14 KANSAS CITY 33 SCHOOL ) DISTRICT, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) ANSWER OF SEPARATE DEFENDANT STEVEN BRADFORD COMES NOW, Separate Defendant Steven Bradford ( Bradford ), by and through counsel, and submits the following Answer to Plaintiff s Petition: 1. Defendant Bradford admits that Plaintiff is female. Defendant Bradford is without information sufficient to form a belief with regard to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff s Petition, and therefore denies the same. 2. Defendant Bradford is without information sufficient to form a belief with regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff s Petition, and therefore denies the same. 3. Defendant Bradford is without information sufficient to form a belief with regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff s Petition, and therefore denies the same. 4. Defendant Bradford admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff s 5. Defendant Bradford admits that Defendant Harshaw is female. Defendant Bradford is without information sufficient to form a belief with regard to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff s Petition, and therefore denies the same. 6. Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff s Petition contains solely legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Bradford is without

2 information sufficient to form a belief with regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff s Petition, and therefore denies the same. 7. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff s 8. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff s 9. Defendant Bradford is without information sufficient to form a belief with regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff s Petition, and therefore denies the same. 10. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff s Petition, Defendant Bradford admits he was an employee of LINC. Defendant Bradford is without information sufficient to form a belief with regard to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff s Petition, and therefore denies the same. 11. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff s 12. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff s 13. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff s 14. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff s 15. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff s 2

3 16. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff s 17. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff s 18. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff s 19. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff s 20. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff s 21. Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff s Petition contains solely legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Bradford is without information sufficient to form a belief with regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff s Petition, and therefore denies the same. 22. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff s 23. Defendant Bradford denies that all the actions alleged in the Petition occurred, and therefore, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff s 24. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff s Petition, Defendant Bradford denies that he ever beat, sexually harass[ed], or sexually assault[ed] anyone. 25. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiff s 3

4 26. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff s 27. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiff s Petition, Defendant Bradford incorporates by reference his previous responses contained in Paragraphs Paragraph 28 (and subparts a through e thereunder) is not directed to Defendant Bradford such that no response from Defendant Bradford is necessary. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 (and subparts a through e thereunder). 29. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiff s 30. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of Plaintiff s Petition, Defendant Bradford incorporates by reference his previous responses contained in Paragraphs Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiff s 32. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiff s 33. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of Plaintiff s 34. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of Plaintiff s Petition, Defendant Bradford incorporates by reference his previous responses contained in Paragraphs

5 35. Paragraph 35 is not directed to Defendant Bradford such that no response from Defendant the allegations contained in Paragraph Paragraph 36 is not directed to Defendant Bradford such that no response from Defendant the allegations contained in Paragraph Paragraph 37 is not directed to Defendant Bradford such that no response from Defendant the allegations contained in Paragraph Paragraph 38 is not directed to Defendant Bradford such that no response from Defendant the allegations contained in Paragraph Paragraph 39 (and subparts a through g thereunder) is not directed to Defendant Bradford such that no response from Defendant Bradford is necessary. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 (and subparts a through g thereunder). 40. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiff s 41. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of Plaintiff s Petition, Defendant Bradford incorporates by reference his previous responses contained in Paragraphs Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 (and subparts a through e thereunder) of Plaintiff s 5

6 43. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiff s 44. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of Plaintiff s Petition, Defendant Bradford incorporates by reference his previous responses contained in Paragraphs Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiff s 46. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of Plaintiff s 47. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of Plaintiff s 48. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of Plaintiff s Petition, Defendant Bradford incorporates by reference his previous responses contained in Paragraphs Paragraph 49 is not directed to Defendant Bradford such that no response from Defendant the allegations contained in Paragraph Paragraph 50 is not directed to Defendant Bradford such that no response from Defendant the allegations contained in Paragraph Paragraph 51 is not directed to Defendant Bradford such that no response from Defendant the allegations contained in Paragraph 51. 6

7 52. Paragraph 52 is not directed to Defendant Bradford such that no response from Defendant the allegations contained in Paragraph Paragraph 53 (including subparts a through d thereunder) is not directed to Defendant Bradford such that no response from Defendant Bradford is necessary. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 (including subparts a through d thereunder). 54. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of Plaintiff s 55. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of Plaintiff s Petition, Defendant Bradford incorporates by reference his previous responses contained in Paragraphs Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of Plaintiff s 57. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 57 of Plaintiff s 58. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 58 of Plaintiff s 59. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 59 of Plaintiff s 60. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 of Plaintiff s 7

8 61. Defendant Bradford denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 61 of Plaintiff s AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. In further answer to Plaintiff s Petition and by way of affirmative defense, Defendant Bradford states Plaintiff s Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. For further answer and defense, Defendant Bradford alleges that other individuals and/or entities not presently parties to this action were negligent or legally responsible or otherwise at fault for the alleged damages contained in Plaintiff s Petition and on each cause of action therein presented. Therefore, Defendant Bradford requests that in the event of any award against it, whether by settlement or judgment, an apportionment of fault be made by the Court or jury as to all parties. Defendant Bradford further requests a judgment or declaration of indemnification and contribution against all those parties or persons in accordance with the apportionment of fault. 3. For further answer and defense, Defendant Bradford seeks a reduction/credit for any settlement monies received by plaintiff from any tort-feasor under RSMo For further answer and defense, Defendant Bradford alleges that other individuals and/or entities not presently parties to this action were negligent or legally responsible or otherwise at fault for the alleged damages contained in Plaintiff s Petition and on each cause of action therein presented. Therefore, Defendant Bradford requests that in the event of any award against it, whether by settlement or judgment, an apportionment of fault be made by the Court or jury as to all parties. Defendant Bradford further requests a judgment or declaration of indemnification and contribution against all those parties or persons in accordance with the apportionment of fault. 8

9 5. For further answer and defense, Defendant Bradford states that he intends to rely upon the provisions of RSMo limiting the economic damages for medical expenses to the amounts actually paid to a healthcare provider. 6. For further answer and defense, Defendant Bradford states that Plaintiff s claims barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of consent. 7. In further answer and defense, Defendant Bradford states and alleges Plaintiff s claims are barred because of her failure to mitigate damages. 8. By way of further answer and as an affirmative defense, the standards for determining the amount of punitive damages and/or subsequent imposition of punitive damages are vague, supply no notice to defendant of the potential repercussions of its alleged conduct and are subject to unbridled discretion of the jury thereby denying defendant due process under Missouri Constitution Article 1, By way of further answer and as an affirmative defense, the standards for determining the amount of punitive damages and/or subsequent imposition of punitive damages are vague, supply no notice to defendant of the potential repercussions of its alleged conduct and are subject to the unbridled discretion of the jury thereby denying defendant due process under Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 10. By way of further answer and as an affirmative defense, Plaintiff s request for punitive damages and/or subsequent imposition of punitive damages is criminal in nature and the rights given a defendant in criminal proceedings under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution are applicable. 11. By way of further answer and as an affirmative defense, Plaintiff s request for punitive damages and/or subsequent imposition of punitive damages is criminal in nature and the 9

10 rights given defendants in criminal proceedings under the Missouri Constitution, and Article 1, 18A, 19, 21 and 22A are applicable. 12. By way of further answer and as an affirmative defense, Plaintiff s request for punitive damages and/or subsequent imposition of punitive damages constitutes a request for and/or imposition of an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 13. By way of further answer and as an affirmative defense, Plaintiff s request for punitive damages and/or subsequent imposition of punitive damages constitutes a request for and/or imposition of an excessive fine in violation of Missouri Constitution Article 1, By way of further answer and as an affirmative defense, the standard by which defendant s conduct is to be determined as alleged by plaintiff is vague and wholly arbitrary and as such Defendant denies due process in violation of Missouri Constitution Article 1, By way of further answer and as an affirmative defense, the standard by which defendant s conduct is to be determined as alleged by plaintiff is vague and wholly arbitrary and as such Defendant denies due process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 16. By way of further answer and as an affirmative defense, Plaintiff s request for punitive damages and/or subsequent imposition of punitive damages against this defendant constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 10

11 17. By way of further answer and as an affirmative defense, Plaintiff s request for punitive damages and/or subsequent imposition of punitive damages against this defendant constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Missouri Constitution Article 1, By way of further answer and as an affirmative defense, Plaintiff s request for punitive damages and/or subsequent imposition of punitive damages against this defendant constitutes a denial of equal protection under the law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution in that defendant s wealth or net worth may be considered by the jury in determining the amount of a punitive damage award. 19. By way of further answer and as an affirmative defense, Plaintiff s request for punitive damages and/or subsequent imposition of punitive damages against this defendant cannot protect this defendant against multiple punishments for the same alleged wrong, thereby denying due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 20. By way of further answer and as an affirmative defense, Plaintiff s request for punitive damages and/or subsequent imposition of punitive damages against this defendant cannot protect this defendant against multiple punishments for the same alleged wrong thereby denying due process under the Missouri Constitution Article 1, By way of further answer and as an affirmative defense, Defendant reserves the right to rely upon such other affirmative defenses as may become available or apparent during the course of discovery, and reserves the right to amend its Answer to assert those defenses. DEFENDANT DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES HEREIN. 11

12 WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiff s Petition, Defendant Bradford respectfully prays for an Order of the Court dismissing Plaintiff s Petition, for his costs herein incurred, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, FRANKE SCHULTZ & MULLEN, P.C. /s/ Kevin D. Brooks JOHN G. SCHULTZ MO #34711 KEVIN D. BROOKS MO # Ward Parkway Kansas City, Missouri Phone: (816) Fax: (816) jschultz@fsmlawfirm.com kbrooks@fsmlawfirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STEVEN BRADFORD CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 2, 2013, the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the Jackson County E-File system which sent notification of such filing to the attorneys listed below, and a copy was served via U.S. Mail and , to: Edward A. Stump, Esq. The Law Offices of Edward A. Stump, LLC 204 W. Linwood Blvd. Kansas City, Missouri Phone: (816) Fax: (816) kate@edstumpkcattorney.com Attorney for Plaintiff /s/ Kevin D. Brooks Attorney for Defendant Bradford 12