Moore v. Stearns — Entry #24: Deft's ANSWER to the Second Amended Complaint by Kerry P
Case: Moore v. Stearns mad · 3:05-cv-30010
filed January 14, 2005
What this document is
Docket entry #24 · filed August 29, 2005
Deft's ANSWER to the Second Amended Complaint by Kerry P. Stearns filed.(Finn, Mary)
Who is involved
- Moore
- Stearns
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- Marathon Digital: its subsidiary “Sullivan Company” appears in a filing in this case.
…Narne ofInspector: (plcase print) David A. Sullivan Company Na_me: Sullivan Inspections Mailing Ad_dress:…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved November 07, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
6 page(s), 6,898 characters, read from page images by OCR, so expect some character errors · plain text.
Full text
Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document24 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS WESTERN DIVISION:..7 |, Civil Action No. 05-30010-MAP RICKY L. MOORI: and KATHRYN M. MOORE. Plaintiffs Vv. KERRY P. STEARNS and LAURIE C. NIKITUK Defendants DEFENDANT KERRY P. STEARN’S ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant Kerry P. Stearns (“Defendant”) hereby answers the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, paragraph by paragraph following the numbering in the Complaint, as follows: PARTIES 1. The Defendant states that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove same. 2. Admitted. Admitted. a] JURISDICTION 4, The Defendant denies that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC § 1332, in that the amount in controversy. exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed $75,000. Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document24 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 2 of6 10. 11. INTRODUCTION The Defendant states that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Plaintiffs Complaint, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove same. The Defendant states that referenced documents speak for themselves. The Defendant states that the referenced documents speak for themselves. The Defendant denies that said disclosure served as “an express representation regarding the condition of the property”. Admitted. Admitted. The Defendant admits that he obtained a Title V report and that he, or his agent, provided a copy of the report to the Plaintiff. The Defendant states that the referenced documents speaks for themselves, and the Defendant otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 10. Admitted. COUNT I (FRAUD AND DECEIT - RICKIE L. MOORE V. KERRY P. STEARNS) 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. The Defendant states that he is without suffictent information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 12, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove same. The Defendant states that he ts without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 13, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove same. — Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document24 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 3 of 6 COUNT II (MUTUAL MISTAKE - RICKIE L. MOORE V. KERRY P. STEARNS) 19. 20. 26. too > The Defendant repeats and restates his answers to paragraphs 1-18 as if originally set forth herein. The Defendant admits that he obtained a Title V report and that he, or his agent, provided a copy of the report to the Plaintiff. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. COUNT Ill (MISPRESENTATION V. KERRY P. STEARNS) The Defendant repeats and restates his answers to paragraphs 1-25 as if originally set forth herein. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. The Defendant states that the referenced document speaks for itself and Defendant otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 32. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document24 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 4 of 6 38. 39, 40. 4]. 44, 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 52. Denied. COUNTIV (MISREPRESENTATION — FAILURE TO DISCLOSE — FRAUD —- DECEIT V. KERRY P. STEARNS) The Defendant repeats and restates his answers to paragraphs 1-37 as if originally set forth herein. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. COUNT V (MISREPRESENTATION V. LAURIE C, NIKITUK AND POND PASTURE, INC.) The Defendant repeats and restates his answers to paragraphs 1- 42 as if originally set forth herein. Admitted. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Dented. Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document24 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 5 of 6 COUNT VI (UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICE CH. 93A CONSUMER PROTECTION VIOLATION V. LAURIE C. NIKITUK) 53 The Defendant repeats and restates his answers to paragraphs 1-52 as if originally set forth herein. 54, The Defendant states that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 54, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove same. 55. The Defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraph 55 are poorly worded and a response is not possible. If the Defendant is obligated to respond to paragraph 55, he denies said allegations. 56. The Defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraph 56 are poorly worded and a response is not possible. If the Defendant is obligated to respond to paragraph 56. he denies said allegations. 57. Denied. 58. Denied. 59. The Defendant states that the referenced document speaks for itself, and further that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 59, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove same. 60. The Defendant states that the referenced document speaks for itself, and further that he is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 60, and calls upon the Plaintiffs to prove same. 61. Denied. 62. Denied AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The amount in controversy. exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed $75.000. Accordingly. the Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed. Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document24 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 6 of 6 2. The Plaintiffs’ Conrplaint has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and therefore should be dismissed. 3. The Plaintiffs have failed to bring their claim within the time allowed by law, and therefore their claim should be dismissed. 4. The Plaintiffs’ own negligence contributed to their damages, if any, and recovery in this action should be barred or diminished. 5. The injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff's were caused by the acts or negligence of persons for whose conduct the Defendant is not responsible. 6. Process in this action is insufficient; wherefore this action should be dismissed. 7. Service of process in this action was insufficient; wherefore this action should be dismissed. WHEREIORE. the Defendant prays this Honorable Court deny the relief sought by the Plaintiffs. dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and grant costs and attorneys fees to the Defendant, and grant such other relief and this Honorable Court deems appropriate. Respectfully sumitted., KERRY P. STEARNS, Defendant By hi 08) ey Peterd. Brewer. Esq. 32 Mahaiwe Street Great Barrington, MA 01230 413 528 6290 Fax 413 528 6283 BBO # 545604 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE |, Peter J. Brewer, Esg., hereby certify that on this Au day of August, 2005, I sent, by first class prepaid mail, a copy of this document to Bradford B. Moir, Esquire, Moir & Ross, 45 Broad Street, Suite 2, Westfield, Massachusetts 01085 and Richard J. O’Brien, Esq., 75 North Street, Pittsfield, MA 01201. VM of . ; Awana Petey J . Brewer