Sekora Answer To Complaint

Michael K.
Jeanes, Clerk of Court *** Electronically Filed *** Tina Hays Filing ID 1352297 7/10/2012 10:13:00 AM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Kelly / Warner, PLLC. 404 S. Mill Ave., Suite C-201 Tempe, AZ 85281 Telephone: (480) 991-9077
Aaron M. Kelly (AZ Bar #025043 Paul D. Ticen (AZ Bar # 024788) Kelley / Warner, P.L.L.C. 404 S. Mill Ave, Suite C-201 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Tel: 480-331-9397 Fax: 1-866-961-4984 Email: aaron@kellywarnerlaw.com Email: paul@kellywarnerlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant
IN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION, an Arizona Corporation, Plaintiff, v. ADAM SEKORA, Defendant.
CV2012-053194 ANSWER (Assigned to the Honorable Alfred Fenzel)
Defendant Adam Sekora, through undersigned counsel, hereby admits and denies the allegations contained in Plaintiffs Complaint as follows: 1. Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs
Complaint, if not otherwise admitted herein. 2. Defendant admits Plaintiff filed an action asserting claims for computer
fraud and abuse, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and negligence, but specifically denies the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1. 3. Paragraph 2.
1
Upon information and belief, Defendant admits the allegations in
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4. 5.
Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3. Defendant lacks sufficient information and knowledge to admit or deny
the allegations contained in Paragraph 4, and therefore denies same. 6. Defendant admits he was domiciled in Arizona, but specifically denies the
remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 and 6. 7. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 do not purport to allege facts or state a claim for
relief against Defendant. But to the extent Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 purport to allege facts or state claims for relief against Defendant, they are specifically denied. 8. Defendant lacks sufficient information and knowledge to admit or deny
the allegations contained in Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, and therefore denies same. 9. and 15. 10. Defendant lacks sufficient information and knowledge to admit or deny Defendant specifically denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 13, 14
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1
the allegations contained in Paragraph 16, 17, 18 and 19, and therefore denies same. 11. Regarding Paragraph 20, Defendant admits that Plaintiff filed a separate
case in Illinois to subpoena records from Internet Service Providers. And Plaintiff admits that a few1 Internet Service Providers did indeed release records of some account holders associated with IP addresses Plaintiff alleges were involved. But Defendant specifically denies all allegations that any and all IP addresses associated with his account are hacking IP addresses. And Defendant lacks sufficient information and knowledge to admit or deny allegations whether any IP address associated with any other account holder are hacking IP addresses, and therefore denies same. 12. Defendant admits that 174.138.169.218 was purportedly assigned to his
network by Secured Servers on or about December 5, 2011, but specifically denies the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 21 and 22.
On June 27, 2012, the Illinois Supreme Court entered Supervisory Order No. 114334 directing the Circuit Court of St. Clair County to (1) vacate its order denying motions to quash filed by a number of internet service providers in the Lightspeed Media Corporation v. John Doe, No. 11 L 683, and (2) to enter an order quashing the subpoena. Defendants records were produced before the Supervisory Order.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
13.
Paragraphs 23, 31, 38, 42, and 49, do not assert any factual allegations or
claims for relief, and therefore Defendant is not required to admit or deny same. 14. Defendant specifically denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 24-30,
32-37, 39-41, 43-48 and 50-59. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 15. granted. 16. Plaintiffs recovery may be prevented or reduced by comparative fault, Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
assumption of the risk, unclean hands, economic loss rule, doctrine of unavoidable consequences and/or failure to mitigate damages. 17. Defendant asserts all other affirmative defenses set forth in Rule 12(b),
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, which may apply upon further discovery. 18. Defendant asserts all affirmative defenses under Rule 8 (c), Arizona Rules
of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to, satisfaction and accord, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, waiver, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, which may apply upon further discovery. 19. 20. Defendant asserts he is immune from liability under 47 U.S.C. 230 Plaintiffs recovery is limited by a finding of fault by a non-party pursuant
to A.R.S. 12-2506(B) and Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) 21. Defendant reserves the right to raise any and all applicable affirmative
defenses to each and every count alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint upon further discovery. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff as follows: A. B. C. Dismissing Plaintiffs Complaint in its entirety with Prejudice; Entering judgment on the Complaint in Defendants favor; Awarding Defendant his costs and attorneys fees incurred defending this
action, pursuant to A.R.S. 12-341.01;

3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
D. E.
Award Defendant his taxable costs incurred in defending herein; and

Awarding Defendant any other relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
RESPECTFULLY submitted this 10th day of July, 2012. KELLY / WARNER, PLLC
By /s/ Paul D. Ticen SBN: 024788
Aaron M. Kelly Paul D. Ticen 404 S. Mill Ave, Suite C-201 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Attorneys for Defendant
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By /s/ Rachel Eisner_____ ORIGINAL FILED through AZ Turbo Court this 10th day of July, 2012, with: Clerk of the Court Maricopa County Superior Court COPY mailed this same day to: Steven James Goodhue Law Offices of Steven James Goodhue 9375 East Shea Blvd., Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Attorney for Plaintiff

Sekora Answer To Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sekora Answer To Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sekora Answer To Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michael K.

LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION, an Arizona Corporation, Plaintiff, v. ADAM SEKORA, Defendant.

CV2012-053194 ANSWER (Assigned to the Honorable Alfred Fenzel)

Upon information and belief, Defendant admits the allegations in

action, pursuant to A.R.S. 12-341.01;

Award Defendant his taxable costs incurred in defending herein; and

You might also like