SMITHBRIDGE, LLP

BY: Andrew M Smith, Esquire

Attny lD:78062
Two Penn Center
1500 JFK Blvd, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19T02
(2rs) s64-s29r
Counsel for Defendant
IN THE COURT OF'COMMON PLEAS
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRANDI FEASTER
Plaintifi
V.
LESEAN MCCOY,
JOHN DOE alWa "BIG JOHN",
PREMIER LUXURY RENTALS. INC.
May Term, 2013
No.0773
Defendants.
DEF'ENDANT'S ANSWER
AND NOW COMES Defendant Lesean McCoy (hereinafter
"Defendant"), by and
through his undersigned counsel, to respond and aver to PlaintifPs complaint as follows:
1. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the averments contained in the correspondingparagraph of Plaintiff s Complaint.
2. Admitted in part denied in part. Defendant McCoy is an individual who at the time of the
filing of the complaint owned a residence in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
plaintiffs
have not
properly served Defendant McCoy or even sought to obtain his residence, but rather used his celebrity
status as an NFL football player to simply aver he is employed by the Philadelphia Eagles. Moreover,
Defendant is no longer a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Defendant specifically
reserves the right to move for dismissal of the within action based on personal jurisdiction.
Case ID: 130500773
Filed and Attested by
PROTHONOTARY
04 SEP 2013 04:00 pm
A. STAMATO
3. Denied. At no time relevant to any of the allegations contained in the complaint was
Defendant McCoy the employer of any person involved in this matter. Strict proof is demanded attrial..
4. Denied. John Doe, also known as Big John ("Big John") was not employed by
Defendant McCoy at any time relevant hereto. Specifically, "Big John" is not a bodyguard, agent,
servant, workman, employee or representative of Defendant McCoy and at no time during the night's
events was Big John acting within the course and scope of his relationship with Defendant McCoy. Strict
proof is demanded at trial.
5. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at tial.
6. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information suffrcient to form a belief as
to the truth of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph of PlaintifPs Complaint.
7. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff s Complaint.
8. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Defendant Premier rented aparry bus; however that
bus was rented and used by twenty (20) people. It is denied that it was a "partlz bus" for McCoy and strict
proof is demanded as to who was responsible for the bus.
9. Denied. Answering Defendant cannot confirm the height and weight of "Big John."
Answering Defendant admits he is approximately 5'11 and 200 lbs. Answering Defendant cannot admit
or deny the height and weight of Plaintiff, strict proof is demanded at trial.
10. Denied. In fact, Plaintiffadmitted in a text message to her friend "Jess" that McCoy
never physically struck her. Plaintiff also stated she wanted to keep "McCoy's" name out of the lawsuit;
however her lawyers named McCoy first in the caption of the lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff advised this
friend "Jess" that plaintiff s lawyers needed "Jess" to corroborate Plaintiffs versions of events otherwise
she would have no case. Defendant denies Plaintiff s allegations, demands strict proof at trial.
I 1. Denied. Again, Plaintiff admitted in a text message to her friend "Jess" that McCoy never
physically touched Plaintiff.
Case ID: 130500773
COUNT 1
12. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference his answers to Paragraphs l-11 as
though fully set forth at length.
13. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at1lrial.
14. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial.
I 5. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded atlirial. At no time was any member of
Defendant's party, including Big John, an employee, agent, servant, workman, or representative of
Defendant acting within the scope and course of their relationship with Defendant.
16. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Lesean McCoy requests that
judgment
be entered in his
favor and against Plaintiff and further issue an award in favor of Defendant against Plaintiff for
all reasonable costs, attorney fees and expenses related to this litigation.
COUNT II
17. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference his answers to Paragraphs 1-16 as
though fully set forth at length.
18. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at tial.
19. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at t.ial. As previously stated, at no time
was any member of Defendant's paft5r, including Big John, an employee
,
agent,servant, workman, or
representative of Defendant acting within the scope and course of their relationship with Defendant.
Case ID: 130500773
20' Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Lesean McCoy requests that
judgment
be entered in his
favor and against Plaintiff and further issue an award in favor of Defendant against
plaintiff
for
all reasonable costs, attorney fees and expenses related to this litigation.
COUNT III
2L Answering Defendant incorporates by reference his answers to Paragraphs 1-20 as
though fully set forth at length.
22. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at tial. As previously stated, at no time
was any member of Defendant's partSr, including Big John, an employee, agent, servant, workman, or
representative of Defendant acting within the scope and course of their relationship with Defendant.
23. Denied.
24. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at hial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Lesean McCoy requests that
judgment
be entered in his
favor and against Plaintiff and further issue an award in favor of Defendant against
plaintiff
for
all reasonable costs, attorney fees and expenses related to this litigation.
COUNT IV
25. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference his answers to
paragraphs
1-24 as
though fully set forth at length.
26. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded atf:ial. As previously stated, at no time
Case ID: 130500773
was any member of Defendant's part5l, including Big John, an employee, agent) servant, workman, or
representative of Defendant acting within the scope and course of their relationship with Defendant.
27 . Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary.
a. Denied
b. Denied. Big John was not employee, agent, servant, workman, or representative
of Defendant acting within the scope and course of his relationship with Defendant.
c' Denied. Big John was not employee, agent, servant, workman, or representative
of Defendant acting within the scope and course of his relationship with Defendant. Furthermore,
Defendant was under no duty to rescue.
d. Denied. Big John was not employee, agent, servant, workman, or representative
of Defendant acting within the scope and course of his relationship with Defendant.
e. Denied. Big John was not employee, agent, servant, workman, or representative
of Defendant acting within the scope and course of his relationship with Defendant.
f. Denied. Big John was not employee, agent, servant, workman, or representative
of Defendant acting within the scope and course of his relationship with Defendant.
g' Denied. Big John was not employee, agent, servant, workman, or representative
of Defendant acting within the scope and course of his relationship with Defendant.
h. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary;
however to the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial.
i. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary;
however to the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial.
j
Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response ls necessary;
however to the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded attrial.
k. Denied.
28. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded attrial.
Case ID: 130500773
WHEREFORE, Defendant Lesean McCoy requests that
judgment
be entered in his
favor and against Plaintiff and further issue an award in favor of Defendant against
plaintiff
for
all reasonable costs, attorney fees and expenses related to this litigation.
COUNTS V and VI
29-36' These paragraphs of the complaint and the claims set forth therein are against
named defendants other than this answering Defendant McCoy and therefore no response is
necessary.
COUNT VII
37 . Answering Defendant incorporates by reference his answers to Parugraphs 1-28 as
though fully set forth at length.
38. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at fial. As previously stated, at no time
was any member of Defendant's paft5z, including Big John, an employee, agent, servant, workman, or
representative of Defendant acting within the scope and course of their relationship with Defendant.
39. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial.
40. Denied. Said averment is a conclusion of law and no response is necessary; however to
the extent it is factual it is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Lesean McCoy requests that
judgment
be entered in his
favor and against Plaintiff and further issue an award in favor of Defendant against
plaintiff
for
all reasonable costs, attorney fees and expenses related to this litigation.
Andrew M. Smith, Esquire
Dated:
a
ll
ltr
Case ID: 130500773
DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Improper Venue. Venue is proper against an individual where the individual may
be served, the cause of action arose or a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the
cause of action arose. Pennsvlvania Rules of Civil Procedure
$
302. Defendant was not a
resident of Philadelphia County at arry time during the initiation, or pendency of the original
cause of action. The incident and all related transactions occurred in New Jersev. Therefore.
venue is not proper in Philadelphia County
2' Lack of Jurisdiction. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over Defendant
McCoy.
3. Failure to Serve Process. Pwsuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 402, service of process must
be made upon the Defendant. Plaintiff has failed to make proper and sufficient service of the
Complaint upon the Defendants.
4. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
5. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this action and Defendant reserves the
right to move for dismissal of the Complaint.
6. Plaintiff s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
7 - Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff s fraud, misrepresentations,
inducement and/or its own actions or omissions.
8. In the event that the Plaintiff requests damages for delay pursuant to Rule 238 of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, answering Defendant challenge the applicability and
constitutionality of said rules and places same at issue.
9
'
Defendants reserye the right to supplement these affirmative defenses as investisation
and discovery herein continues.
Case ID: 130500773
WIIEREFORE, Defendants request that
judgment
be entered in their favor and against
plaintiff
denying Plaintiff s request for relief and awarding Defendant all reasonable
expenses.
Andrew M Smith, Esquire
Attorney for Defendants
VERIFICATION
l, Andrew M. Smith, Esquire, attorney for Defendant McCoy in the within action, hereby
state that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief after reasonable investigation.
This Verification is made subject to the penarties4f
1g
pa.c.s.
54904
relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
Andrew M. ith, Esquire
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on September 4,2013 service of a true and correct copy of the within
Answer and New Matter was made upon all counsel of record in accordance with the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure through the ECF filing
By:
Case ID: 130500773