Tiffany Lewis / Jimmy Parlier Horse Transport/Mark Ishman Attorney at Law at time of filing Answer - Mylla Lethyf, Jimmy Parlier Transport, Parlier Transport, Mark Ishman, horse transporters,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATESVILLE DIVISION

JAMES LEE PARLIER, JR., an individual )

(d/b/a Jimmy Parlier Horse Transport, )

Parlier Farms and Parlier Equine Transport )

& Carriages), )

)

Plaintiff, ) WDNC Case No.: 5:14-cv-00085

)

vs. )

)

TIFFANY LEWIS, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

ANSWER FOR DEFENDANTS TIFFANY LEWIS

AND KANSAS CITY PREMIER APARTMENTS, INC.

COMES NOW the Defendants, TIFFANY LEWIS (hereinafter “Lewis”) and KANSAS

CITY PREMIER APARTMENTS, INC. (hereinafter “KCPA”) (collectively as “these

Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, and answers the Complaint of the

Plaintiff as follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

The Complaint of the Plaintiff fails to state a claim against these Defendants for either

compensatory or punitive damages, upon which relief can be granted, and the same should be

dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically as to

Defendant KCPA, there are no allegations contained with the Complaint that any statement was

attributable to KCPA or that KCPA interfered with any contract of the Plaintiff; therefore, KCPA

should be dismissed from this action.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 32 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 25

SECOND DEFENSE

AND ANSWER

Nature of the Action

1. Paragraph 1 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain any factual allegations

to which these Defendants can respond, but makes general, conclusory statements based upon

expert knowledge. If there are any allegations against these Defendants to which they respond,

the allegations are denied.


to which these Defendants can respond, but makes general, conclusory statements. If there are

any allegations against these Defendants to which they respond, the allegations are denied.







5. Denied.

6. Paragraph 6 of the Complaint contains statements relating to parties other than

these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the

statements contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply

liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied. Defendant Lewis went on

Traveling Horse Transport & Stables Directory’s website and requested free quotes from equine

transporters through the website. Except as herein admitted, denied.

7. Denied.


8. Denied.

The Parties

9. Admitted upon information and belief.

10. Admitted upon information and belief.

11. It is denied that Defendant Lewis is a resident of Jackson County, Missouri. It is

admitted that she resides in Platte County, Missouri. It is admitted that she is a former customer

of the Plaintiff. Except as herein admitted, denied.

12. It is admitted that Defendant KCPA is a corporation organized under the laws of

Missouri. Except as herein admitted, denied.

13. It is admitted that Jason Stahl is a resident of Missouri. It is specifically denied

that Mr. Stahl is acting under the direction of Defendant Lewis. Except as herein admitted,

denied.

14. Paragraph 14 of the Complaint contains statements relating to a party other than



liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.














18. Denied.

Jurisdiction and Venue

19. The allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint state conclusions of

law to which no response is required from these Defendants. To the extent a response is required,

these Defendants deny the allegations.

















Factual Background and General Allegations

25. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations

set forth in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.







The Chronicles of the Horse Page

29. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis created an account and posted on The

Chronicles of the Horse website forum, and that the Plaintiff has attached an exhibit which is

some of the published comments from The Chronicles of the Horse website forum. It is

specifically denied that Defendant KCPA created an account or posted on The Chronicles of the

Horse website forum. Further, Paragraph 29 of the Complaint contains allegations relating to a

party other than these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the

extent the statements contained in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest

or imply liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.

30. Exhibit A referenced in paragraph 30 speaks for itself. As such, no further

response is required.


31. It is admitted that there have been several posts on The Chronicles of the Horse

website forum from reviewers who tell their stories regarding their interactions with the Plaintiff

and his equine transportation business. Except as herein admitted, denied.

32. Denied. It is the purpose of The Chronicles of the Horse website forum to

provide other users with a review of the services provided by the Plaintiff and to share their

stories, such as the severe equine injuries sustained, which occurred during the Plaintiff’s

transportation of such horses.

33. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis published comments under the user name

merecedes9. Except as herein admitted, denied.

34. Defendant Lewis specifically denies that any published comments were false,

misleading and/or deceptive, but that any published comments by Defendant Lewis were true. It

is specifically denied that Defendant KCPA published any comments or statements. The

allegations in Paragraph 34 and all subparagraphs as they relate to these Defendants are denied.

35. Denied.

Original Facebook Horse Transport Reviews

36. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis posted on the Facebook page of Horse

Transport Reviews, and that the Plaintiff has attached an exhibit which is some of the published

comments from the Horse Transport Reviews website. It is specifically denied that Defendant

KCPA created an account or posted on the Horse Transport Reviews Facebook page. Further,

Paragraph 36 of the Complaint contains allegations relating to parties other than these

Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent the statements

contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply liability on

behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.


37. Exhibit B referenced in paragraph 37 speaks for itself. As such, no further


38. It is admitted that there have been several posts on the Horse Transport Reviews

Facebook page from reviewers who tell their stories regarding their interactions with the Plaintiff

and his equine transportation business. Except as herein admitted, denied.

39. Denied.

40. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis published comments under the user name

Tiffany Lewis. Except as herein admitted, denied.

41. Defendant Lewis specifically denies that any published comments were false,

misleading and/or deceptive, but that any published comments by Defendant Lewis were true. It

is specifically denied that Defendant KCPA published any comments or statements. The

allegations in Paragraph 41 and all subparagraphs as they relate to these Defendants are denied.

Paragraph 41 of the Complaint further contains statements by or relating to a party other than


statements contained in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint by a party other than these Defendants

may be interpreted to suggest or imply liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations

are denied.

42. It is admitted that on April 7, 2014, the Administrator of the Horse Transport

Reviews Facebook page published its posting rules that are copied and pasted in Paragraph 42 of

the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Except as admitted herein, denied.

43. Denied.

44. Denied.


Tiffany Lewis’ Facebook Page

45. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis created and is the administrator for her

personal Facebook page. Exhibit C referenced in paragraph 45 speaks for itself. Except as

admitted herein, denied.

46. It is admitted that there have been several posts on Defendant Lewis’ personal

Facebook page which relate to her interactions with the Plaintiff and his equine transportation

business. Except as herein admitted, denied.

47. Denied.

48. Denied.

49. Defendant Lewis denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 49 and all

subparagraphs.

50. Denied.

Maria Bogdanova Peifer’s Facebook Page






















56. Paragraph 56 and all subparagraphs of the Complaint contains statements relating

to a party other than these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To

the extent the statements contained in Paragraph 56 and all subparagraphs of the Complaint may

be interpreted to suggest or imply liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are

denied.

57. Denied.

Defendants’ Facebook Horse Transporter Reviews Page

58. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis created and is an Administrator for the Horse

Transporter Reviews Facebook page. Exhibit E referenced in paragraph 59 speaks for itself.

Except as herein admitted, denied.

59. Exhibit E referenced in paragraph 59 speaks for itself. As such, no further



60. It is admitted that there have been several posts on the Facebook Horse

Transporter Reviews Page which relate to her interactions with the Plaintiff and his equine

transportation business. Except as herein admitted, denied.

61. Denied.

62. Denied.





denied.

64. Denied.

Defendants’ Facebook Fairytale Arabians Page

65. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis created and is an Administrator for the

Fairytale Arabians Facebook page. Exhibit F referenced in paragraph 65 speaks for itself.


66. Exhibit F referenced in paragraph 59 speaks for itself. As such, no further


67. It is admitted that there have been several posts on the Facebook Fairytale

Arabians Page which relate to her interactions with the Plaintiff and his equine transportation

business. Except as herein admitted, denied.

68. Denied.

69. Denied.


70. Paragraph 63 and all subparagraphs of the Complaint are denied as to the

allegation that Defendant Lewis published false, misleading and deceptive statements or

advertisements about the Plaintiff. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis posted the story of her

horse, Mylla, that is contained in subparagraph (a). Except as herein admitted, denied.

71. Denied.

Yelp Publications
























the extent the statements contained in Paragraph 77 of the Complaint may be interpreted to

suggest or imply liability on behalf of these Defendants, those allegations are denied.





Facebook Mylla’s Story

79. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis posted “Mylla’s Story” on the Fairytale

Arabians Facebook page. Exhibit H referenced in paragraph 79 speaks for itself. Except as

herein admitted, denied.

80. Exhibit H referenced in paragraph 80 speaks for itself. As such, no further


81. It is admitted that there have been several posts on the Facebook Mylla’s

Story Page which relate to Defendant Lewis’ interactions with the Plaintiff and his equine

transportation business. Except as herein admitted, denied.

82. Denied.

83. Denied.


84. Paragraph 84 and all subparagraphs of the Complaint are denied as to the

allegation that Defendant Lewis published false, misleading and deceptive statements about the

Plaintiff. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis posted the comments about her horse, Mylla, and

the facts of her transportation with the Plaintiff that are contained in subparagraphs (a) and (b).


85. Denied.

Marilyn Meeker Bernstein’s Facebook Page






























denied.





Other Unknown False, Misleading and Deceptive Damaging Published Comments

94. Denied.

95. Denied.

96. Denied.



set forth in Paragraph 97 of the Complaint related to the Plaintiff’s insurance company; thus, it is

denied. Except as herein admitted, denied.


set forth in Paragraph 98 of the Complaint related to the Plaintiff’s insurance company; thus, it is

denied.

Intentional Acts

99. Paragraph 99 and subparagraphs (a) through (f) of the Complaint contains

statements relating to a party other than these Defendants such that no response is required of

these Defendants. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis posted the comment contained within

subparagraph (g). To the extent the statements contained in Paragraph 99 and all subparagraphs

of the Complaint may be interpreted to suggest or imply liability on behalf of these Defendants,

those allegations are denied.


these Defendants such that no response is required of these Defendants. To the extent that the

allegations relate to these Defendants, they are denied.

101. Denied.

102. Denied.






104. It is admitted that Defendant Lewis communicated with Jeannie Haugen at

Traveling Horse Transport & Stables Directory after the Plaintiff transported Defendant Lewis’

horse from California to Missouri during which time the horse suffered significant injuries while

in the Plaintiff’s possession. Defendant Lewis had found the Plaintiff through Traveling Horse

Transport & Stables Directory and wanted Ms. Haugen to be aware of her experience with the

Plaintiff. Except as admitted herein, denied.


set forth in Paragraph 105 of the Complaint related to whether Traveling Horse Transport &

Stables Directory or any other contractual parties of the Plaintiff read any comments about the

Plaintiff online; thus, it is denied. Defendant Lewis specifically denies that any published

comments were false, misleading and/or deceptive, but that any published comments by

Defendant Lewis were true. It is specifically denied that Defendant KCPA published any

comments or statements. Except as herein admitted, denied.


set forth in Paragraph 106 of the Complaint related to whether Traveling Horse Transport &

Stables Directory read any comments about the Plaintiff online; thus, it is denied. Defendant

Lewis specifically denies that any published comments were false, misleading and/or deceptive,

but that any published comments by Defendant Lewis were true. It is specifically denied that

Defendant KCPA published any comments or statements. Except as herein admitted, denied.

107. Exhibit J referenced in paragraph 107 speaks for itself. As such, no further

response is required. Except as herein admitted, denied.

108. Denied.






Conspiracy

110. Denied.

111. Denied.

112. Denied.

113. Denied.

114. Denied.

First Claim for Relief

Tortuous Interference with Contract

115. These Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 114 as if

fully stated herein.

116. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 116 of the Complaint, and therefore the allegations are denied.

117. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the

general allegations set forth in Paragraph 117 of the Complaint, and therefore the allegations are

denied.

118. Denied.

119. Denied.

120. Denied.

121. Denied.


122. These Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to truth or falsity

of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 122 of the Complaint; thus, they are denied.

123. Denied.

124. Denied.

125. Denied.

126. Denied.

Second Claim for Relief

North Carolina Defamation Per Se



128. Denied.

129. Denied.

130. Denied.

131. Denied.

132. Denied.

133. Denied.

134. Denied.

135. Paragraph 135 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain any factual

allegations to which these Defendants can respond, but states a presumed legal conclusion. If

there are any allegations against these Defendants to which they respond, the allegations are

denied.

136. Denied.


Third Claim for Relief

North Carolina Defamation Per Quod



138. Denied.

139. Denied.

140. Denied.

141. Denied.

142. Denied.

143. Denied.

144. Denied.

145. Denied.

146. Denied.

Fourth Claim for Relief

Violation of North Carolina Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-1 to §75-35




allegations to which these Defendants can respond, but states a legal conclusion. If there are any

allegations against these Defendants to which they respond, the allegations are denied.






151. Denied.

152. Denied.

153. Denied.

154. Denied.

155. Denied.

156. Denied.


allegations to which these Defendants can respond, but states a presumed legal conclusion. If

there are any allegations against these Defendants to which they respond, the allegations are

denied.

158. Denied.

THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages against these Defendants do not comply with

N.C.G.S. § 1D-15, are frivolous and therefore fail to state a claim for relief and should be

dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, the

Plaintiff knows or should have known that such claims for punitive damages are frivolous and/or

malicious; and by reason thereof, these Defendants are entitled, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1D-45, to

recover reasonable attorney’s fees against the Plaintiff for asserting such claim.

FOURTH DEFENSE

These Defendants assert as a bar and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive

damages that such damages are unconstitutional and contravene the provisions of the Eighth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and of Article I, Section 23 of the

Constitution of North Carolina, each of which prohibits the imprecision “excessive fines;” that


an award of punitive damages would contravene the due process provisions of the Fifth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the law of the land provisions of Article

I, Section 19 of the Constitution of the United States. Further, an award of punitive damages

would contravene N.C.G.S. § 4-1 in that punitive damages are an obsolete remnant of the

common law of the Eighteenth Century; and the assessment of punitive damages in addition to

compensatory damages against these Defendants is contrary to justice and reason and should be

prohibited by the Court. Further, these Defendants, demand that pursuant to N.C.G.S. Chapter 1

D that separate trials be held in the issues of compensatory damages and punitive damages.

FIFTH DEFENSE

These Defendants are informed, believe and so allege that the Plaintiff has failed to mitigate

and minimize his damages as required by law and that, instead of trying to keep the harmful

consequences of his damages to a minimum, Plaintiff has sought to exaggerate the extent of his

damages and to incur unreasonable and unnecessary expense. These Defendants plead the

foregoing in bar of any recovery by Plaintiff of damages which should have been avoided with

reasonable diligence and/or were incurred in violation of Plaintiff’s duty to mitigate and minimize

damages.

SIXTH DEFENSE

These Defendants plead the affirmative defense of absolute and/or qualified privilege to

the allegations of Defamation Per Se and Defamation Per Quod.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

These Defendants plead the affirmative defense of the truth as an absolute defense to

Plaintiff’s claims of Defamation Per Se and Defamation Per Quod.


EIGHTH DEFENSE

These Defendants plead the affirmative defense of the opinion and fair comment

privilege as a defense to Plaintiff’s claims of Defamation Per Se and Defamation Per Quod.

NINTH DEFENSE

To the extent that the rights of action set forth in the Complaint are based upon any

alleged conduct which took place prior to May 29, 2013, such rights did not accrue within one

year before the commencement of this action as required by law. The applicable statute of

limitations are pled as an absolute bar.

TENTH DEFENSE

Prior to the Plaintiff transporting Defendant Lewis’ horse from California to Missouri, the

Plaintiff represented and warranted that he was an authorized equine transportation carrier. The

Plaintiff knew or should have known that he was not authorized by the Department of

Transportation as he did not have an active Federal Motor Carrier Number at the time the Plaintiff

transported Defendant Lewis’ horse. The Plaintiff’s misrepresentation bars him from recovering

from these Defendants in this action.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff seeks equitable relief in this action. Plaintiff has, however, acted inequitably and

with unclean hands. Plaintiff’s unclean hands bar him from recovering from these Defendants in

this action.

TWELTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices do not comply with N.C.G.S. §

75-16, are frivolous and/or malicious and therefore fail to state a claim for relief and should be

dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, the


Plaintiff knows or should have known that such claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices

are frivolous and/or malicious; and by reason thereof, these Defendants are entitled, pursuant to

N.C.G.S. § 75-16.1(2), to recover reasonable attorney’s fees against the Plaintiff for asserting

such claim.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

These Defendants plead the affirmative defense found in Section 230 of the

Communications Decency Act (47 U.S. Code § 230) which provides that no provider or user of

an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information

provided by another information content provider. With regard to any content, publications,

posts, or statements by individuals other than these Defendants on any of the websites referenced

in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, these Defendants are not liable and Section 230 bars the Plaintiff

from recovering from these Defendants.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

Further, these Defendants incorporate herein by reference all affirmative defenses pled by

any other party to this action to the full extent that any such affirmative defenses may be

applicable to these Defendants.

WHEREFORE, the Defendants, TIFFANY LEWIS and KANSAS CITY PREMIER

APARTMENTS, INC. having fully answered the Plaintiff’s Complaint, respectfully pray the Court

as follows:

1. That the Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

2. That the costs of this action, including a reasonable attorney's fee be taxed against

the Plaintiff, including but not limited to, the statutory provision of attorney’s fees provided in

N.C.G.S. § 1D-45 and N.C.G.S. § 75-16.1(2).


3. For a Trial by jury of all issues so triable.

4. That separate Trials be held with regard to the issues of compensatory damages and

punitive damages.

5. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

This the 16th day of September, 2014.

/S/ Jason L. Walters_________

Kent L. Hamrick

NC State Bar No: 10907

Jason L. Walters


Attorneys for Defendants Tiffany Lewis and

Kansas City Premier Apartments, Inc.

DAVIS & HAMRICK, LLP

635 West Fourth Street

PO Box 20039

Winston-Salem, NC 27120-0039

Telephone: 336 725-8385, ext 113 and 105

Facsimile: 336 723-8838

E-mail: [email protected]



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned does hereby certify that on September 16, 2014, I electronically filed on

behalf of the Defendants, Tiffany Lewis And Kansas City Premier Apartments, Inc., the

foregoing ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES with the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Western District of North Carolina using the CM/ECF system which will

send notification of such filing to all counsel of record, and by U.S. Mail to the following pro se

Defendants at the address indicated below:

Marilyn Meeker Bernstein

458 N. Oakhurst Drive #302

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Jason L. Walters_________

Kent L. Hamrick


Jason L. Walters


Attorneys for Defendants Tiffany Lewis and

Kansas City Premier Apartments, Inc.

DAVIS & HAMRICK, LLP

635 West Fourth Street

PO Box 20039

Winston-Salem, NC 27120-0039

Telephone: 336 725-8385, ext 113 and 105

Facsimile: 336 723-8838




Documents

Tiffany Lewis / Jimmy Parlier Horse Transport/Mark Ishman Attorney at Law at time of filing Answer - Mylla Lethyf, Jimmy Parlier Transport, Parlier Transport, Mark Ishman, horse transporters,