Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA



SERVICE DOGS BY WARREN
RETRIEVERS, INC., a Virginia Case No. 2014-CA-001805-O
Corporation, as successor in interest to
Guardian Angel Service Dogs, Inc.

Plaintiff,

vs.

JOEL FLORES and JOVANA FLORES,

Defendants.

___________________________________

JOEL FLORES and JOVANA FLORES,

Counter-Plaintiffs,

vs.

SERVICE DOGS BY WARREN
RETRIEVERS, INC., a Virginia
Corporation, as successor in interest to
Guardian Angel Service Dogs, Inc.

Counter-Defendant.


ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
Defendants, Joel and Jovana Flores, (hereinafter Defendants or Counter-Plaintiffs) files this
Answer and Counterclaim, in response to Service Dogs By Warren Retrievers, Inc., (herein after
Plaintiff or Counter-Defendant) complaint, and states as follows:

ANSWER
1. Admit
2. Admit
3. Admit that the Complaint purports to state an action for damages that exceeds fifteen
thousand dollars ($15,000).
COUNT I
4. Requires no answer
5. Admit
6. Admit
7. Admit
8. Deny
9. Deny
10. Deny
11. Requires no answer
12. Requires no answer
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense
1. The Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.
Plaintiff breached its contractual obligations by not providing a fully trained service dog
as contracted. The Plaintiff provided the Defendants with a puppy, unable to perform as a
service dog, and failed to provide the proper training for dog.
Second Affirmative Defense
2. The Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the Defendants were
fraudulently induced by the Plaintiff to sign the contract in question. The Plaintiff failed
to disclose the existence of a contract to the Defendants until after the Defendants had
paid money to the Plaintiff. The Defendants were forced to sign the contract or lose the
dog and any monies they had paid.
Third Affirmative Defense
3. The contract is unconscionable. The Defendants had no input into the forming of the
contract. The contract provides for the protection of the Plaintiff only and gives no
bargaining power to the Defendants upon Plaintiffs breach of contract.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
4. Estoppel. The Plaintiff informed the Defendants that all monies due were to be fundraised
on behalf of the Plaintiff and provided the Defendants with a letter to assist with
fundraising. (EXHIBIT A). Plaintiff was not legally registered to fundraise in the state of
Florida. In October, 2012, the Plaintiff made contact with the Defendants and stated that
the Defendants were not to make any payments or do any fundraising because the
Defendants were witnesses on behalf of the Plaintiff in a separate civil matter.

COUNTER CLAIM
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, Joel and Jovana Flores, sue Counter-defendant, SERVICE DOGS
BY WARRENRETRIEVERS, INC., and states as follows:
1. This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00 exclusive of interest and filing fees.
2. Counter-Plaintiffs, JOEL AND JOVANA FLORES, are residents of Orange County,
Florida.
3. Counter-defendant, SERVICE DOGS BY WARREN RETRIEVERS, INC., principle
place of business is in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Counter-defendant is doing
business in Orange County, FL
4. All conditions precedent to the bringing of this counterclaim have been performed,
waived, or excused.
COUNT I
(Breach of Contract)

5. Paragraphs 1 thru 4 above are hereby incorporated by reference.
6. On or around February 26, 2012, the Counter-Defendant delivered a black Labrador
retriever to the Counter-Plaintiffs residence via a trainer named James Faulkner.
7. The Counter-Plaintiffs only agreement at the time, was a verbal agreement with the
Counter-Defendant that a service dog would be delivered and trained to perform as a
Diabetic Alert Dog. The Counter-Plaintiffs only responsibility would be to further the
dogs obedience training, with the assistance of a trainer provided to them by the
Counter-Defendant, and agree to fundraise for a period a two years.
8. Upon receipt of the dog, the Counter-Plaintiffs received a contract that they had no
previous knowledge about and were told to sign it, or the dog would be taken back and
they would forfeit any monies previously paid.
9. Both the written contract and the verbal agreement between the parties were for a service
dog. The Counter-Plaintiffs received a puppy that did not qualify as a service dog
without intensive training and with no guarantee that the dog would ever be able to
perform as a service dog.
10. The Counter-Defendant failed to provide adequate training and intentionally withheld
training from the Counter-Plaintiffs causing the dog to not be fully trained or to be able
to perform as a service dog. The Counter-defendant also intentionally ceased all contact
with the Counter-Plaintiffs in January of 2013, and informed each employee of his
organization to do the same.
11. The Counter-Plaintiffs have been damaged by the Counter-Defendants breach.
COUNT II
(Emotional Distress)

12. Paragraphs 1 thru 11 above are hereby incorporated by reference
13. The Counter-Plaintiffs were led to believe that the animal they were receiving from the
Counter-defendant would act as a Diabetic Alert Dog, a dog that is trained to alert its
handler to fluctuations in blood glucose levels in order to prevent dangerous levels of
glucose in the blood.
14. The Counter-Defendant misled the Counter-Plaintiffs to believe that upon arrival, the dog
would immediately begin alerting to their sick child. The Counter-Plaintiffs did not know
at the time that the dog was actually alerting for treats and not because it had been trained
to detect glucose levels.
15. The Counter-Defendant misled the Counter-Plaintiffs to believe that the dog would be
scent trained/scent imprinted, which is crucial to training a diabetic alert dog, and only
after their child began to get sick, did the Counter-Plaintiffs discover that the dog was
never trained.
16. As a result of the dogs consistent missed alerts and false alerts, the child was forced to
check his sugars excessively which eventually caused the child to burnout. A diabetes
burnout is defined as a state in which patients grow tired of managing their disease and
then simply ignore it for a period of time, or worse, forever. Also referred to as
depression. This burnout resulted in the childs diabetes becoming severely
uncontrolled, at which time the child was hospitalized for the first time since diagnosis
and continually struggles to regain control of his disease.


WHERFORE, Counter-plaintiffs demand judgment against the Counter-Defendant for all
damages incurred, together with its costs and interests; an award of punitive damages; and any
such other relief this court deems appropriate.

DATED this 15
th
day of May, 2014.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________ ___________________
Jovana Flores Joel Flores
7450 Golden Glenn Drive
Orlando, FL 32807
407-716-5210
407-391-3622 (fax)
jovanaflores@aol.com
DEFENDANTS/COUNTER PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of ANSWER and COUNTERCLAIM was mailed via first class
mail and emailed to the person listed below on May 15, 2014.
Alvaro C. Sanchez
1714 Cape Coral Parkway East,
Cape Coral, Florida 33904
alvaro@capecoralattorney.com

Respectfully submitted,
__________________ ___________________
Jovana Flores Joel Flores
7450 Golden Glenn Drive
Orlando, FL 32807
407-716-5210
407-391-3622 (fax)
jovanaflores@aol.com
DEFENDANTS/COUNTER PLAINTIFFS