Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

District Court, Denver County, Colorado

 

1437

Bannock Street, Room 256

Denver, CO 80202

Plaintiff:

ROBIN LOHRE

v.

Defendant(s):

POSH MAIDS, LLC, MIRANDA PALLONE, and DOES 1-5, inclusive.

COURT USE ONLY

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

 

Jay Wayne Swearingen, Reg. #4842 Jennifer Reba Edwards, Reg. #38349 The Animal Law Center, LLC

Case No:

Division:

4465

Kipling Street, Suite 108

Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Phone Number: 303-322-4355 Fax Number: 303-322-4354 E-mail: jws@theanimallawcenter.com jre@theanimallawccenter.com

Courtroom:

 

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, The Animal Law Center, and for her Complaint against Defendants, states and alleges as follows:

I. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff Robin Lohre (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was a resident of Colorado, County of Denver, residing at 2256 Franklin Street, Denver, CO 80205.

2. At all times material hereto, Defendant Posh Maids, LLC (hereinafter “Posh Maids”) was a corporation incorporated in Colorado, County of Denver, with a principal place of business at 1742 Champa Street, #3D, Denver, CO 80202 and a mailing address of P.O. Box 3216, Denver, CO 80201. According to the Colorado Secretary of State Business Division Website, Posh Maids has held a delinquent status since May 1, 2010.

3. At all times material hereto, Defendant Miranda Pallone was the owner and Registered Agent of Posh Maids, LLC and was a resident of Colorado, County of Denver, with a Registered Agent Street address of 1742 Champa Street, #3D, Denver, CO 80202 and a mailing address of P.O. Box 3216, Denver, CO 80201.

4. At all times material hereto, Defendant Does were unknown agents and/or employees of Posh Maids, LLC.

5. All of the events alleged herein occurred within the State of Colorado, and all the parties are residents in the state of Colorado or operate a business in the State of Colorado.

6. Venue is proper in the District Court for Denver County, as all acts complained of occurred herein, Plaintiff resides in Denver County, and Defendants operate a business in Denver County.

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein the allegations contained in the General Allegations of the Complaint.

8. Plaintiff was the owner of Ruthie, an 18-month-old dog of mixed breed.

9. In 2011, Plaintiff engaged the services of Defendant Posh Maids after purchasing a “Living Social” coupon, which entitled her to three hours of housecleaning for $49.00. Plaintiff scheduled the housecleaning appointment for August 17, 2011.

10. On August 17, 2011, Defendant Posh Maids arrived at Plaintiff’s house at approximately 10:00 AM.

11. Upon the arrival of Defendant Posh Maids, Plaintiff asked one of the maids, named “Tina,” if she could leave the dog Ruthie at the home while Plaintiff ran errands. “Tina” stated that leaving Ruthie at the house would be fine.

12. Plaintiff instructed “Tina” that if she needed to leave the house for any reason, she must only use the back door because it was the only door to the house could be locked without a key. The back door was attached to a mudroom, which was enclosed by a second door that led to the kitchen. The presence of the second door prevented Ruthie from leaving the house.

13. On August 17, 2011, Plaintiff left the dog Ruthie in the care of Posh Maids.

14. At 12:22 PM, Plaintiff received a phone call from Defendant Pallone advising her that the cleaners were finished. Plaintiff inquired as to the time frame for the cleaning because the “Living Social” coupon entitled her to three hours of cleaning. Defendant Pallone assured Plaintiff that she received over three hours of cleaning, as additional staff had arrived at the house and assisted “Tina” in completing the work. The phone conversation ended without any further discussion.

15. Approximately 40 minutes later, Plaintiff and her six-year-old daughter arrived home to find their dog Ruthie lying dead under the dining room table.

16. After about twenty minutes, as Plaintiff tried to overcome the shock and anguish of finding Ruthie dead, Plaintiff called Defendant Posh Maids. Defendant Posh Maids informed Plaintiff that the maids had left Plaintiff’s house only five minutes prior, that the dog Ruthie had been hit by a car, and that when the maids left Plaintiff’s home, Ruthie was alive and was “whimpering a little.”

17. Defendant Posh Maids did not contact Plaintiff to advise her that something had happened to the dog Ruthie, nor did Defendant Posh Maids attempt to seek veterinary treatment for Ruthie if Ruthie had been hit by a car, as Defendant Posh Maids represented.

18. Posh Maids states on their website that “You will be worry free with Posh Maids Home cleaning Service because you can trust that your home is cleaned by our classy, professional staff that pay very close attention to detail.”

19. Posh Maids states on their website that “we will take great care in being cautious with your possessions…”

20. Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendants a demand letter outlining Plaintiff’s position on September 14, 2010 asking for a response by September 23, 2010. To date, Defendants have not communicated with Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel.

V. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence)

21. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

22. Defendant Posh Maids owed a duty to Plaintiff to properly care for the dog Ruthie and to prevent injury to Ruthie.

23. Defendant Posh Maids failed to take reasonable and necessary measures to prevent injury to and seek veterinary treatment for Plaintiff’s dog, Ruthie.

24. Defendant Posh Maids’ failure to take reasonable care of Ruthie constitutes negligence.

25. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Posh Maids’ negligence, Plaintiff’s dog Ruthie died.

26. Plaintiff suffered emotional damages and damages to her property, Ruthie, as a result of Defendants’ negligence.

VI. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Gross Negligence)

27. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 26 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

28. If the dog Ruthie was hit by a car, as Defendant Posh Maids claimed, any reasonable person would have recognized that the failure to seek immediate veterinary treatment for Ruthie would lead to an unreasonable risk of harm.

29. Defendants’ conduct in willfully and wantonly failing to exercise reasonable care in seeking treatment for the dog Ruthie constitutes gross negligence.

30. Plaintiff suffered emotional damages and damages to her property, Ruthie, as a result of Defendants’ gross negligence.

VII. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)

31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 30 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

32. If the dog Ruthie was hit by a car, as Defendant Posh Maids claimed, Defendant Posh Maids was negligent in failing to seek veterinary treatment for Plaintiff’s property, Ruthie, and in failing to inform Plaintiff of the situation.

33. Defendant Posh Maids’ negligence created an unreasonable risk of physical harm to Plaintiff’s property, Ruthie.

34. Defendants’ negligence in fact caused harm to both Plaintiff and Ruthie, directly resulting in emotional trauma to Plaintiff and permanently depriving Plaintiff of her property, Ruthie.

VIII. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Extreme and Outrageous Conduct – Emotional Distress)

35.

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34 of the Complaint as if fully set

forth

herein.

36.

The Defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct.

37.

The Defendants did so recklessly or with the intent of causing the Plaintiff severe

emotional distress.

38. The Defendants’ conduct caused the Plaintiff severe emotional distress.

IX. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Vicarious Liability)

39. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 38 of the Complaint as if fully set

forth herein.

40. At all times material hereto, “Tina” and the other Does were the employees of Defendant

Posh Maids and were acting within the course and scope of their employment.

41. Therefore, Defendant Posh Maids is vicariously liable for the injury, damages, and losses

caused by the negligence of the employees pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.

XI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants upon each claim for relief asserted herein, and that the Court grant, including and without limitation:

1. Economic damages in an amount to be determined;

2. Emotional damages for Plaintiff’s trauma due to the damages to Plaintiffs property, Ruthie;

3. Costs, including attorney’s fees; and

4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A TRIAL TO A JURY OF 6 PERSONS.

Respectfully submitted this 19 th day of October, 2011.

THE ANIMAL LAW CENTER, LLC

/s/ Jay Wayne Swearingen, 4842 Attorney for Plaintiff

/s/ Jennifer Reba Edwards, 38349 Attorney for Plaintiff

In accordance with C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-26(9), a printed copy of this document with original signatures is being maintained by the filing party and will be made available for inspection by other parties or the court upon request.