06/02/2008 6 ANSWER to Complaint by John Beebe.(McPhillips, Julian) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
---------------
OCR extract
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
COME NOW the Defendants Perihelion Global, Inc. and John Beebe in the abovecaptioned action and, as Answer to the Complaint, doth show the following:
1-3. Admit the allegations of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the complaint.
4. Deny the allegations of paragraph 4 of the complaint and demand strict proof thereof.
5-6. Deny the allegations of paragraphs 5-6 of the complaint.
7. Deny the allegations or paragraph 7 of the complaint and aver that Defendant Beebe did not even meet the Plaintiff until June or July of 2006, and that was when attorney David McGee of Pensacola, Florida, introduced them.
8. Admit that Burr & Forman purported to work on certain matters on behalf of Defendants, but further aver that said legal work was disastrous for Defendants. Defendants further aver that much of the work concerning a subsequent purchase by Perihelion was performed by attorneys for Saturday Night, LLC, and the law firm to whom Burr & Forman allegedly referred the work out to in Utah, namely Holland & Hart.
9. Deny that Burr & Forman handled all matters for Defendants per Burr and Forman subletting work to Holland and Hart with respect to Saturday Night LLC; further deny that Burr & Forman invoiced Defendants in a timely fashion for all services provided; further deny as absolutely false Plaintiff’s averment that Defendants never requested or raised any issue whatsoever about such statements.
10. Deny and disagree with the amount of attorney’s fees and expenses which Plaintiff claims to have totaled; acknowledge that Burr & Forman sent some notices to Defendants about fees and expenses incurred and finally, months after work began, Plaintiff requested some payment from Defendants. However, Defendants adamantly deny that they ever owed Burr & Forman the full amount of any indebtedness. Further, Defendants deny that they never paid Burr & Forman any of the past due amount of indebtedness. In fact, in February, 2008, Defendants paid Plaintiff $25,000, and Defendants’ check for said amount has cleared the bank.
11. Deny the allegations of paragraph 11, except admit that Defendants did sign an agreement of some sort under the coercion, profanity, and yelling threats of attorney Victor Hayslip. Indeed, Mr. Haislip issued an implied threat, saying that this matter would not reflect well on the perception of Perihelion Global in the public, unless Defendants signed an repayment agreement with the Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff knew full well that Defendants were represented by other counsel, namely David McGee of Beggs & Lane of Pensacola, Florida, who referred Defendants to Plaintiff. Yet, Plaintiff bypassed said counsel in threatening the Defendants.
12. Adamantly deny the allegations of paragraph 12 of the complaint and further aver that Plaintiff has a copy of the canceled check payment and proof that said check cleared Defendants’ bank.
13. Adamantly deny the allegations of paragraph 13 of the complaint and further aver that Defendants sent a check to the Plaintiff for $25,000, due March 15, 2008, but to date, said check has not been presented to Defendants’ bank for payment.
14. Defendants deny that they failed to pay Plaintiff monthly installments due on February 15 and March 15, 2008, and therefore further deny that they are in any kind of default under the agreement. Further, Defendants deny that they currently owed Burr & Forman $190,613.61 in fees, plus interest.
15. Deny the allegations of paragraph 15.
COUNT ONE
16. Defendants reallege and adopt their preceding answers to the preceding averments of the complaint.
17-18. Deny the allegations of paragraphs 17 and 18 of the complaint.
COUNT TWO
19. Defendants reallege and adopt their preceding answers to the preceding averments of the complaint.
20-22. Deny the allegations of paragraphs 20-22 of the complaint.
COUNT THREE
23. Defendants reallege and adopt their preceding answers to the preceding averments of the complaint.
24. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 24 of the complaint and aver that said Open Account theory is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s other allegations.
25-27. Deny the allegations of paragraphs 25-27 of the complaint.
28-29. Deny the allegations of paragraphs 28-29 of the complaint and further aver that Defendants raised several objections to Plaintiff’s billing, and further raised concerns about the
quality of Plaintiff’s work, and copied and informed Plaintiff’s primary counsel, David McGee, of this as well.
30. Deny the allegations of paragraph 30 and incorporates Defendants’ previous answer in paragraph 10 of the complaint.
31. Deny the allegations of paragraph 31 of the complaint.
COUNT FOUR
32. Defendants reallege and adopt their preceding answers to the preceding averments of the complaint.
33-35. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraphs 33-35 of the complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
Perihelion Global, Inc. and
John Beebe,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs
OF COUNSEL:
By /s/ Julian McPhillips
McPHILLIPS, SHINBAUM, LLP
Julian McPhillips
516 S. Perry St. Attorney for Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs
Montgomery, AL 36104
(334) 262-1911 |
