1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
Case No. 5:14-cv-00085


J AMES LEE PARLIER J R., an individual (d/b/a )
J immy Parlier Horse Transport, Parlier Farms )
and Parlier Equine Transport & Carriages); )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. )
) DEFENDANT BRENDA CASTEENS
TIFFANY LEWIS, an individual, ) ANSWER AND AMENDED
) COUNTERCLAIM
KANSAS CITY PREMIER APARTMENTS, )
INC., a Missouri corporation, )
)
J ASON STAHL, an individual, )
)
MARIA BOGDANOVA PEIFER, an individual, )
)
BRENDA CASTEEN, an individual, )
)
MARILYN MEEKER BERNSTEIN, an )
individual, )
)
J OHN AND J ANE DOES 1-10, presently )
unknown individuals; )
)
Defendants. )


NOW COMES the Defendant Brenda Casteen, by and through her undersigned counsel,
filing this Answer and Amended Counterclaim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, responding to the
Complaint filed by the Plaintiff as follows:
FIRST DEFENSE: FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the above entitled action given that the same fails to
state a claim against the Defendant and should for that reason be dismissed pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SECOND DEFENSE: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

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 next
before the commencement of this action as required by law.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 1 of 28
2

THIRD DEFENSE: PRIVILEGE

Should the Plaintiffs allegations of Defamation Per Se and Defamation Per Quod not be
dismissed, the Defendant pleads the affirmative defense of absolute and/or qualified privilege to
the allegations of Defamation Per Se and Defamation Per Quod.

FOURTH DEFENSE: TRUTH

As an affirmative defense to Plaintiffs claims for Defamation Per Se and Defamation Per
Quod, and to the extent that Plaintiff has adequately alleged such claims, the Defendant asserts and
affirmatively pleads truth as an absolute defense to such claims.

FIFTH DEFENSE: CIVIL CONSPIRACY FAILURE OF UNDERLYING CLAIMS

As an affirmative defense to Plaintiffs claim for Civil Conspiracy, Defendant contends that
Plaintiffs claim for Civil Conspiracy cannot survive given that Plaintiffs underlying defamation
based claims fail and North Carolina law does not recognize a separate civil action for Civil
Conspiracy. New Bar Partnership v. Martin, __ N.C. App. __, __, 729 S.E.2d 675, 682 (2012).

SIXTH DEFENSE: UNCLEAN HANDS

The Defendant hereby pleads that the Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of
unclean hands in that he and his businesses have been charged with and accepted responsibility for
multiple violations of rules of the United States Department of Transportation and Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration and have had a number of horses under their care become severely
injured, ill and/or die.

EIGHTH DEFENSE: FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY PLEAD DEFAMATION PER SE

The Defendant hereby pleads that with regards to any claims in which Plaintiff has failed to
specify the content of the statements that were made by this Answering Defendant or when they
appeared on any websites, Plaintiff has failed to provide this Answering Defendant with adequate
notice of the Plaintiffs claims and in turn has failed to state a claim for libel per se.

NINTH DEFENSE: FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY PLEAD DEFAMATION PER QUOD

The Defendant hereby pleads that with regards to any claims in which Plaintiff has failed to
(1) specify the content of the statements that were made by this Answering Defendant; (2) specify
when any such statements appeared on any websites; and (3) allege the innuendo and special
damages that gave any alleged statements their libelous character, Plaintiff has failed to provide
this Answering Defendant with notice of the allegations made in support of Plaintiff's claim and in
turn has failed to state a claim for libel per quod.

TENTH: FAILURE TO PLEAD INTENTIONAL INDUCEMENT IN TORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT CLAIM

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 2 of 28
3

The Defendant hereby pleads that with regards to Plaintiffs Tortious Interference with
Contract Claim, Plaintiff has failed to plead and cannot show that this Answering Defendant
intentionally induced Traveling Horse Transport & Stables, Inc. or any other third parties to not
perform contracts with Plaintiff.

BY WAY OF FURTHER DEFENSE, the Defendant responds to the individually
numbered paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 1, and therefore the allegations are denied.

2. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 2, and therefore the allegations are denied.

3. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 3, and therefore the allegations are denied.

4. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 4, and therefore the allegations are denied.

5. Denied.

6. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 6, and therefore the allegations are denied. In
addition, this Answering Defendant cannot reasonably determine to which Defendant(s)
paragraph 6 is directed, and therefore the allegations are denied on that basis also.

7. Denied.

8. Denied.
THE PARTIES
9. Admitted, upon information and belief.

10. Admitted, upon information and belief.

11. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 11, and therefore the allegations are denied.

12. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 12, and therefore the allegations are denied.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 3 of 28
4

13. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 13, and therefore the allegations are denied.

14. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 14, and therefore the allegations are denied.

15. It is admitted that this Answering Defendant resides in Nicholas County, West Virginia, is a
former girlfriend of Plaintiff and has purchased horses from the Plaintiff on previous
occasions. Except as specifically admitted herein, denied.

16. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 16, and therefore the allegations are denied.

17. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 17, and therefore the allegations are denied.

18. Denied.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 19, and therefore the allegations are denied.

20. It is admitted that this Answering Defendant was aware and of the belief that Plaintiff has
continuously resided in Denver, Lincoln County, North Carolina. Except as specifically
admitted herein, denied.

21. The allegations of Paragraph 21 call for a legal conclusion, and as such the allegations are
denied.

22. Denied.

23. Plaintiffs Complaint referenced in Paragraph 23 speaks for itself. As such, no further
response is required.

24. The allegations of Paragraph 24 call for a legal conclusion, and as such the allegations are
denied. This Answering Defendant also specifically denies that the Defendants in this
matter conspired together for the purpose of damaging Plaintiff.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

25. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 25, and therefore the allegations are denied.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 4 of 28
5

26. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 26, and therefore the allegations are denied.

27. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 27, and therefore the allegations are denied.

28. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 28, and therefore the allegations are denied.

The Chronicles of the Horse Page

29. It is admitted that this Answering Defendant created an account and posted comments on
the Chronicles page. Exhibit A referenced in paragraph 29 speaks for itself. Except as
specifically admitted herein, denied.

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

31. Exhibit A referenced in paragraph 31 speaks for itself. As such, no further response is
required.

32. Exhibit A referenced in paragraph 32 speaks for itself. As such, no further response is
required.

33. Denied.

34. Exhibit A referenced in paragraph 34 speaks for itself. As such, no further response is
required. In addition, with regards to subparagraph (a) of paragraph 34 no such statement is
located in Exhibit A attached to Plaintiffs Complaint.

35. Denied.

Original Facebook Horse Transport Reviews

36. It is admitted that this Answering Defendant created an account and posted comments on
the Facebook Horse Transport Reviews Page. Exhibit B referenced in paragraph 36
speaks for itself. Except as specifically admitted herein, denied.

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

38. Denied. In addition, Exhibit B referenced in paragraph 38 speaks for itself. As such, no
further response is required.

39. Denied. In addition, Exhibit B referenced in paragraph 39 speaks for itself. As such, no
further response is required.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 5 of 28
6


40. Denied.

41. Denied. In addition, Exhibit B referenced in paragraph 41 speaks for itself. As such, no
further response is required.

42. Exhibit B referenced in paragraph 42 speaks for itself. As such, no further response is
required.

43. Denied.

44. Denied.

Tiffany Lewis Facebook page

45. The allegations of paragraph 45 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

46. The allegations of paragraph 46 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

47. The allegations of paragraph 47 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

48. The allegations of paragraph 48 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

49. The allegations of paragraph 49 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

50. The allegations of paragraph 50 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

Maria Bagdanova Peifers Facebook Page

51. The allegations of paragraph 51 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 6 of 28
7

52. The allegations of paragraph 52 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

53. The allegations of paragraph 53 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

54. The allegations of paragraph 54 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

55. The allegations of paragraph 55 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

56. The allegations of paragraph 56 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

57. The allegations of paragraph 57 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.
Defendants Facebook HorseTransporterReviews Page

58. It is admitted that this Answering Defendant was made an Administrator on the Facebook
HorseTransporterReviews Page. This Answering Defendant specifically denies that she
created the Facebook Page referenced in paragraph 58. In addition, Exhibit E referenced in
paragraph 58 speaks for itself. Except as specifically admitted herein, denied.

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

60. Exhibit E referenced in paragraph 60 speaks for itself. As such, no further response is
required.

61. Denied. In addition, Exhibit E referenced in paragraph 61 speaks for itself. As such, no
further response is required.

62. Denied. In addition, Exhibit E referenced in paragraph 62 speaks for itself. As such, no
further response is required.

63. Denied. In addition, Exhibit E referenced in paragraph 63 speaks for itself. As such, no
further response is required.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 7 of 28
8

64. Denied. In addition, Exhibit E referenced in paragraph 64 speaks for itself. As such, no
further response is required.

Defendants Facebook Fairytale Arabians Page

65. The allegations of paragraph 65 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

66. The allegations of Paragraph 66 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

67. The allegations of paragraph 67 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

68. The allegations of paragraph 68 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

69. The allegations of paragraph 69 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

70. The allegations of paragraph 70 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

71. The allegations of paragraph 71 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

Yelp Publications

72. It is admitted that this Answering Defendant created an account and posted comments on
the Yelp page. Exhibit G referenced in paragraph 72 speaks for itself. Except as
specifically admitted herein, denied.

73. Exhibit G referenced in paragraph 73 speaks for itself. As such, no further response is
required.

74. Exhibit G referenced in paragraph 74 speaks for itself. As such, no further response is
required.

75. Denied. In addition, Exhibit G referenced in paragraph 75 speaks for itself. As such, no
further response is required.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 8 of 28
9


76. Denied. In addition, Exhibit G referenced in paragraph 76 speaks for itself. As such, no
further response is required.

77. Denied. In addition, Exhibit G referenced in paragraph 77 speaks for itself. As such, no
further response is required.

78. Denied. In addition, Exhibit G referenced in paragraph 78 speaks for itself. As such, no
further response is required.

Facebook Myllas Story

79. The allegations of paragraph 79 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

80. The allegations of paragraph 80 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

81. The allegations of paragraph 81 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

82. The allegations of paragraph 82 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

83. The allegations of paragraph 83 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

84. The allegations of paragraph 84 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

85. The allegations of paragraph 85 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

Marilyn Meeker Bernsteins Facebook Page

86. The allegations of paragraph 86 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 9 of 28
10

87. The allegations of paragraph 87 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

88. The allegations of paragraph 88 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

89. The allegations of paragraph 89 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

90. The allegations of paragraph 90 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

91. The allegations of paragraph 91 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

92. The allegations of paragraph 92 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

93. The allegations of paragraph 93 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and therefore
no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this answering
Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

Other Unknown False, Misleading and Deceptive Damaging Published Comments

94. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 94, and therefore the allegations are denied.

95. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 95, and therefore the allegations are denied.

96. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 96, and therefore the allegations are denied.

97. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 97, and therefore the allegations are denied.

98. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 98, and therefore the allegations are denied.

Intentional Acts
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 10 of 28
11

99. A majority of the allegations of paragraph 99 are not directed to this Answering Defendant
and therefore no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this
answering Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief. As to
subparagraph (f) of paragraph 99, Exhibit B referenced in subparagraph (f) of paragraph 99
speaks for itself. As such, no further response is required.

100. Denied.

101. Denied.

102. Denied.

103. Exhibit A referenced in paragraph 103 speaks for itself. As such, no further response is
required.

104. Denied.

105. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 105, and therefore the allegations are denied.

106. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 106, and therefore the allegations are denied.

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

108. Denied.

109. The allegations of paragraph 109 are not directed to this answering Defendant, and
therefore no response is required. To the extent such a response is required of this
answering Defendant, the same is denied for lack of information or belief.

Conspiracy
110. Denied.

111. Denied.

112. Denied.

113. Denied.

114. Denied.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 11 of 28
12

115. This answering Defendant hereby incorporates all prior responses and answers to the
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

116. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 116, and therefore the allegations are denied.

117. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 117, and therefore the allegations are denied.

118. Denied.

119. Denied.

120. Denied.

121. Denied.

122. Denied.

123. Denied.

124. Denied.

125. Denied.

126. Denied.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NORTH CAROLINA DEFAMATION PER SE

127. This answering Defendant hereby incorporates all prior responses and answers to the
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

128. Denied.

129. Denied.

130. Denied.

131. Denied.

132. Denied.

133. Denied.

134. Denied.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 12 of 28
13


135. Denied.

136. Denied.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NORTH CAROLINA DEFAMATION PER QUOD

137. This answering Defendant hereby incorporates all prior responses and answers to the
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

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

147. This answering Defendant hereby incorporates all prior responses and answers to the
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

148. The allegations of paragraph 148 call for a legal conclusion, and as such, the allegations are
denied.

149. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 149, and therefore the allegations are denied.

150. The Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth of the matters asserted in paragraph 150, and therefore the allegations are denied.

151. Denied.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 13 of 28
14

152. Denied.

153. Denied.

154. Denied.

155. Denied.

156. Denied.

157. Denied.

158. Denied.
AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

BY WAY OF FURTHER DEFENSE AND COUNTERCLAIM pursuant to Rules 13 and
15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendant Brenda Casteen (Defendant Casteen)
alleges and says:

THE HORSE TRANSACTIONS:

1. In 2009, Defendant Casteen purchased a Peruvian Paso Mare horse named Allie (Allie)
from Plaintiff.

2. In approximately J uly of 2011, Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen began a romantic
relationship.

3. In approximately November of 2011, Defendant Casteen purchased a Belgian/Percheron
Cross Mare horse named Ruby (Ruby).

4. Thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen entered an agreement whereby Plaintiff would
broker the sale of Ruby and split the proceeds with Defendant Casteen.

5. Plaintiff did not broker a sale of Ruby and instead Plaintiff and his friend, on information
and belief an individual named Charlie, took possession of Ruby.

6. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff then began using and still uses Ruby as part of
Parlier Equine Transport and Carriages (the carriage business), a business that Plaintiff
operates.

7. In approximately November of 2011, Defendant Casteen purchased a Belgian Draft Mare
horse named Buttercup (Buttercup).

8. Thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen entered an agreement whereby Plaintiff would
broker the sale of Buttercup and split the proceeds with Defendant Casteen.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 14 of 28
15

9. Plaintiff did not broker a sale of Buttercup and instead began using Buttercup as part of
Plaintiffs carriage business.

10. In approximately November of 2011, Defendant Casteen purchased a Bay Mare Mule
named Maggie (Maggie).

11. Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen entered an agreement whereby Plaintiff would broker the
sale of Maggie and Defendant would be reimbursed her costs for purchase and the balance
of the sale price would be split between Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen.

12. Plaintiff brokered a sale of Maggie but did not provide Defendant Casteen with the full
amount of money to reimburse her for her costs and the balance of the sale price.

13. On or about April 2012, Defendant Casteen purchased a five (5) year old black Percheron
horse (the black Percheron horse) from Plaintiff for $2,500.00.

14. After it was discovered that the black Percheron horse was unsafe for riding Defendant
Casteen and Plaintiff agreed for Plaintiff to sell the black Percheron horse at auction and
split the proceeds.

15. Plaintiff sold the black Percheron horse at auction.

16. Rather than splitting the proceeds with Defendant Casteen, Plaintiff gave Defendant
Casteen a Draft Gelding Horse named J ameson (J ameson) in trade for the black
Percheron horse.

17. Plaintiff represented to Defendant Casteen that J ameson was of equal value to the black
Percheron horse.

18. When Plaintiff gave J ameson to Defendant Casteen he also provided Defendant Casteen
with paperwork for Equine Infectious Anemia, otherwise known as Coggins papers[,] for
J ameson.

19. Coggins papers are generally required before a horse can be transported across state lines,
shown, bred or moved into a new barn or stable.

20. The Coggins papers that Plaintiff provided to Defendant Casteen for J ameson stated that
J ameson was five (5) years old.

21. Upon information and belief, the Coggins papers for J ameson had been forged by Plaintiff
to show that J ameson was five (5) years old.

22. J ameson was in fact twelve (12) to fourteen (14) years old.

23. Over the course of her relationship with Plaintiff, Defendant Casteen kept her horses,
including Allie, Ruby, Buttercup and J ameson at a barn located at Defendants residence.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 15 of 28
16


24. On or about J une 1, 2012, Plaintiff and Defendant Casteens relationship ended.

25. Defendant Casteen informed Plaintiff that she would be leaving his home and taking her
horses with her.

26. Plaintiff refused to allow Defendant Casteen to leave his home.

27. Plaintiff refused to allow Defendant Casteen to leave his home with her horses.

28. Plaintiff told Defendant Casteen that he would load Defendant Casteens horses and other
belongings that were at her home onto a hauling trailer and bring them to her apartment the
following day.

29. The next day, Plaintiff arrived at Defendant Casteens apartment but did not have Allie,
Ruby or Buttercup with him.

30. Defendant Casteen asked Plaintiff where Allie, Ruby and Buttercup were at.

31. Plaintiff told Defendant Casteen that she could not have Allie, Ruby or Buttercup.

32. Defendant Casteen has since made demands on Plaintiff for the return of Allie, Ruby and
Buttercup.

33. Plaintiff has refused to return Allie, Ruby and Buttercup to Defendant Casteen.

34. After Plaintiff and Defendant Casteens relationship ended, Defendant Casteen took
J ameson to a veterinarian who determined through examination that J ameson was actually
twelve (12) to fourteen (14) years old.


OCTOBER 2011 ASSAULT AND BATTERY

35. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully
set forth herein.

36. In October 2011, Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen were at Plaintiffs home.

37. At that time, Plaintiff used a computer to access a prior online business account (prior
business account).

38. Plaintiff had previously told Defendant Casteen that he had been locked out of his prior
business account by his former girlfriend who also had the capability to access the account.

39. Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen began to argue about Plaintiff and his former girlfriend still
being able to access his prior business account.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 16 of 28
17

40. Defendant Casteen attempted to walk away from Plaintiff.

41. Plaintiff grabbed Defendant Casteen by her left arm and drug her through the living room of
the home and into Plaintiffs bedroom.

42. While in the bedroom, Plaintiff swung his hand and struck Defendant Casteen in the face
and pulled her hair.

APRIL 2012 ASSAULT AND BATTERY

43. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully
set forth herein.

44. In April 2012, Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen were at Plaintiffs home.

45. Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen began to argue over Plaintiff continuing to contact his
former girlfriend while he and Defendant Casteen were in a relationship.

46. Defendant Casteen sat down on the couch in the living room and did not speak.

47. Plaintiff then sat down across from Defendant Casteen and told her that he was sorry and
that he needed help with his lying.

48. Defendant Casteen and Plaintiff continued to argue.

49. Plaintiff then grabbed Defendant Casteen by her arm.

50. Plaintiff drug Defendant Casteen through the home by her arm.

51. Plaintiff screamed at Defendant Casteen.

52. Plaintiff used his hands to pull Defendant Casteens hair.

53. Plaintiff then swung his hands and hit Defendant Casteen in the head and face.


MAY 2012 ASSAULT, BATTERY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT

54. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully
set forth herein.

55. In May 2012, Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen were riding in Plaintiffs truck.

56. Plaintiff was driving the truck and Defendant Casteen was riding in the front passenger seat.

57. Plaintiff received a call on his cellular telephone.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 17 of 28
18

58. Plaintiff did not take the phone call.

59. Plaintiff then deleted the incoming call number from his cellular telephones call history.

60. Defendant Casteen questioned Plaintiff about the telephone call.

61. Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen began to argue.

62. Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen then arrived at Plaintiffs home.

63. After both Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen had exited the truck, Plaintiff walked over to
Defendant Casteen and hit Defendant Casteen in the face with the back of his hand.

64. The force of the blow knocked Defendant Casteen to the ground.

65. Plaintiff then walked into his home.

66. Defendant Casteen then went into Plaintiffs home.

67. Defendant Casteen attempted to gather some of her belongings from the bathroom of
Plaintiffs home.

68. Plaintiff placed himself in the doorway of his bathroom and kept Defendant Casteen from
entering the bathroom.

69. Plaintiff told Defendant Casteen that she could not leave his home.

70. Plaintiff pushed Defendant Casteens travel bag from Defendant Casteens hand to the
ground.

71. Plaintiff grabbed Defendant Casteen and started hitting her in the face with his hands.

72. Plaintiff then took the plastic shower curtain and curtain rod from his bathroom.

73. Plaintiff hit Defendant Casteen in the face multiple times with the plastic shower curtain
and rod.

74. Plaintiff swung his hands and hit Defendant Casteen in the face.

75. Plaintiff then pushed Defendant Casteen onto the bed.

76. Defendant took his hands and placed them around Defendant Casteens throat.

77. When Defendant Casteen would attempt to rise from the bed, Plaintiff would swing his
hands and strike Defendant Casteen in the face and place his hands around her neck and
throw her back onto the bed.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 18 of 28
19


78. Despite Defendant Casteens attempts to leave Plaintiffs home, Plaintiff would not allow
Defendant Casteen to leave.


FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION- CLAIM AND DELIVERY

67. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully
set forth herein.

68. The Plaintiff is in possession of Defendants personal property, to wit, at least three (3)
horses belonging to Defendant Casteen, said horses being more specifically referenced as
Allie, Ruby and Buttercup, identified above.

69. Despite requests and due demand, the Plaintiff has failed and refuses to return the
Defendants personal property identified above.

70. The property described above is and has been wrongfully detained by the Plaintiff.

71. As such, the Plaintiff has converted the property, and is liable to Defendant Casteen for full
return of the property.

72. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has wrongfully detained Defendant Casteens
property described above in retaliation over the end of Plaintiff and Defendant Casteens
relationship and Defendant Casteens choice to leave the relationship.

73. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has wrongfully detaining Defendant Casteens
property so that he may use it in connection with his carriage business.

74. Upon information and belief, the property described above has not been taken for tax,
assessment or fine, pursuant to a statute, or seized under an execution or attachment against
the property.

75. The estimated actual value of the property is as follows:

a. Allie approximately $1,750.00
b. Ruby approximately $1,750.00
c. Buttercup approximately $1,750.00


SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT

76. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully
set forth herein.

77. Defendant Casteen is the owner of Ruby and Buttercup.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 19 of 28
20

78. Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen entered an agreement whereby Plaintiff would broker the
sale of Ruby and split the proceeds with Defendant Casteen.

79. Plaintiff and/or his friend Charlie are still in possession of Ruby and Plaintiff uses Ruby as
part of his carriage business.

80. Plaintiff breached the agreement between the parties to sell Ruby and split the proceeds.

81. Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen entered an agreement whereby Plaintiff would broker the
sale of Buttercup and split the proceeds with Defendant Casteen.

82. Plaintiff is still in possession of Buttercup and uses Buttercup as part of his carriage
business.

83. Plaintiff breached the agreement between the parties to sell Buttercup and split the
proceeds.

84. Plaintiff and Defendant Casteen entered an agreement whereby Plaintiff would broker the
sale of Maggie and Defendant Casteen would then be reimbursed her costs of purchase for
Maggie and the balance of the sale proceeds would be split between Plaintiff and Defendant
Casteen.

85. Plaintiff sold Maggie.

86. Plaintiff did not reimburse Defendant Casteen her full costs of purchase for Maggie.

87. Plaintiff did not split the balance of the sale proceeds for Maggie with Defendant Casteen.

88. Plaintiff breached the agreement between the parties to sell Maggie.

89. As a result of the breaches of contract by the Plaintiff, Defendant Casteen has been
damaged in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).


THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION- IMPLIED CONTRACT/ QUANTUM MERUIT/ UNJUST
ENRICHMENT

90. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully
set forth herein.

91. Defendant Casteen is the owner of Ruby and Buttercup.

92. The Plaintiff has benefitted from his continued possession and use of Ruby and Buttercup
in his commercial carriage business.

93. Defendant Casteen did not provide Ruby and Buttercup, her personal property, to Plaintiff
gratuitously.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 20 of 28
21

94. Defendant Casteen reasonably expected Plaintiff to adhere to their sales agreements or to
provide Ruby and Buttercup to her on due demand.

95. If the Plaintiff is not required to compensate or otherwise reimburse Defendant Casteen for
the services provided, the Plaintiff will be unjustly enriched in an amount in excess of
Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).

96. Defendant Casteen is entitled to an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars
($25,000.00), plus interest, from the Plaintiff in quantum meruit.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION CONVERSION

97. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully
set forth herein.

98. Defendant Casteen is the owner of Allie, Ruby and Buttercup.

99. The Plaintiff is not the owner of Allie, Ruby and Buttercup.

100. Plaintiff ignored Defendant Casteens numerous demands that Allie, Ruby and Buttercup be
returned and delivered to her.

101. Plaintiff without authorization or regard for Defendant Casteens ownership remained in
possession of Allie, Ruby and Buttercup and/or converted them to his own use.

102. The Plaintiff has wrongful possession of Allie, Ruby and Buttercup and has refused to
return the same to Defendant Casteen.

103. The value of Allie, Ruby and Buttercup was approximately five thousand two hundred and
fifty dollars ($5,250.00) at the time of conversion.

104. The Plaintiff has not paid Defendant Casteen any sum of money for Allie, Ruby or
Buttercup.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION- POSSESSION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY

105. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully
set forth herein.

106. Defendant Casteen contends that Allie, Ruby and Buttercup have been and remain her
personal property.

107. As a result of Plaintiffs conversion and possession of Allie, Ruby and Buttercup, and his
failure and refusal to return the same, Defendant Casteen has been unlawfully deprived of
her rightful possession.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 21 of 28
22


108. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully
set forth herein.

109. Plaintiff represented to Defendant Casteen that J ameson was five (5) years old.

110. Plaintiff forged Coggins papers for J ameson in order to indicate that J ameson was five (5)
years old.

111. Plaintiff knew that the J ameson was actually twelve (12) to fourteen (14) years old.

112. Plaintiff concealed from Defendant Casteen that J ameson was twelve (12) to fourteen (14)
years old.

113. Plaintiffs representation that J ameson was five (5) years old was false.

114. Plaintiffs concealment and representations were reasonably calculated to deceive
Defendant Casteen.

115. At the time such representations were made, Plaintiff knew that J ameson was twelve (12) to
fourteen (14) years old.

116. Alternatively, Plaintiff, recklessly and without any knowledge of its truth, represented that
J ameson was five (5) years old.

117. Plaintiff intended to induce Defendant Casteens reliance on Plaintiffs representations that
J ameson was five (5) years old.

118. Defendant Casteen has been injured as a result of its reliance on Plaintiffs false
representations in an amount to be determined at trial, such damages to include, but are not
limited to loss of value, costs of mitigation (if any) and lost interest.


SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION- UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

119. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully
set forth herein.

120. The actions of Plaintiff as herein described were acts in or affecting commerce in the State
of North Carolina.

121. The actions described herein constitute the commission of an unfair and deceptive trade
practice in violation of Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes resulting in
damages to Defendant Casteen.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 22 of 28
23

122. The actions described herein entitle Defendant Casteen to recover damages against Plaintiff
in excess of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).

123. The actions described herein entitle the damages Defendant Casteen recovers against
Plaintiff to be trebled.

124. The actions described herein entitle Defendant Casteen to recover her costs and reasonable
attorneys fees incurred in the prosecution of this action.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION- PUNITIVE DAMAGES

125. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully
set forth herein.

126. In committing the fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices against Defendant Casteen
noted herein, Plaintiff did act willfully, wantonly, and in conscience disregard for the
injuries that would result to Defendant Casteen.

127. Defendant Casteen was injured as the result of the willful and wanton conduct of Plaintiff.

128. By reason of the willful and wanton conduct of Plaintiff as described herein, Defendant
Casteen is entitled to recover punitive damages from Plaintiff in an amount to be
determined by the jury.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION- BATTERY

122. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully
set forth herein.

123. Without Defendant Casteens consent, Plaintiff, on multiple occasions, intentionally swung
his hand and struck Defendant Casteen in her head and face, causing her harm, severe pain
and personal injury.

124. In October 2011, without Defendant Casteens consent, Plaintiff intentionally used his
hands to grab Defendant Casteens left arm and drag her through his home, causing her
harm, severe pain and personal injury.

125. In October 2011, without Defendant Casteens consent, Plaintiff intentionally swung his
hands and struck Defendant Casteen in her head and face, causing her harm, severe pain
and personal injury.

126. In October 2011, without Defendant Casteens consent, Plaintiff intentionally used his
hands to grab and pull Defendant Casteens hair, causing her harm, severe pain and
personal injury.

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 23 of 28
24

127. In April 2012, without Defendant Casteens consent, Plaintiff intentionally used his hands
to grab Defendant Casteens arm and drag her through his home, causing her harm, severe
pain and personal injury.

128. In April 2012, without Defendant Casteens consent, Plaintiff intentionally swung his hand
and struck Defendant Casteen in her head and face, causing her harm, severe pain and
personal injury.

129. In April 2012, without Defendant Casteens consent, Plaintiff intentionally used his hands
to grab and pull Defendant Casteens hair, causing her harm, severe pain and personal
injury.

130. In May 2012, without Defendant Casteens consent, Plaintiff intentionally swung his hands
and struck Defendant Casteen in her head and face, causing her harm, severe pain and
personal injury.

131. In May 2012, without Defendant Casteens consent, Plaintiff intentionally placed his hands
about Defendant Casteens neck and pushed and choked her, causing her harm, severe pain
and personal injury.

132. In May 2012, without Defendant Casteens consent, Plaintiff swing a shower curtain and
shower rod with his hands and struck Defendant Casteen in her face multiple times, causing
her harm, severe pain and personal injury.

133. Plaintiffs touching of Defendant Casteen was offensive and harmful as Plaintiff
intentionally caused physical harm to Defendant Casteen.

134. The egregious conduct of Plaintiff in violently and unexpectedly battering Defendant
Casteen was intentional, wanton, willful, and malicious.

135. Such intentional battery on the part of Plaintiff was a proximate cause of damages suffered
by Defendant Casteen including, but not limited to: personal injuries, medical expenses and
pain and suffering, as well as future pain and suffering and future medical expenses, all in
excess of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).


TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION- ASSAULT

136. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully
set forth herein.

137. The acts and conduct on the part of the Plaintiff, as described above, were intentional acts
and a display of force or violence on the part of the Plaintiff.

138. The acts and conduct of the Plaintiff caused Defendant Casteen a reasonable apprehension
of eminent harm or offensive contact upon her person, which constituted an assault.
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 24 of 28
25


139. Such intentional assault on the part of Plaintiff was a proximate cause of damages suffered
by Defendant Casteen including, but not limited to: personal injuries, medical expenses and
pain and suffering, all in excess of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000.00).

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION- FALSE IMPRISONMENT

140. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully
set forth herein.

141. In May 2012, Defendant Casteen was illegally restrained by Plaintiff.

142. Defendant Casteen was restrained by Plaintiff by force and the implied threat of force.

143. Defendant Casteen was restrained and detained by Plaintiff involuntarily and against
Defendant Casteens will.

144. Plaintiffs acts and conduct in restraining and detaining Defendant Casteen against her will
were intended to be injurious to Defendant Casteen.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS
145. Defendant Casteen re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully set
forth herein.

146. The actions of Plaintiff as described above were intentional, malicious, corrupt, and
outrageous, beyond the bounds tolerated by this society and were intended to cause and did,
in fact, cause Defendant Casteen extreme and severe emotional distress.

147. As a result of the intentional infliction of emotional distress by Plaintiff, Defendant Casteen
has been damaged in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand Dollar ($25,000.00).

148. Plaintiffs conduct was malicious, outrageous, wanton, and willful and made with reckless
disregard for the rights of Defendant Casteen.

149. Plaintiff acted intentionally and deliberately or with a callous disregard for Defendant
Casteen.

150. Defendant Casteen is entitled to an award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, this Answering Defendant, having answered the Plaintiffs Complaint and set
forth Counterclaims against the Plaintiff, prays the Court as follows:

Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 25 of 28
26

1. That the Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. That any and all of Plaintiffs claims based upon alleged conduct taking place prior to May
29, 2013 be dismissed as being pled outside the applicable statute of limitations.

3. That the Plaintiff have and recover nothing of the Answering Defendant.

4. That this Answering Defendant have and recover against the Plaintiff judgment requiring
return of the described items of personal property which Plaintiff has converted;

5. That the Court order the return of the three (3) horses to the Plaintiff pursuant to the claim
and delivery process;

6. That this Answering Defendant have and recover a sum in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand
Dollars ($25,000.00) of Plaintiff together with interest as by law provided;

7. That this Answering Defendant have and recover punitive damages from Plaintiff in an
amount exceeding Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00);

8. That the Court find that the Plaintiff has converted the use of Defendant Casteens horses to
his own use, and that the Court enter an order and an award of damages, including interest
from the date of conversion, in an amount to be proved by later motion or at trial.

9. That the costs of this action be taxed against the Plaintiff, including a reasonable attorneys
fee.

10. That all issues raised herein by the pleadings be determined by a jury.

11. For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper


This the 19
th
day of September, 2014
SIGMON, CLARK, MACKIE,
HANVEY & FERRELL, P.A.


By:__S/Forrest Ferrell ________________
Forrest A. Ferrell
N.C. Bar #: 1439
P.O. Drawer 1470
Hickory, NC 28603
(828) 328-2596
forrest. ferrell@sigmonclark.com


By:__S/ Andy Howell______________
Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 26 of 28
27

Andrew J . Howell
N.C. Bar #: 42921
P.O. Drawer 1470
Hickory, NC 28603
(828) 328-2596
andy.howell@sigmonclark.com

Attorneys for Defendant Brenda Casteen







































Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 27 of 28
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 19, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing ANSWER
AND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which
will send notification of filing to the following:

Mark W. Ishman
Ishman Law Firm, P.C.
9660 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 138-350
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Telephone: 919-468-3266
Fax: 919-882-1466
e-mail: mishman@ishmanlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted,

SIGMON, CLARK, MACKIE,
HANVEY & FERRELL, P.A.

s/Andy Howell_________________
Andrew J. Howell
NC State Bar #: 42921
Attorney for Plaintiff
P.O. Drawer 1470
Hickory, NC 28603
Phone: 828-328-2596
Facsimile: 828-328-6876
Email:
Andy.howell@sigmonclark.com







Case 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK Document 35 Filed 09/19/14 Page 28 of 28