Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-cv-61241-RUIZ

APRIL HICKS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Counterclaim Plaintiff,

v. 

APRIL HICKS, 

Counterclaim Defendant

COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT APRIL HICKS ANSWER AND 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANT, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S COUNTERCLAIM TO COMPLAINT

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, APRIL HICKS (“Counterclaim Defendant”), submits 

the following Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Counterclaim by Defendant UNITED STATES

of AMERICA (“USA”, and states as follows:

1. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS admits in Paragraph 1 that the Court has 

jurisdiction over the Counterclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1345.

2. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS is without knowledge and therefore denies 

the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.

Case 0:20-cv-61241-RAR Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6

3. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS admits the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 3.

4. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS admits that the USA is now the 

counterclaim Plaintiff contained in Paragraph 4.

5. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS admits the allegations in Paragraph 5. 

6. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 

7. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS denies Paragraph 7. 

8. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS denies Paragraph 8.

9. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS admits in Paragraph 9 that Tyrone Eugene 

Hilton was in USA’s vehicle at the time of the impact with APRIL HICKS. However, 

Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS denies that she is liable for, or caused, the collision.

10. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS is without knowledge as phrased and 

therefore denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10.

11. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS is without knowledge and therefore denies 

the allegations contained in Paragraph 11.

12. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS is without knowledge and therefore denies 

the allegations contained in Paragraph 12.

COUNT I- NEGLIGENCE

13. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS re-alleges and adopts all answers 

contained in Paragraphs 1 through 12 as though fully set forth herein. 

14. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS admits that drivers in Florida have a duty 

to operate their motor vehicle in a reasonably safe manner. Except as expressly admitted herein, 

the remaining allegations of Paragraph 14 are denied.

Case 0:20-cv-61241-RAR Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6

15. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS denies Paragraph 15 and demands strict 

proof thereof. 

16. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS denies Paragraph 16 and demands strict 

proof thereof. 

17. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS denies Paragraph 17 and demands strict 

proof thereof. 

18. Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS denies in Paragraph 18 that she was 

negligent. Except as expressly denied herein, the Counterclaim Defendant APRIL HICKS is 

without knowledge of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 18 and are therefore denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. For her first affirmative defense, this Counterclaim Defendant affirmatively states 

that the Counterclaim Plaintiff’s actions or inactions may have caused or contributed to causing 

the subject accident as well as its claimed/alleged damages. This Counterclaim Defendant 

affirmatively states that the Counterclaims Plaintiff’s actions/inactions may include but are not 

limited to: (a) USA’s failure to use reasonable care in the operation of its vehicle that was driving 

at the time of the crash; (b) USA’s failure to appreciate and maintain awareness of the traffic 

conditions; (c) USA’s failure to take proper precautions to avoid the crash. Therefore, this 

Counterclaim Defendant affirmatively states that the Counterclaim Plaintiff’s damages should be 

reduced or barred by its percentage of fault.

2. For her second affirmative defense, this Counterclaim Defendant affirmatively 

states that if some or all of Counterclaim Plaintiff’s damages have been paid by collateral sources 

of indemnity, or are payable, Counterclaim Plaintiff is not entitled to duplicate recovery of these 

amounts.

Case 0:20-cv-61241-RAR Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6

3. For her third affirmative defense, this Counterclaim Defendant affirmatively states 

that the Counterclaim Plaintiff had a duty to mitigate its damages and that by its acts or omissions, 

it has breached that duty, which has caused and/or contributed to the damages complained of. Any 

damages attributable to said failure to mitigate its damages must be reduced from any recovery 

against this Counterclaim Defendant.

4. For her fourth affirmative defense, this Counterclaim Defendant affirmatively 

states that the Counterclaim Plaintiff’s claimed damages, included its alleged employee injuries, 

in whole or in part, pre-existed this cause of action and were neither caused, nor exacerbated by 

the alleged crash.

5. For her fifth affirmative defense, this Counterclaim Defendant affirmatively states 

that the Counterclaim Plaintiff’s claimed damages, in whole or in part, were caused and/or 

exacerbated by a subsequent accident.

6. For her sixth affirmative defense, this Counterclaim Defendant affirmatively states 

that the Counterclaim Plaintiff is not entitled to medical damages because it is not alleged to have 

suffered said damages, nor is the Counterclaim Plaintiff, nor its employees entitled to pain and 

suffering damages as it/they did not sustain a permanent injury as a result of the subject crash.

7. For her seventh affirmative defense, this Counterclaim Defendant affirmatively 

states that the Counterclaim Plaintiff is not entitled to recover medical bills and other expenses for 

which the Counterclaim Plaintiff is not indebted and/or not alleged. Goble v. Frohman, 901 So.2d 

830 (Fla. 2005); Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp. v. Lasky, 868 So.2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

8. For her eighth affirmative defense, this Counterclaim Defendant affirmatively 

states that Counterclaim Plaintiff is not entitled to recover medical bills or other expenses which 

are not reasonable, necessary, and related to the subject crash and/or are not alleged. State Farm 

Case 0:20-cv-61241-RAR Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6

Mutual Auto Insurance v. Bowling, 81 So.3d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Albertson’s Inc., v. Brady, 

475 So.2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

9. For her ninth affirmative defense, this Counterclaim Defendant affirmatively states 

that the Counterclaim Plaintiff’s claimed damages and/or injuries, in whole or in part, were not 

causally related to the alleged crash.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 28, 2021

By: s/Matthew Sean Tucker

Matthew Sean Tucker

Florida Bar No. 90047

Tucker Law

200 SE 6TH Street, Suite 405

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Telephone: (954) 204-0444

Facsimile: (954) 358-4946

Matt@TuckerUp.com

Attorney for Plaintiff(s)

Case 0:20-cv-61241-RAR Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 28, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF and that service was perfected on all counsel of record 

and interested parties through this system.

By: s/Matthew Sean Tucker

Service List:

Monica L. Haddad Forbes

Assistant United States Attorney

Florida Bar No. 99426

Email: Monica.Forbes@usdoj.gov

U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Florida

500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Telephone: (561) 209-1004

Attorney for Defendant United States of America

Case 0:20-cv-61241-RAR Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2021 Page 6 of 6