1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. 20-cv-23104-KMW

WOODARD-CM, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SUNLORD LEISURE PRODUCTS, INC.

d/b/a PATIO RENAISSANCE,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant SUNLORD LEISURE PRODUCTS, INC. d/b/a PATIO RENAISSANCE 

(“Sunlord”) files its Answer to Plaintiff WOODARD-CM, LLC’s (“Woodard”) Complaint as 

follows:

1. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

2. Admitted.

3. Admitted that the Complaint purports to be an action for breach of contract and 

for declaratory and other relief pertaining to a settlement agreement with an effective date of 

August 29, 2019 between the parties which arose out of a prior lawsuit in the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Defendant denies that it breached the 

settlement agreement or that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought.

4. Admitted that parties are citizens of different states. Denied that the amount in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 or that plaintiff is entitled to any damages.

5. Denied.

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 1 of 8
2

6. Denied.

7. Denied.

8. Denied as phrased.

9. Admitted that Defendant engages with retailers in Florida, but denies that 

Defendant sells, advertises, and markets outdoor furniture directly to consumers.

10. Admitted that defendant has a relationship with at least one independent 

salesperson dedicated to Florida.

11. Admitted that Justin Pfahl was an independent salesperson who sold defendant’s 

products, as well as the products of other patio furniture brands manufactured and/or distributed 

by other companies, and that Defendant recognized Pfahl for outstanding sales in the Florida 

market.

12. Denied.

13. Admitted.

14. Admitted that defendant owns and operates the websites 

www.patiorenaissance.net and www.patiorenaissance.com that market its products through 

retailers nationwide. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 14.

15. Admitted that defendant sells some of its products through retailers in Florida. 

Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 15.

16. Admitted.

17. Admitted that Defendant advertises and markets its products to customers

nationwide and communicates with customers nationwide through its web page. Defendant 

denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 17.

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 2 of 8
3

18. Admitted that in the screenshot in paragraph 18 that purports to be a 

communication between someone from Patio Renaissance and someone identified as Tanya 

Burley asks for the Florida representative’s number and that someone purportedly speaking on 

behalf of Patio Renaissance provides her with contact information for a Florida “rep.” 

Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 19.

19. Admitted.

20. Admitted that Defendant’s products can be viewed by Florida residents and can 

be purchased through retailers only in Florida and nationwide. Defendant denies the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 20 and denies that venue is proper.

21. Denied.

22. Denied.

23. Admitted that the Settlement Agreement resolved the First Southern District of 

Florida Action. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 23.

24. Admitted that the parties entered into a settlement agreement in the First Southern

District of Florida Action on or about August 29,2019. Defendant denies the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 24.

25. Admitted that as part of the Settlement Agreement Plaintiff and Defendant 

entered into a voluntary Stipulation of Dismissal of the First Southern District of Florida Action. 

Defendant denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 25.

26. Denied.

27. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

28. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 3 of 8
4

30. Admitted that defendant sells outdoor furniture and is in the outdoor furniture 

industry.

31. Admitted.

32. Denied.

33. Denied.

34. Denied.

35. Denied.

36. Denied.

37. Denied.

38. Admitted.

39. Admitted.

40. Admitted.

41. Defendant admits that the terms of the settlement agreement speak for themselves.

42. Defendant admits that the terms of the settlement agreement speak for themselves.

43. Defendant admits that the terms of the settlement agreement speak for themselves.

44. Defendant admits that the terms of the settlement agreement speak for themselves.

45. Defendant admits that the terms of the settlement agreement speak for themselves.

46. Defendant admits that the terms of the settlement agreement speak for themselves.

47. Defendant admits that the terms of the settlement agreement speak for themselves.

48. Defendant admits that the terms of the settlement agreement speak for themselves.

49. Denied.

50. Denied.

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 4 of 8
5

51. Admitted that Defendant’s products are marketed and sold by authorized retailers 

and that Galaxy Home Recreations sells Defendant’s products. Defendant denies the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 51.

52. Denied.

53. Denied.

54. Without knowledge, therefore denied. To the extent that the Galaxy website 

advertised furniture under the name “Patio Renaissance Aberdeen 6PC Collection” and described 

it as “Aberdeen Collection by Patio Renaissance,” the website was incorrect and the statements 

were neither authorized nor approved by the Defendant and the Defendant had no knowledge of 

them. Defendant was subsequently told by Galaxy that Galaxy had made a mistake.

55. Denied.

56. Denied.

57. Denied.

58. Denied.

59. Defendant admits that it received a copy of Exhibit C. Defendant denies the 

remaining allegations of paragraph 59.

60. Admitted that the “Aberdeen” line of products is not part of the Defendant’s 

collections and that it informed plaintiff of that fact. Defendant denies the remaining allegations 

of paragraph 60.

61. Admitted that Defendant, through counsel, denied that it breached the settlement 

agreement and that its e-mail speaks for itself. Defendant further denies that it breached the 

settlement agreement and denies, or is without knowledge, and therefore denies, the remaining 

allegations of paragraph 61.

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 5 of 8
6

62. Denied.

63. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

64. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

65. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

66. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

67. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

68. Denied.

69. Denied.

70. Admitted that in the outdoor furniture industry there is a “Preview Show” held 

annually in July where manufacturers display and highlight their new collections. Defendant is 

without knowledge, and therefore denies, the remaining allegations of paragraph 70.

71. Admitted that the Preview Show for 2020 has been cancelled and that some 

buyers make their purchasing decisions in July. Defendant is without knowledge, and therefore 

denies, the remaining allegations of paragraph 71.

72. Denied.

73. Denied.

74. This paragraph does not require a response.

75. Admitted.

76. Admitted.

77. Denied.

78. Denied.

80. Denied.

81. Denied.

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 6 of 8
7

82. This paragraph does not require a response.

83. Admitted that the claim purports to be one for declaratory relief. Defendant 

denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.

84. Admitted.

85. Admitted.

86. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

87. Admitted that the settlement agreement speaks for itself.

88. Denied.

89. Without knowledge as to what Plaintiff desires. Defendant denies that plaintiff is 

entitled to any relief and the remaining allegations of paragraph 89.

90. Denied.

91. Denied.

92. Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Defendant did not breach the Settlement Agreement.

2. Plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction because it has an adequate remedy at law.

3. Plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction because it did not suffer irreparable harm.

4. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages.

5. Any harm Plaintiff experienced was caused by third parties.

6. Plaintiff is not entitled to declaratory relief because there is no immediate and real 

controversy sufficient to entitle them to declaratory relief.

7. Plaintiff is not entitled to declaratory relief because there is no actual controversy.

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 7 of 8
8

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendant demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing was served this 1st day of September, 2020 on all counsel or 

parties of record on the attached Service List either via transmission of Notices of Electronic 

Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties 

who are not authorized to receive electronic Notices of Filing.

BY: /s/ David H. Pollack 

DAVID H. POLLACK

Fla. Bar No. 0955840

MATTHEW STREET

Fla. Bar No. 1013945

SERVICE LIST

WOODARD-CM, LLC VS. SUNLORD LEISURE PRODUCTS, INC.

d/b/a PATIO RENAISSANCE

CASE NO. 1:19-CV-22907-CMA

United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

John Cyril Malloy, III

Oliver Alan Ruiz

Malloy & Malloy, P.L.

2800 S.W. Third Ave., 

Miami, Florida 33129

Tel: (305) 858-8000

Email: jcmalloy@malloylaw.com

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 8 of 8