IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

MAY’S DISTRIBUTING ) 

COMPANY, INC., ET AL., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

 ) 

TOTAL CONTAINMENT, INC., ) 2:06cv702-MEF 

ET AL., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

_____________________________________________________________ 

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

_____________________________________________________________ 

 Defendant Total Containment, Inc. (“TCI”), pursuant to Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure Rules 7 and 12, hereby submits this Answer and 

Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff May’s Distributing Company, Inc.’s 

(“Plaintiff”) Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint. 

ANSWER TO CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

 1. Upon information and belief, TCI admits the allegations of 

sentences 1 and 2 of Paragraph No. 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. TCI denies 

the remaining allegations of Paragraph No. 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 2. TCI admits it is a Pennsylvania corporation which did business 

in the State of Alabama and is in bankruptcy. TCI denies the remaining 

allegations of Paragraph No. 2 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 40 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 1 of 12
2

 3. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the 

allegations of Paragraph No. 3 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore 

denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 3 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 4. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the 

allegations of Paragraph No. 4 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore 

denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 4 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 5. Defendant without sufficient information to admit or deny the 

allegations of Paragraph No. 5 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore 

denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 5 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 6. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the 

allegations of Paragraph No. 6 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore 

denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 6 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 7. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the 

allegations of Paragraph No. 7 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore 

denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 7 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Jurisdiction and Venue

 8. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 8 of the 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 9. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 9 of the 

Plaintiff’s complaint and demands strict proof thereof. 

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 40 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 2 of 12
3

 10. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 10 of the 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Statement of Facts

 11. TCI is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or 

deny the allegations of Paragraph No. 11 and therefore denies the allegations 

of Paragraph No. 11 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 12. TCI is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or 

deny the allegations of Paragraph No. 12 and therefore denies the allegations 

of Paragraph No. 12 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 13. TCI is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or 

deny the allegations of Paragraph No. 13 and therefore denies the allegations 

of Paragraph No. 13 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 14. TCI is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or 

deny the allegations of Paragraph No. 14 and therefore denies the allegations 

of Paragraph No. 14 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 15. TCI is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or 

deny the allegations of Paragraph No. 15 and therefore denies the allegations 

of Paragraph No. 15 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 40 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 3 of 12
4

 16. TCI is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or 

deny the allegations of Paragraph No. 16 and therefore denies the allegations 

of Paragraph No. 16 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 17. TCI is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or 

deny the allegations of Paragraph No. 17 and therefore denies the allegations 

of Paragraph No. 17 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 18. TCI is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or 

deny the allegations of Paragraph No. 18 and therefore denies the allegations 

of Paragraph No. 18 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 19. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 19 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

 20. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 20 of the 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 21. TCI is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or 

deny the allegations of Paragraph No. 21 and therefore denies the allegations 

of Paragraph No. 21 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 22. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 22 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

 23. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 23 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 40 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 4 of 12
5

 24. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 24 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

 25. TCI is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or 

deny the allegations of Paragraph No. 25 and therefore denies the allegations 

of Paragraph No. 25 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 26. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 26 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

 27. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 27 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

 28. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 28 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

 29. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 29 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

Class Action Allegations 

30. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 30 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

 31. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 31 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

 32. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 32 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 40 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 5 of 12
6

 33. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 33 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

 34. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 34 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

 35. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 35 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

 36. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 36 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

 37. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 37 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

CLASS DEFINITION

 38. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 38 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

NEGLIGENCE

 39. TCI adopts and realleges as though fully set forth its responses 

to Paragraphs No. 1-38 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

 40. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 40 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

 41. TCI denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 41 of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 40 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 6 of 12
7

 TCI denies the Prayer for Relief, denies the Plaintiff is entitled to any 

damages and respectfully requests this Court enter an Order dismissing the 

Plaintiff’s claim with prejudice and taxing all court costs against Plaintiff. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 Except as expressly admitted, TCI denies the allegations of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

 TCI denies the numerosity requirement can be met in this case. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 TCI denies the commonality of legal and factual questions 

requirements can be met in this case. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 TCI denies the typicality and predominance requirements can be met 

in this case. 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 TCI denies Plaintiff will thoroughly and adequately represent and 

protect the interests of the proposed class members. 

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 40 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 7 of 12
8

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 TCI denies the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 

23(a) can be met in this case. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 TCI denies the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 

23(b) can be met in this case. 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 Plaintiff’s Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 Plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable 

statutes of limitations. 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 Plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines 

of consent, waiver, estoppel, laches and/or justification. 

TWELTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 TCI denies it breached any legal duty to Plaintiff. 

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 TCI denies it proximately caused any damage to the Plaintiff. 

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 40 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 8 of 12
9

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 If Plaintiff has suffered any damages, the damages were caused by 

others and not TCI. 

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 TCI denies Plaintiff has been damaged. 

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 Plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff 

failed to properly mitigate its damages. 

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

 TCI pleads the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of 

the risk. 

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

 TCI reserves the right to amend its Answer and Affirmative Defenses 

to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint to raise any additional defenses 

that may become available during the discovery process. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: E. Britton Monroe 

 E. Britton Monroe (MON032) 

 Jenna M. Bedsole (MCC107) 

 Rachel E. VanNortwick (VAN040) 

 Attorneys for Defendant, Total 

 Containment, Inc. 

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 40 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 9 of 12
10

OF COUNSEL: 

LLOYD, GRAY & WHITEHEAD, P.C. 

2501 20th Place South, Suite 300 

Birmingham, AL 35223 

(205) 967-8822 

(205) 967-2380 facsimile 

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 40 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 10 of 12
11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have on this the 15th day of September 2006, 

served a copy of the foregoing via electronic mail upon the following: 

Lynn Jinks 

Christy Crow 

JINKS, DANIEL & CROW, LLC 

Post Office Box 350 

Union Springs, AL 36089 

Russell Jackson Drake 

Nicola Thompson Drake 

WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, 

L.L.C. 

2323 Second Avenue North 

P.O. Box 1067 

Birmingham, AL 35202-0647 

(205) 328-9576 

(205) 328-9669 Facsimile 

Welsey L. Laird 

LAIRD, BAKER & 

BLACKSTOCK, LLC 

501 North Main Street 

Opp, AL 36467 

L. Cooper Rutland, Jr. 

RUTLAND AND BRASWELL, 

LLC 

208 North Prairie Street 

Union Springs, AL 36089 

Attorneys for Ticona Polymers, 

Inc. 

Alan T. Rogers, Esq. 

BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP 

Post Office Box 306 

Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 

arogers@balch.com

Paul A. Clark, Esq. 

BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP 

Post Office Box 78 

Montgomery, AL 36101 

pclark@balch.com

Paul M. O’Connor III, Esq. 

Seth A. Moskowitz, Esq. 

Jon Avins, Esq. 

KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES 

& FRIEDMAN 

1633 Broadway 

New York, NY 10019-6799 

poconnor@kasowitz.com

smoskowitz@kasowitz.com

Walter B. Calton, Esq. 

Post Office Box 696 

Eufaula, AL 36072-09696 

wcalton@bellsouth.net

Attorneys for Cleveland Tubing, 

Inc.

James H. McLemore, Esq. 

CAPELL & HOWARD, P.C. 

150 South Perry Street (36104) 

Post Office Box 2069 

Montgomery, AL 36102-2069 

T. Harold Pinkley, Esq. 

MILLER & MARTIN, LLP 

1200 First Union Tower 

150 Fourth Avenue North 

Nashville, TN 37219 

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 40 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 11 of 12
12

Lynda M. Hill, Esq. 

James Williams, Esq. 

MILLER & MARTIN, PLCC 

Suite 1000, Volunteer Bldg. 

832 Georgia Avenue 

Chattanooga, TN 37402 

jhill@millermartin.com

jwilliams@millermartin.com

Attorneys for Dayco Products, Inc.

And Mark IV Industries, Ltd.

Joseph T. Carpenter, Esq. 

Nathan C. Prater, Esq. 

Brian Mosholder, Esq. 

John Deshazo, Esq. 

CARPENTER, PRATER, 

INGRAM 

 & MOSHOLDER LLP 

303 Sterling Centre 

4121 Carmichael Road 

Montgomery, AL 36106 

jccarpenter@carpenterfirm.com

nprater@carpenterfirm.com

bmosholder@carpenterfirm.com

jdeshazo@carpenterfirm.com

Kimberly W. Sayoc, Esq. 

LIPPES SILVVERSTEIN 

MATHIAS & WEXLER 

700 Guaranty Building 

28 Church Street 

L. Shane Seaborn, Esq. 

Myron C. Penn, Esq. 

PENN & SEABORN, LLC 

Post Office Box 688 

Clayton, AL 36106 

Attorneys for Underwriters 

Laboratories, Inc.

Walter E. McGowan, Esq. 

GRAY, LANGFORD, SAPP, 

MCGOWAN, 

 GRAY & NATHANSON 

P.O. Box 830239 

Tuskegee, AL 36083-0239 

wem@glamgn.com

Charles Donald Marshall, III, Esq. 

John Olinde, Esq. 

Brent Arnold Talbot, Esq. 

Robert S. Booth, Esq. 

CHAFFE MCCALL, PHILLIPS, 

1100 Poydras Street 

New Orleans, LA 70163 

(504) 585-7000 

Talbot@chaffe.com

olinde@chaffe.com

marshall@chaffe.com

rooth@chaffe.com 

Buffalo, NY 14202-3950 

ksayoc@tippes.com 

 E. Britton Monroe 

 OF COUNSEL 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 40 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 12 of 12