UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

 DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

ELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

 October 18, 2006

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

 

FROM: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: Joelsongs et al v. Shelley Broadcassting Co, Inc. et al

Case No.: 1:06cv774-MHT 

Document 8 Answer to Complaint

This Notice of Correction was filed in the referenced case this date to enter the

corrected pdf for the above-reference document. The original e-filed document

was not signed or dated. 

Case 1:06-cv-00774-MHT-SRW Document 9 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00774-MHT-SRW Document 9 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOEL SONGS, EXPERIENCE HENDRIX, )

L.L.C., ET AL., )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

)

VS. ) CASE NO.: 1:06-CV-774

)

SHELLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY, )

INC., STAGE DOOR DEVELOPMENT, INC. )

AND JACK MIZELL. )

)

DEFENDANTS. )

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, DEFENDANTS, SHELLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY INC., STAGE DOOR

DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND JACK MIZELL AND FOR ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE

PLAINTIFFS, AND TO EACH AND EVERY PARAGRAPH THEREOF, SHOWS UNTO THE COURT AS

FOLLOWS:

1. Defendant denies each and every material allegation contained in the

Complaint filed by the Plaintiff and demands strict proof thereof.

SPECIAL DEFENSES

CO MES NO W the defendant and asserts the following Special Defenses in this cause as

follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

Defendant denies each and every material allegation of Plaintiff’s Complaint and

demands strict proof thereof.

SECO ND DEFENSE

Defendant pleads the general issue.

THIRD DEFENSE

Defendant pleads this Court lacks jurisdiction of the matter.

FO URTH DEFENSE

Defendant pleads this Court lacks in personam jurisdiction.

FIFTH DEFENSE

Defendant pleads this Court lacks in personam jurisdiction.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Defendant pleads venue is improper.

Case 1:06-cv-00774-MHT-SRW Document 9-2 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 1 of 4
SEVENTH DEFENSE

Defendant pleads insufficiency of process.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

Defendant pleads service of process was insufficient.

NINTH DEFENSE

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Complaint has failed to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted.

TENTH DEFENSE

Defendant denies that he is indebted to Plaintiffs as alleged in their Complaint.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

Defendant denies that he has been guilty of any conduct which entitles Plaintiff to

recover punitive damages.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

This Defendant avers that any award of punitive damages to the Plaintiff in this case

will be violative of the Constitutional safeguards provided to it under the Constitution of the

United States of America.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

This Defendant avers that any award of punitive damages to the Plaintiff in this case

will be violative of the constitutional safeguards provided to it under the Due Process Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America in that punitive

damages are vague and are not rationally related to legitimate government issues.

FO URTEENTH DEFENSE

This Defendant avers that any award of punitive damages to Plaintiffs in this case will

be violative of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution of the United States of America which

provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of

law, in that punitive damages are vague and are not rationally related to legitimate government

interests.

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

This Defendant avers that any award of punitive damages to the Plaintiff in this case

will be violative of the procedural safeguards provided to Defendant under the Sixth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America in that punitive damages are

penal in nature and consequently, Defendant is entitled to the same procedural safeguards

accorded to criminal defendants.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

It is violative of the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution

of the United States of America to impose against this Defendant punitive damages, which are

penal in nature, yet compels Defendant to disclose potentially incriminating documents and

evidence.

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

Case 1:06-cv-00774-MHT-SRW Document 9-2 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 2 of 4
This Defendant avers that any award of punitive damages to the Plaintiff in this case

will be violative of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

in that said damages would be excessive fine in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

Said Defendant hereby gives notice that it intends to rely upon such other affirmative

defenses as may become available or apparent during the course of discovery and thus reserves

the right to amend its answer to assert such defenses.

NINETEENTH DEFENSE

Defendant pleads Plaintiffs have failed to join a party pursuant to Rule 19, Alabama

Rules of Civil Procedure.

TWENTIETH DEFENSE

This Defendant avers that any award of punitive damages to Plaintiffs in this case will

be violative of the constitutional safeguards provided to it under the Constitution of the State of

Alabama.

TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE

It is violative of the self-incrimination clause of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution

of the State of Alabama to impose against this Defendant punitive damages, which are penal in

nature, yet compels Defendant to disclose potentially incriminating documents and evidence.

TWENTY-SECO ND DEFENSE

It is violative of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of

America and the Constitution of the State of Alabama to impose punitive damages against this

Defendant which are penal in nature by requiring a burden of proof on Plaintiffs which is less

than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof required in criminal cases.

TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE

It is discriminatory, a deprivation of due process and a violation of the equal protection

rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of

America and Article 1, Sections 1, 6, and 22 of the Constitution of the State of Alabama to

impose punitive damages for the violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing only in

contracts between insurers and insureds and not in all contracts in Alabama, since the same

covenants of good faith and fair dealing exist not only in insurance contracts but also in all

contracts in the State of Alabama.

/s/ Steve McGowan

STEVE MCGOWAN (MCG071)

Attorney for Defendants

P.O. Box 2101

Dothan, Alabama 36301

(334) 678-8200

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case 1:06-cv-00774-MHT-SRW Document 9-2 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 3 of 4
I hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the above and foregoing was served upon the

below named counsel of record by placing the same in the United States Mail, properly addressed and

postage prepaid, this the 18th day of October, 2006.

Dylan C. Black

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

One Federal Place

1819 Fifth Avenue North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

/s/ Steve McGowan

OF COUNSEL

Case 1:06-cv-00774-MHT-SRW Document 9-2 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 4 of 4