EXHIBIT A 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 1 of 85
Filing # 154271175 E-Filed 07/28/2022 03:35:27 PM CACE-22-011055 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FL 

CASE NO.: CACE-22-011055 

ANNETTE SYSEL, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC., SPECTRUM 

BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC, and TARGET 

CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

®ate: 9 ) I 1zz 

Time® llaw' 

Inotialsa CMC® CPS,#1®1 

SUMMONS 

THE STATE OF FLORIDA: 

To all and singular sheriffs of said state: 

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to serve this Sununons and a copy of the Complaint 

or Petition in the above-styled cause upon the Defendant: 

Spectrum~ Brands,lnc. ~

Attn: orporation ervice Company 

1201 Hays Street ' 

Tallahassee, FL. 32301 

Each Defendant is hereby required to serve written defenses to said Complaint or Petition 

on Steven E. Nauman, Esquire, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600, 

Orlando, Florida 32801, Telephone: (407) 420-1414, within twenty (20) days after service of this 

Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service, and to file the original of said written defenses with the 

Clerk of said Court either before service on Plaintiffs attorney or immediately thereafter. If you fail to do so, 

a default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint or Petition. 

*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 07/28/2022 03:35:24 PM.  

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 2 of 85
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to 

participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of 

certain assistance. Please contact the Court Administration, 425 N. ORANGE 

AVENUE, SUITE 350, ORLANDO, FL 32801, (407) 836-2000, at least 7 days 

before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving this 

notification if the time before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; if you are 

hearing or voice impaired, - ca11711: - 

WITNESS my hand and the seal of this Court on this the day of 

, 2022. 

JUL 29 2022 

Clerk of the Circuit Court I IT 

By 

As DeputyClerk 

RENDA D. 

~ 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 3 of 85
IMPORTANT 

A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is served 

on you to file a written response to the attached complaint with the clerk of this court. A phone call 

will not protect you. Your written response, including the case number given above and the names 

of the parties, must be filed if you want the court to hear your side of the case. If you do not file 

your response on time, you may lose the case, and your wages, money and property may thereafter 

be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want 

to call an attomey right away. If you do not know an attomey, you may call an attorney referral 

service or legal aid office (listed in the phone book). 

If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your written 

response to the court you must also mail or take a copy of your written response to the 

"Plaintiff/Plaintiff's Attorney" named above. 

IMPORTANTE 

Usted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tiene veinte (20) dias, contados a partir del recibo de 

esta notificacion, para contestar la demanda adjunta, por escrito, y presentarla ante este tribunal. 

Una llamada telefonica no lo protegera; si usted desea que el tribunal considere su defensa, debe 

presentar su repuesta por escrito, incluyendo el numero del caso y los numbres de las partes 

interesadas en dicho caso. Si usted no contesta la demanda a tiempo, pudiese perder el caso y podria 

ser despojado de sus ingresos y propiedades, o privado de sus derechos, sin previo aviso del tribunal. 

Existen otros requisitos legales. Si lo desea, puede usted consultar a un abogado immediatamente. 

Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a una de las oficinas de asistencia legal que aparecen en 

la guia telefonica. 

Si desea responder a la demanda por su cuenta, al mismo tiempo en que presenta su 

respuesta ante el tribunal, debera usted inviar por correo o entregar una copia de su respuesta a la 

persona denuminada abajo como "Plaintiff/Plaintiffs Attorney." (Demandate o Abogado del 

Demanadante). 

IMPORTANT 

Des poursuites judiciaries ont ete entreprises contre vous. Vous avez 20 jours consecutifs a 

partir de la date de 1'assignation de cet'te citation pour deposer une response ecrite a la plainte cijointe aupres de ce Tribunal. Un simple coup de telephone est insuffisant pour vous proteger' vous 

etes oblige de deposer votre reponse ecrite, avec mention du numero de dossier ci-dessus et du nom 

des parties nommees ici, si vous souhaitez que le Tribunal entende votre cause. Si vous ne deposez 

pas votre reponse ecrite dans le relai requis, vous risquez de perdre la cause ainsi que votre salaire, 

votre argent, et vos biens peuvent etre saisis par la suite, sans aucun preavis ulterieur du 

3 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 4 of 85
Tribunal. Il y a d'autres obligations juridiques et vous pouvez requerir les services immediats d'un 

avocat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d'avocat, vous pourriez telephoner a un service de reference 

d'avocats ou a un bureau d'assistance juridique (figurant a 1'annuaire de telephones). 

Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une response ecrite, il vous faudra egalement, en 

meme temps que cette formalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie au carbone ou une photocopie 

de votre reponse ecrite au "Plaintiff/PlaintifPs Attorney" (Plaignant ou a son avocat) nomme cidessous. 

MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 

20 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE 1600 

ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 

4 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 5 of 85
Filing # 154198975 E-Filed 07/27/2022 05:18:13 PM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ANNETTE SYSEL, 

Case No.: 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC., SPECTRUM 

BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC, and TARGET 

CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT 

COMES NOW Plaintiff, ANNETTE SYSEL, to sue Defendants, SPECTRUM 

BRANDS, INC., SPECTRUM BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC, and TARGET CORPORATION, 

for the causes of action stated herein. In support thereof, Plaintiff states: 

THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE 

1. Plaintiff is a Florida citizen and resident. 

2. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. is a foreign corporation. 

3. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. is registered with and authorized by the Florida 

Department of State to do business in Florida. 

4. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. may be served with process by serving its 

registered agent: Corporation Service Company, 1201 Hays Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301. 

5. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is a foreign corporation. 

6. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is not registered with or authorized by 

the Florida Department of State to do business in Florida. 

Page 1 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 6 of 85
7. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. may be served with process by 

serving its registered agent: Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, 

DE 19808. 

8. Defendant Target Corporation is a foreign corporation. 

9. Defendant Target Corporation is registered with and authorized by the Florida 

Department of State to do business in Florida. 

10. Defendant Target Corporation may be served with process by serving its 

registered agent: CT Corporation System, 1200 S. Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL 33324. 

11. This is an action to recover damages in excess of $30,000, exclusive of fees, 

costs, and interest. 

12. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Spectrum Brands, Inc. pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193(1)(a)(1), 

(1)(a)(2), and (1)(a)(6), because the claims stated herein arise out of Defendant Spectrum Brands, 

Inc.: 

a. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business 

or business venture in Florida or having an office or agency 

in Florida; 

b. Committing a tortious act within Florida; or 

C. Causing injury to persons or property within Florida arising 

out of an act or omission cominitted outside Florida where, at 

or about the time of the injury, either (i) Defendant Spectrum 

Brands, Inc. was engaged in solicitation or service activities 

within Florida, or (ii) products, materials, or things 

processed, serviced, or manufactured by Defendant Spectrum 

Brands, Inc. anywhere were used or consumed in Florida in 

the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use. 

13. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Spectrum Brands, Inc. pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2), because 

Page 2 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 7 of 85
Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc.is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within 

Florida. 

14. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. 

§§ 48.193(1)(a)(1), (1)(a)(2), and (1)(a)(6), because the claims stated herein arise out of 

Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.: 

a. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business 

or business venture in Florida or having an office or agency 

in Florida; 

b. Committing a tortious act within Florida; or 

C. Causing injury to persons or property within Florida arising 

out of an act or omission committed outside Florida where, at 

or about the time of the injury, either (i) Defendant Spectrum 

Brands Holdings, Inc. was engaged in solicitation or service 

activities within Florida, or (ii) products, materials, or things 

processed, serviced, or manufactured by Defendant Spectrum 

Brands Holdings, Inc. anywhere were used or consumed in 

Florida in the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use. 

15. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2), 

because Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is engaged in substantial and not isolated 

activity within Florida. 

16. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Target 

Corporation pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193(1)(a)(1), (1)(a)(2), 

and (1)(a)(6), because the claims stated herein arise out of Defendant Target Corporation: 

a. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business 

or business venture in Florida or having an office or agency 

in Florida; 

b. Committing a tortious act within Florida; or 

Page 3 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 8 of 85
C. Causing injury to persons or property within Florida arising 

out of an act or omission committed outside Florida where, at 

or about the time of the injury, either (i) Defendant Target 

Corporation was engaged in solicitation or service activities 

within Florida, or (ii) products, materials, or things 

processed, serviced, or manufactured by Defendant Target 

Corporation anywhere were used or consumed in Florida in 

the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use. 

17. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Target 

Corporation pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2), because Defendant 

Target Corporation is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within Florida. 

18. Venue is proper in this Court because (i) all Defendants are foreign corporations 

and (ii) all Defendants have agents and representatives in Broward County, Florida. 

FACTS 

19. Defendants Spectrum Brands, Inc. and Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. 

(collectively, "Spectrum Brands") are in the business of and derive substantial revenue from 

designing, manufacturing, producing, importing, distributing, and selling a wide range of 

consumer goods and appliances, including clothing irons. 

20. Defendant Target Corporation ("Target") .is in the business of and derives 

substantial revenue from selling a wide range of consumer goods and appliances, including 

clothing irons. 

21. On or about May 12, 2015, Plaintiff purchased a"B1ack+Decker" model ICR05X 

clothing iron (the "subj ect iron") from Target. 

22. Spectrum is responsible for the subject iron's design, manufacture, production, 

importation, distribution, and sale. 

23. On or about August 8, 2018, Plaintiff used the subj ect iron to iron clothing. 

24. After Plaintiff finished ironing, Plaintiff unplugged the subject iron. 

Page 4 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 9 of 85
25. Suddenly, and without Plaintiff pressing the subject iron's cord retractor button, 

the subject iron's cord rapidly and violently retracted into the subject iron's housing. As the cord 

retracted uncontrollably, the cord struck Plaintiff's eye. 

26. Plaintiff was injured as a result. 

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 

27. All conditions precedent have been satisfied or excused. 

COUNT I—STRICT LIABILITY 

(Against Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc.) 

28. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

29. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. is responsible for the subject iron's design, 

manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale. 

30. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

31. The subject iron's defective condition rendered the subject iron unreasonably 

dangerous for its designed, intended, and foreseeable uses. 

32. The subject iron's defective and unreasonably dangerous condition actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Spectrum 

Brands, Inc. for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incun ed or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such fiuther relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

Page 5 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 10 of 85
COUNT II—NEGLIGENCE 

(Against Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc.) 

33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

34. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. is responsible for the subject iron's design, 

inanufacture, importation, distribution, and sale. 

35. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

36. Defendant Specti-um Brands, Inc. owed a duty to properly design, manufacture, 

import, distribute, and sell the subject iron so that it was in a safe condition and witbout defect. 

37. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. owed a duty to adequately test, inspect, and 

assure the quality of the subject iron before placing the subject iron into the stream of commerce. 

38. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. owed a duty to provide adequate warnings, 

instructions, and information with the subject iron. 

39. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. breached the above duties. 

40. Defendant Specti-um Brands, Inc.'s breaches of the above duties actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Spectrum 

Brands, Inc. for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such fiu-ther relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

Page 6 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 11 of 85
COUNT III—STRICT LIABILITY 

(Against Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.) 

41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

42. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is responsible for the subject iron's 

design, manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale. 

43. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

44. The subject iron's defective condition rendered the subject iron unreasonably 

dangerous for its designed, intended, and foreseeable uses. 

45. The subject iron's defective and unreasonably dangerous condition actually and 

proximately caused injury and dainage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Spectrum 

Brands Holdings, Inc. for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to 

this action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

COUNT IV—NEGLIGENCE 

(Against Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.) 

46. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

47. Defendant Spectruin Brands Holdings, Inc. is responsible for the subject iron's 

design, manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale. 

48. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

Page 7 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 12 of 85
49. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. owed a duty to properly design, 

manufacture, import, distribute, and sell the subject iron so that it was in a safe condition and 

without defect. 

50. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. owed a duty to adequately test, inspect, 

and assure the quality of the subject iron before placing the subject iron into the stream of 

commerce. 

51. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. owed a duty to provide adequate 

warnings, insti-uctions, and infoi-mation with the subject iron. 

52. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. breached the above duties. 

53. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.'s breaches of the above duties actually 

and proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFOItE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Spectrum 

Brands Holdings, Inc. for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to 

this action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such fiu ther relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

COUNT V—STRICT LIABILITY 

(Against Defendant Target Corporation) 

54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

55. Target sold the subject iron to Plaintiff. 

56. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

Page 8 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 13 of 85
57. The subject iron's defective condition rendered the subject iron unreasonably 

dangerous for its designed, intended, and foreseeable uses. 

58. The subject iron's defective and unreasonably dangerous condition actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Target 

Corporation for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

COUNT VI—NEGLIGENCE 

(Against Defendant Target Corporation) 

59. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

60. Target sold the subject iron to Plaintiff. 

61. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

62. Target owed a duty to sell the subject iron in a condition that was safe and not 

defective. 

63. Target owed a duty to adequately test, inspect, and assure the quality of the subject 

iron before selling the subject iron to Plaintiff and placing the subject iron into the stream of 

commerce. 

64. Target owed a duty to provide adequate warnings, instructions, and information 

with the subject iron. 

65. Target breached the above duties. 

Page 9 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 14 of 85
66. Target's breaches of the above duties actually and proximately caused injury and 

damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Target 

Corporation for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such fiuther relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

COUNT VII—BREACH OF IMPLIED 

WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY 

(Against Defendant Target Corporation) 

67. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

68. The subject iron is a good. 

69. Target is a merchant with respect to the subject iron. 

70. Target sold the subject iron to Plaintiff. 

71. The subject iron was in a defective, unmerchantable, unsuitable, unfit, and 

unreasonably dangerous condition at the time the subject iron left Target's possession, custody, 

and control. 

72. By selling the subject iron to Plaintiff, Target impliedly wai-ranted that the subject 

iron was of inerchantable quality. 

73. The subject iron was not of inerchantable quality for at least the following 

reasons: 

a. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or 

warning; 

Page 10 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 15 of 85
b. The subject iron would not pass without objection in the trade 

under the contract description; 

c. The subject iron is not of fair average quality; 

d. The subject iron is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which 

such a good is used; 

e. The subject iron does not run within the variations permitted of 

even kind, quality, or quantity; 

f. The subject iron was not adequately contained, packaged, or 

labeled; and 

g. The subject iron does not conform to the promises or 

affirmations of fact made by Target. 

74. The subject iron's defective, unmerchantable, unsuitable, unfit, and unreasonably 

dangerous condition does not conform to the merchantable condition iinpliedly represented by 

Target at the time Plaintiff purchased the subject iron. 

75. As a result, Target breached the implied warranty of inerchantability. 

76. Target's breach of the implied warranty of inerchantability actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Target 

Corporation for all injui-ies and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

Page 11 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 16 of 85
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

Dated: July 27, 2022 /s/ Steven E. Nauman 

STEVEN E. NAUMAN, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No.: 106126 

Morgan & Morgan, P.A. 

20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 

Orlando, FL 32801 

Telephone: (407) 244-3962 

Email: snauman@forthepeople.com

Secondaiy Email: ccoates@forthepeople.com

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Page 12 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 17 of 85
id' 1 s ,z_l®Wolters Kluwer CT Corporation 

Service of Process Notification 

08/01/2022 

CT Log Number 542026167 

Service of Process Transmittal Summary 

TO: CATHY SCHUDA 

Target Corporation 

1000 NICOLLET MALL, MS: TPS-3155 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403-2542 

RE: Process Served in Florida 

FOR: Target Corporation (Domestic State: MN) 

ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS: 

TITLE OF ACTION: Re: ANNETTE SYSEL // To: Target Corporation 

CASE #: CACE22011055 

NATURE OF ACTION: Personal Injury - Failure to Maintain Premises in a Safe Condition 

PROCESS SERVED ON: CT Corporation System, Plantation, FL 

DATE/METHOD OF SERVICE: By Process Server on 08/01/2022 at 02:27 

JURISDICTION SERVED: Florida 

ACTION ITEMS: CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 08/01/2022, Expected Purge Date: 

08/06/2022 

Image SOP 

Email Notification, Non Employee Litigation Target gl.legal@target.com 

REGISTERED AGENT CONTACT: CT Corporation System 

1200 South Pine Island Road 

Plantation, FL 33324 

877-564-7529 

MajorAccountTeam2@wolterskluwer.com 

The information contained in this Transmittal is provided by CT for quick reference only. It does not constitute a legal opinion, 

and should not otherwise be relied on, as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any other 

information contained in the included documents. The recipient(s) of this form is responsible for reviewing and interpreting the 

included documents and taking appropriate action, including consulting with its legal and other advisors as necessary. CT 

disclaims all liability for the information contained in this form, including for any omissions or inaccuracies that may be 

contained therein. 

Page 1 of 1 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 18 of 85
'O. Wolters Kluwer 

PROCESS SERVER DELIVERY DETAILS 

Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2022 

Server Name: Eric Deal 

Entity Served Target Corporation 

Case Number CACE-22-011055 

Jurisdiction FL 

Inserts 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 19 of 85
Filing # 154271175 E-Filed 07/28/2022 03:35:27 PM CACE-22-011055 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR BRO WARD COUNTY, FL 

CASE NO.: CACE-22-011055 

ANNETTE SYSEL, 

Plaintiff, 

VS. 

SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC., SPECTRUM 

BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC, and TARGET 

CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

SIMMONS 

Date:8-1-22_ Time:2: 

Eric Deal S.P.S. 336 

THE STATE OF FLORIDA: 

To all and singular sheriffs of said state: 

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to serve this Summons and a copy of the Complaint 

or Petition in the above-styled cause upon the Defendant: 

Target Corporation 

Attn: CT Corporation System 

1200 S. Pine Island Road 

Plantation, FL. 33324 

Each Defendant is hereby required to serve written defenses to said Complaint or Petition 

on Steven E. Nauman, Esquire, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600, 

Orlando, Florida 32801, Telephone: (407) 420-1414, within twenty (20) days after service of this 

Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service, and to file the original of said written defenses with the 

Clerk of said Court either before service on Plaintiffs attorney or immediately thereafter. If you fail to do so, 

a default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint or Petition. 

1 

** * FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 07/28/2022 03:35:24 PM.**** 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 20 of 85
REOUESTS FOR ACCOMMODATIONS BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to 

participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of 

certain assistance. Please contact the Court Administration, 425 N. ORANGE 

AVENUE, SUITE 350, ORLANDO, FL 32801, (407) 836-2000, at least 7 days 

before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving this 

notification if the time before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; if you are 

hearing or voice impaired, call 711. 

WITNESS my hand and the seal of this Court on this the day of 

, 2022. 

JUL 29 2022 

Clerk of the Circuit Court 

By 

As Deputy Clerk 

BRENDA D. F RMAN 

2 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 21 of 85
IMPORTANT 

A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is served 

on you to file a written response to the attached complaint with the clerk of this court. A phone call 

will not protect you. Your written response, including the case number given above and the names 

of the parties, must be filed if you want the court to hear your side of the case. If you do not file 

your response on time, you may lose the case, and your wages, money and property may thereafter 

be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want 

to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may call an attorney referral 

service or legal aid office (listed in the phone book). 

If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your written 

response to the court you must also mail or take a copy of your written response to the 

"Plaintiff/Plaintiffs Attorney" named above. 

1MPORTANTE 

Usted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tiene veinte (20) dias, contados a partir del recibo de 

esta notificacion, para contestar la demanda adjunta, por escrito, y presentarla ante este tribunal. 

Una llamada telefonica no lo protegera; si usted desea que el tribunal considere su defensa, debe 

presentar su repuesta por escrito, incluyendo el numero del caso y los numbres de las partes 

interesadas en dicho caso. Si usted no contesta la demanda a tiempo, pudiese perder el caso y podria 

ser despojado de sus ingresos y propiedades, o privado de sus derechos, sin previo aviso del tribunal. 

Existen otros requisitos legales. Si lo desea, puede usted consultar a un abogado immediatamente. 

Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a una de las oficinas de asistencia legal que aparecen en 

la guia telefonica. 

Si desea responder a la demanda por su cuenta, al mismo tiempo en que presenta su 

respuesta ante el tribunal, debera usted inviar por correo o entregar una copia de su respuesta a la 

persona denuminada abajo como "Plaintiff/Plaintiffs Attorney." (Demandate o Abogado del 

Demanadante). 

IMPORTANT 

Des poursuites judiciaries ont ete entreprises contre vous. Vous avez 20 jours consecutifs a 

partir de la date de l'assignation de cet'te citation pour deposer une response ecrite a la plainte cijointe aupres de ce Tribunal. Un simple coup de telephone est insuffisant pour vous proteger' vous 

etes oblige de deposer votre reponse ecrite, avec mention du numero de dossier ci-dessus et du nom 

des parties nommees ici, si vous souhaitez que le Tribunal entende votre cause. Si vous ne deposez 

pas vote reponse ecrite dans le relai requis, vous risquez de perdre la cause ainsi que votre salaire, 

votre argent, et vos biens peuvent etre saisis par la suite, sans aucun preavis ulterieur du 

3 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 22 of 85
Tribunal. 11 y a d'autres obligations juridiques et vous pouvez requerir les services immediats d'un 

avocat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d'avocat, vous poun-iez telephoner a un service de reference 

d'avocats ou a un bureau d'assistance juridique (figurant a l'annuaire de telephones). 

Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une response ecrite, ii vous faudra egalement, en 

meme temps que cette formalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie au carbone ou une photocopie 

de votre reponse ecrite au "Plaintiff/Plaintiffs Attorney" (Plaignant ou a son avocat) nomme cidessous. 

MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 

20 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE 1600 

ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 

4 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 23 of 85
Filing # 154198975 E-Filed 07/27/2022 05:18:13 PM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ANNETTE SYSEL, 

Case No.: 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC., SPECTRUM 

BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC, and TARGET 

CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT 

COMES NOW Plaintiff, ANNETTE SYSEL, to sue Defendants, SPECTRUM 

BRANDS, INC., SPECTRUM BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC, and TARGET CORPORATION, 

for the causes of action stated herein. In support thereof, Plaintiff states: 

THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE 

1. Plaintiff is a Florida citizen and resident. 

2. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. is a foreign corporation. 

3. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. is registered with and authorized by the Florida 

Department of State to do business in Florida. 

4. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. may be served with process by serving its 

registered agent: Corporation Service Company, 1201 Hays Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301. 

5. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is a foreign corporation. 

6. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is not registered with or authorized by 

the Florida Department of State to do business in Florida. 

Page 1 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 24 of 85
7. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. may be served with process by 

serving its registered agent: Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, 

DE 19808. 

8. Defendant Target Corporation is a foreign corporation. 

9. Defendant Target Corporation is registered with and authorized by the Florida 

Department of State to do business in Florida. 

10. Defendant Target Corporation may be served with process by serving its 

registered agent: CT Corporation System, 1200 S. Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL 33324. 

11. This is an action to recover damages in excess of $30,000, exclusive of fees, 

costs, and interest. 

12. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Spectrum Brands, Inc. pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193(1)(a)(1), 

(1)(a)(2), and (1)(a)(6), because the claims stated herein arise out of Defendant Spectrum Brands, 

Inc.: 

a. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business 

or business venture in Florida or having an office or agency 

in Florida; 

b. Committing a tortious act within Florida; or 

c. Causing injury to persons or property within Florida arising 

out of an act or omission committed outside Florida where, at 

or about the time of the injury, either (i) Defendant Spectrum 

Brands, Inc. was engaged in solicitation or service activities 

within Florida, or (ii) products, materials, or things 

processed, serviced, or manufactured by Defendant Spectrum 

Brands, Inc. anywhere were used or consumed in Florida in 

the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use. 

13. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Spectrum Brands, Inc. pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2), because 

Page 2 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 25 of 85
Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc.is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within 

Florida. 

14. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. 

§§ 48.193(1)(a)(1), (1)(a)(2), and (1)(a)(6), because the claims stated herein arise out of 

Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.: 

a. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business 

or business venture in Florida or having an office or agency 

in Florida; 

b. Committing a tortious act within Florida; or 

c. Causing injury to persons or property within Florida arising 

out of an act or omission committed outside Florida where, at 

or about the time of the injury, either (i) Defendant Spectrum 

Brands Holdings, Inc. was engaged in solicitation or service 

activities within Florida, or (ii) products, materials, or things 

processed, serviced, or manufactured by Defendant Spectrum 

Brands Holdings, Inc. anywhere were used or consumed in 

Florida in the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use. 

15. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2), 

because Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is engaged in substantial and not isolated 

activity within Florida. 

16. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Target 

Corporation pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193(1)(a)(1), (1)(a)(2), 

and (1)(a)(6), because the claims stated herein arise out of Defendant Target Corporation: 

a. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business 

or business venture in Florida or having an office or agency 

in Florida; 

b. Committing a tortious act within Florida; or 

Page 3 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 26 of 85
c. Causing injury to persons or property within Florida arising 

out of an act or omission committed outside Florida where, at 

or about the time of the injury, either (i) Defendant Target 

Corporation was engaged in solicitation or service activities 

within Florida, or (ii) products, materials, or things 

processed, serviced, or manufactured by Defendant Target 

Corporation anywhere were used or consumed in Florida in 

the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use. 

17. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Target 

Corporation pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2), because Defendant 

Target Corporation is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within Florida. 

18. Venue is proper in this Court because (i) all Defendants are foreign corporations 

and (ii) all Defendants have agents and representatives in Broward County, Florida. 

FACTS 

19. Defendants Spectrum Brands, Inc. and Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. 

(collectively, "Spectrum Brands") are in the business of and derive substantial revenue from 

designing, manufacturing, producing, importing, distributing, and selling a wide range of 

consumer goods and appliances, including clothing irons. 

20. Defendant Target Corporation ("Target") is in the business of and derives 

substantial revenue from selling a wide range of consumer goods and appliances, including 

clothing irons. 

21. On or about May 12, 2015, Plaintiff purchased a "Black+Decker" model ICRO5X 

clothing iron (the "subject iron") from Target. 

22. Spectrum is responsible for the subject iron's design, manufacture, production, 

importation, distribution, and sale. 

23. On or about August 8,2018, Plaintiff used the subject iron to iron clothing. 

24. After Plaintiff finished ironing, Plaintiff unplugged the subject iron. 

Page 4 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 27 of 85
25. Suddenly, and without Plaintiff pressing the subject iron's cord retractor button, 

the subject iron's cord rapidly and violently retracted into the subject iron's housing. As the cord 

retracted uncontrollably, the cord struck Plaintiff's eye. 

26. Plaintiff was injured as a result. 

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 

27. All conditions precedent have been satisfied or excused. 

COUNT I—STRICT LIABILITY 

(Against Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc.) 

28. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

29. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. is responsible for the subject iron's design, 

manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale. 

30. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

31. The subject iron's defective condition rendered the subject iron unreasonably 

dangerous for its designed, intended, and foreseeable uses. 

32. The subject iron's defective and unreasonably dangerous condition actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Spectrum 

Brands, Inc. for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

Page 5 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 28 of 85
COUNT II—NEGLIGENCE 

(Against Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc.) 

33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs l through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

34. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. is responsible for the subject iron's design, 

manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale. 

35. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

36. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. owed a duty to properly design, manufacture, 

import, distribute, and sell the subject iron so that it was in a safe condition and without defect. 

37. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. owed a duty to adequately test, inspect, and 

assure the quality of the subject iron before placing the subject iron into the stream of commerce. 

38. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. owed a duty to provide adequate warnings, 

instructions, and information with the subject iron. 

39. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. breached the above duties. 

40. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc.'s breaches of the above duties actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Spectrum 

Brands, Inc. for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

Page 6 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 29 of 85
COUNT III—STRICT LIABILITY 

(Against Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.) 

41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

42. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is responsible for the subject iron's 

design, manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale. 

43. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

44. The subject iron's defective condition rendered the subject iron unreasonably 

dangerous for its designed, intended, and foreseeable uses. 

45. The subject iron's defective and unreasonably dangerous condition actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Spectrum 

Brands Holdings, Inc. for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to 

this action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

COUNT IV—NEGLIGENCE 

(Against Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.) 

46. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

47. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is responsible for the subject iron's 

design, manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale. 

48. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

Page 7 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 30 of 85
49. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. owed a duty to properly design, 

manufacture, import, distribute, and sell the subject iron so that it was in a safe condition and 

without defect. 

50. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. owed a duty to adequately test, inspect, 

and assure the quality of the subject iron before placing the subject iron into the stream of 

commerce. 

51. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. owed a duty to provide adequate 

warnings, instructions, and information with the subject iron. 

52. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. breached the above duties. 

53. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.'s breaches of the above duties actually 

and proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Spectrum 

Brands Holdings, Inc. for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to 

this action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

COUNT V—STRICT LIABILITY 

(Against Defendant Target Corporation) 

54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

55. Target sold the subject iron to Plaintiff. 

56. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

Page 8 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 31 of 85
57. The subject iron's defective condition rendered the subject iron unreasonably 

dangerous for its designed, intended, and foreseeable uses. 

58. The subject iron's defective and unreasonably dangerous condition actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Target 

Corporation for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

COUNT VI—NEGLIGENCE 

(Against Defendant Target Corporation) 

59. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

60. Target sold the subject iron to Plaintiff. 

61. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

62. Target owed a duty to sell the subject iron in a condition that was safe and not 

defective. 

63. Target owed a duty to adequately test, inspect, and assure the quality of the subject 

iron before selling the subject iron to Plaintiff and placing the subject iron into the stream of 

commerce. 

64. Target owed a duty to provide adequate warnings, instructions, and information 

with the subject iron. 

65. Target breached the above duties. 

Page 9 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 32 of 85
66. Target's breaches of the above duties actually and proximately caused injury and 

damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Target 

Corporation for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

COUNT VII—BREACH OF IMPLIED 

WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY 

(Against Defendant Target Corporation) 

67. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

68. The subject iron is a good. 

69. Target is a merchant with respect to the subject iron. 

70. Target sold the subject iron to Plaintiff. 

71. The subject iron was in a defective, unmerchantable, unsuitable, unfit, and 

unreasonably dangerous condition at the time the subject iron left Target's possession, custody, 

and control. 

72. By selling the subject iron to Plaintiff, Target impliedly warranted that the subject 

iron was of merchantable quality. 

73. The subject iron was not of merchantable quality for at least the following 

reasons: 

a. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or 

warning; 

Page 10 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 33 of 85
b. The subject iron would not pass without objection in the trade 

under the contract description; 

c. The subject iron is not of fair average quality; 

d. The subject iron is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which 

such a good is used; 

e. The subject iron does not run within the variations permitted of 

even kind, quality, or quantity; 

f. The subject iron was not adequately contained, packaged, or 

labeled; and 

g. The subject iron does not conform to the promises or 

affirmations of fact made by Target. 

74. The subject iron's defective, unmerchantable, unsuitable, unfit, and unreasonably 

dangerous condition does not conform to the merchantable condition impliedly represented by 

Target at the time Plaintiff purchased the subject iron. 

75. As a result, Target breached the implied warranty of merchantability. 

76. Target's breach of the implied warranty of merchantability actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Target 

Corporation for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

Page 11 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 34 of 85
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

Dated: July 27, 2022 Is! Steven E. Nauman 

STEVEN E. NAUMAN, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No.: 106126 

Morgan & Morgan, P.A. 

20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 

Orlando, FL 32801 

Telephone: (407) 244-3962 

Email: snauman@forthepeople.com 

Secondary Email: ccoates@forthepeople.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Page 12 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 35 of 85
Filing # 154271175 E-Filed 07/2$/2022 03:35:27 PM CACE-22-011055 

IN THE CI.RCUIT COURT OF '['DE SEVEN'I'EENTIFI JUDICIAL CYRCIJIT 

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNT'X, FL 

CASE NO.: CACE-22-011055 

ANNETTE SYSEL, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC., SPECTRUIvf 

BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC; and TARGET 

CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

Date —= 22 ?:sM® Z : 

InItlals...-W.— INW/A.... 

. 11 ji . i~._ 

THB STATE OF FLORIDA: 

To all and singular sheriffs of said state: 

YOU ARE HEREBY COMIv1ANDED to serve this Summons and a copy of the Complaint 

or Petition in the above-styled cause upon the Defendant: 

Spectrum Brands 1Holdings, Inc. 

Attn: Corporation Service Company 

251 Little Falls Drive 

Wilmington, DE 19808 

Each Defendant is hereby reqtiired to serve written defenses to said Complaint or Petition 

on Steven E. Nauman, Esquire, Morgan & 1Vimrgan, P.A., 2011~~orth Orange Avenue, Suite 1600, 

Orlando, Florida 32801, Telephone: (407) 420-1414, wi.thin twenty (20) days afrer service of this 

Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service, and to file the original of said written defenses with the 

Clerk of said Court either before service on Plaintiffs attomey or inunediately thereafZer. [f you fail to do so, 

a default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint or Petition. 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 36 of 85
M1li1DR _ 6 _"MA ,KSO ~i17J a 111 ]Mi : ' ' ' _ ~ ~. . ./ VMI - =-; — 

If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to 

participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of 

certain assistance. Please contact the Court Administration, 425 N. ®RANGE 

AVENUE, SUITE 350, ORLANDO, FI., 32801, (407) 836-2000, at least 7 days 

before your scheduled court appearance, or immed.iately upon receiving this 

notification if the time before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; if you are 

hearing or voice impaired, call 711. 

WITNESS mry hand and the seat of this Court on this the day of 

, 2022. 

TTTT. ?9 9.0?2 

Clerk of the Circuit Court 

BRENDA D. 

2 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 37 of 85
IIVIP®ItTA1°1T 

A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is served 

on you to file a written response to the attached co:nplaint with the clerk of this court. A phone call 

will not protect you. Your written response, including the case number given above and the names 

of the parties, must be filed if you want the court to hear your side of the case. If you do not file 

your response on time, you may lose the case, and your wages, money and property may thereafter 

be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want 

to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may call an attomey referral 

service or legal aid office (listed in the phone book). 

If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your written 

response to the court you must also mail or take a copy of your written response to the 

"Plaintiff/Plaintiff s Attomey" named above. 

I1VIP®IZTANTE 

Usted ha sido demandado legahnente. Tiene veinte (20) dias, contados a partir de1 recibo de 

esta notificacion, para contestar la demanda adjunta, por escrito, y presentarla ante este tribunal. 

Una llamada telefonica no lo protegera; si usted desea que el tribunal considere su defensa, debe 

presentar su repuesta por escrito, incluyendo el numero del caso y los numbres de las partes 

interesadas en dicho caso. Si usted no contesta la demanda a tiempo, pudiese perder el caso y podria 

ser despojado de sus ingresos y propiedades, o privado de sus derechos, sin previo aviso del tribunal. 

Existen otros requisitos legales. Si lo desea, puede. usted consultar a un abogado immediatamente. 

Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a una de las oficinas de asistencia legal que aparecen en 

la guia telefonica. 

Si desea responder a la demanda,por su cuenta, al mismo tiempo en que presenta su 

respuesta ante el tribunal, debera usted inviar por correo o entregar una copia de su respuesta a la 

persona denuminada abajo como "Plaintiff/Plaintiffs Attorney." (Demandate o Abogado del 

Demanadante). 

YMP®12TA1VT 

Des poursuites judiciaries ont ete entreprises'contre vous: Vous avez 20 jours co.nsecutifs a 

partir de la date de 1'assignation de cet'te citation pour deposer une response ecrite a la plainte cijointe aupres de ce Tribunal. Un simple coup de telephone est insuffisant pour vous proteger' vous 

etes oblige de deposer votre reponse ecrite, avec mention du numero de dossier ci-dessus et du nom 

des parties nommees ici, si vous souhaitez que le Tribunal entende votre cause. Si vous ne deposez 

pas votre reponse ecrite dans le relai requis, vous risquez de perdre la cause ainsi que votre salaire, 

votre argent, et vos biens peuvent etre saisis par la suite, sans aucun preavis ulterieur du 

3 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 38 of 85
Tribunal. Il y a d'autres obligations juridiques et vous pouvez requerir les services immediats d'un 

avocat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d'avocat, vous pourriez telephoner a un service de reference 

d'avocats ou a un bureau d'assistance juridique (figurant a 1'annuaire de telephones). 

; Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une response ecrite, il vous faudra egalement, en 

, meme temps que cette formalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie au carbone ou une photocopie 

de votre reponse ecrite au "Plaintiff/Plaintiffs Attorney" (Plaignant ou a son avocat) nomme cidessous. 

IVI®1ZGAN & Ii'I®IZGAN, P.A. 

20 NOIITH ®ItANGE AVENUE, SUITE 1600 

®RLAN7D0, FL®itIDA 32801 

.qA 

~ 

~ f 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 39 of 85
' Fi'ling # 154198975 E-Filed 07/27/2022 05:18:13 PM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ANNETTE SYSEL, 

Case No.: 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC., SPECTRUM 

BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC, and TARGET 

CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT 

COIVIES NOW Plaintiff, ANrNETTE SYSEL, to sue Defendants, SPECTRUM 

BRANDS, INC., SPECTRUIVI BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC, and TARGET CORPORATION, 

for the causes of action stated herein. In support thereof, Plaintiff states: 

THE PARTIES, JURI sDICTION & VENUE 

1. Plaintiff is a Florida citizen and resident. 

2. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. is a foreign coi-poration. 

3. Defendant Spectrum Brands; Inc. is registered with and authorized by the Florida 

Department of State to do business in Florida. 

4. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. may be served with process by serving its 

registered agent: Corporation Service Compariy, 1201 Hays Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301. 

5. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is a foreign corporation. 

6. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is not registered with or authorized by 

the Florida Department of State to do business in Florida. 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 40 of 85
7. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. may be served with process by 

serving its registered agent: Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, 

DE 19808. 

8. Defendant Target Corporation is a foreign corporation. 

9. Defendant Target Corporation is registered with and authorized by the Florida 

Department of State to do business in Florida. 

10. Defendant Target Corporation may be served with process by serving its 

registered agent: CT Corporation System, 1200 S. Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL 33324. 

11. This is an action to recover damages in excess of $30,000, exclusive of fees, 

costs, and interest. 

12. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Spectrum Brands, Inc. pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm. Statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193(1)(a)(1), 

(1)(a)(2), and (1)(a)(6), because the claims stated, herein arise out of Defendant Spectrum Brands, 

Inc.. 

a. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business 

or business venture in Florida or having an office or agency 

in Florida; 

b. Committing a tortious act within Florida; or 

C. Causing injury to persons or property within Florida arising 

out of an act or omission committed outside Florida where, at 

or about the time of the, injury,,either (i) Defendant Spectrum 

Brands, Inc. was engaged in solicitation or service activities 

within Florida, or (ii) products, materials, or things 

processed, serviced, or manufactured by Defendant Spectrum 

Brands, Inc. anywhere were used or consumed in Florida in 

the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use. 

13. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Spectrum Brands, Inc. pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2), because 

Page 2 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 41 of 85
Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc.is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within 

Florida. 

14. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. 

§§ 48.193(1)(a)(1), (1)(a)(2), and (1)(a)(6), because the claims stated herein arise out of 

Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.: 

a. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business 

or business venture in Florida or having an office or agency 

in Florida; 

b. Committing a tortious act within Florida; or 

C. Causing injury to persons or property within Florida arising 

out of an act or omission committed outside Florida where, at 

or about the time of the injury, either (i) Defendant Spectrum 

Brands Holdings, Inc. was engaged in solicitation or service 

activities within Florida, or (ii) products, materials, or things 

processed, serviced, or manufactured by Defendant Spectrum 

Brands Holdings, Inc. anywhere were used or consumed in 

Florida in the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use. 

15. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2), 

because Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is engaged in substantial and not isolated 

activity within Florida. 

16. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Target 

Corporation pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193(1)(a)(1), (1)(a)(2), 

and (1)(a)(6), because the claims stated herein arise out of Defendant Target Corporation: 

a. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business 

or business venture in Florida or having an office or agency 

in Florida; 

b. Committing a tortious act within Florida; or 

Page 3 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 42 of 85
C. Causing injury to persons or property within Florida arising 

out of an act or omission committed outside Florida where, at 

or about the time of the injury, either (i) Defendant Target 

Corporation was engaged in solicitation or service activities 

within Florida, or (ii) products, materials, or things 

processed, serviced,. or manufactured by Defendant Target 

Corporation anywhere were used or consumed in Florida in 

the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use. 

17. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Target 

Corporation pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2), because Defendant 

Target Corporation is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within Florida. 

18. Venue is proper in this Court because (i) all Defendants are foreign corporations 

and (ii) all Defendants have agents and representatives in Broward County, Florida. 

FACTS 

19. Defendants Spectrum Brands, Inc. and Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. 

(collectively, "Spectrum Brands") are in the business. of and derive substantial revenue from 

designing, manufacturing, producing, importing, distributing, and selling a wide range of 

consumer goods and appliances, including clothing irons. . 

20. Defendant Target Corporation ("Target") is in the business of and derives 

substantial revenue from selling a wide .range of consumer, goods and appliances, including 

clothing irons. 

21. On or about May 12, 2015, Plaintiff purclaased a"B1ack+Decker" model ICR05X 

clothing iron (the "subject iron") from Target. 

22. Spectrum is responsible for the subject iron's design, manufacture, production, 

importation, distribution, and sale 

23. On or about August 8, 2018, Plaintiff used the subject iron to iron clothing. 

24. After Plaintiff finished ironing, Plaintiff unplugged the subject iron. 

Page 4 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 43 of 85
25. Suddenly, and without Plaintiff pressing the subject iron's cord retractor button, 

the subject iron's cord rapidly and violently retracted into the subject iron's housing. As the cord 

retracted uncontrollably, the cord struck Plaintiff's eye. 

26. Plaintiff was injured as a result. 

CONI)ITIONS PRECEI)ENT 

27. All conditioris precedent have been satisfied or excused. 

COgJNT I—STI2ICT LIABILITI' 

(Against Defendant Spectrnm Ea-ands, Inc.) 

28. Plaintiff re-alleges aiid incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

29. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. is responsible for the subject iron's design, 

manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale. 

30. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or iwarning. 

31. The subject iron's defective condition rendered the subject iron unreasonably 

dangerous for its designed, intended, and foreseeable uses. 

32. The subject iron's defective and unreasonably dangerous condition actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage fo Plaintiff. 

WIIEREI+OI2E, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Spectrum 

Brands, Inc. for all injuries and damages siistained as a resiilt of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

Page 5 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 44 of 85
C®UNT II—NEGLIGENCE 

(Against I)efendant Spectrum Brands, Inc.) 

33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

34. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. is responsible for the subject iron's design, 

manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale. 

35. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

36. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. owed a duty to properly design, manufacture, 

import, distribute, and sell the subject iron so that it was in a safe condition and without defect. 

37. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. owed a duty to adequately test, inspect, and 

assure the quality of the subject iron before placing the subject iron into the stream of commerce. 

38. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. owed a duty to provide adequate warnings, 

instructions, and information with the subject_iron. 

39. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc. breached the above duties. 

40. Defendant Spectrum Brands, Inc.'s breaches of the above duties actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHE gEF®RE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Spectrum 

Brands, Inc. for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, . non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

Page 6 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 45 of 85
COiT1V'T III—ST RICT LIABILITY 

(Against Defendant Spectruxn Brands Holdings, Inc.) 

41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

42. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is responsible for the subject iron's 

design, manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale. 

43. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

44. The subject iron's defective condition rendered the subject iron unreasonably 

dangerous for its designed, intended, and foreseeable uses. 

45. The subject iron's defective and unreasonably dangerous condition actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEII.IEFOItL, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Spectrum 

Brands Holdings, Inc. for all injuries and damages sustairied as a.result of the incident giving rise to 

this action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs,, and interest,• and for anv such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

. . ~,. 

COiJNT W—NEGLIGENCE

(Against Defendant Spectrnpn Brands )Floldings, Inc.) 

46. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

47. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is responsible for the subject iron's 

design, manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale. 

48. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

Page 7 of ] 2 

; , .. 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 46 of 85
. , ` 1 . r;' n i 

, 

. 

49. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. owed a duty to properly design, 

manufacture, import, distribute, and sell the subject iron so that it was in a safe condition and 

without defect. 

50. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. owed a duty to adequately test, inspect, 

and assure the quality of the subjeet iron before placing the subject iron into the stream of 

commerce. 

51. Defendant Spectrtzm Brands Holdings, Inc. owed a duty to provide adequate 

warnings, instructions, and information with the subject iron. 

52. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. breached the above duties. 

53. Defendant Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.'s breaches of the above duties actually 

and proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEI2EF®RE, Plaintiff Annette. Sysel, demands judgment against Defendant Spectrum 

Brands Holdings, Inc. for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to 

this action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages,; non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs,, and. interest, ,and for any such further relief as. the Court deems 

appropriate. 

C®iTNT V—S'TRICT I,><AEYLITY . 

(Agaiaist I)efendant ')<'arget Corporation) 

54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

55. Target sold the subject iron to Plaintiff. 

. :;. 

56. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

Page 8 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 47 of 85
57. The subject iron's defective condition rendered the subject iron unreasonably 

dangerous for its designed, intended, and foreseealile uses. 

58. The subject iron's defective and unreasonably dangerous condition actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WIIEItEFOItE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Target 

Corporation for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

COUNT VI—NEGLIGENCE 

(Against I)efendant 'I'arget eCorporation) 

59. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

60. Target sold the subject iron to Plaintiff. 

61. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning. 

62. Target owed a duty to sell the subject iron in a condition that was safe and not 

defective. 

63. Target owed a duty to adequately test, inspect, and assure the quality of the subject 

iron before selling the subject iron to Plaintiff and placing the subject iron into the stream of 

commerce. 

64. Target owed a duty to provide adequate warnings, instructions, and information 

with the subject iron. 

65. Target breached the above duties. 

Page 9 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 48 of 85
66. Target's breaches of the above duties actually and proximately caused injury and 

damage to Plaintiff. 

W)FIEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Target 

Corporation for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages; non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

COUNT VII—BIaEACIII OF IlliIPlr,IED 

WARRANTY OF lYtEI2CHANTABILITY 

(Against Defendant 7'arget Corporation) 

67. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

68. The subject iron is a good. 

69. Target is a merchant.with respect to the subject iron. 

70. Target sold the subject iron to Plaintiff. 

71. The subject iron was . in a defective, unmerchantable, unsuitable, unfit, and 

unreasonably dangerous condition at the time the subject iron left Target's possession, custody, 

and control. 

72. By selling the subject iron to Plaintiff, Target impliedly warranted that the subject 

iron was of inerchantable quality 

73. The subject iron was not 'of inerchantable quality for at least the following 

reasons: 

a. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or 

warning; 

Page 10 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 49 of 85
b. The subject iron would not pass without objection in the trade 

under the contract description; 

c. The subject iron is not of fair average quality; 

d. The subject iron is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which 

such a good is used; 

e. The subject iron does not run within the variations permitted of 

even kind, quality, or quantity; 

f. The subject iron was not adequately contained, packaged, or 

labeled; and 

g. The subject iron does not conform to the promises or 

affirmations of fact made by Target. 

74. The subject iron's defective, unmerchantable, unsuitable, unfit, and unreasonably 

dangerous condition does not conform to the merchantable condition impliedly represented by 

Target at the time Plaintiff purchased the subject iron. 

75. As a result, Target breached: the implied warranty of inerchantability. 

76. Target's breach of the implied warranty of inerchantability actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff. 

WHEREF®RE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Target 

Corporation for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, rion-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate. 

Page 11. of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 50 of 85
DEMAND )E'O12 JU)E2Y TItIAL 

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

Dated: July 27, 2022 /s/ Steven E. Nauman 

STEVEN E. NAiJMAN, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No.: 106126 

Morgan ~.& 1blorgan, P.A. 

20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 

Orlando, FL 32801 

Telephone: (407) 244-3962 

Email: snauman@forthepeople.com

Secondary Email: ccoates@forthepeople.com

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Page 12 of 12 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 51 of 85
Page 1 of 9

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ANNETTE SYSEL,

Case No: CACE-22-011055

Plaintiff,

v.

EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC, and TARGET 

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, ANNETTE SYSEL, to sue Defendants, EMPOWER 

BRANDS, LLC, and TARGET CORPORATION, for the causes of action stated herein. In 

support thereof, Plaintiff states:

THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. Plaintiff is a Florida citizen and resident.

2. Defendant EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC is a foreign corporation.

3. Defendant EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC is not registered with or authorized by 

the Florida Department of State to do business in Florida.

4. Defendant EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC may be served with process by serving 

its registered agent: Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 

19808.

5. Defendant Target Corporation is a foreign corporation.

6. Defendant Target Corporation is registered with and authorized by the Florida 

Department of State to do business in Florida.

Filing # 157036334 E-Filed 09/08/2022 04:51:39 PM Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 52 of 85
Page 2 of 9

7. Defendant Target Corporation may be served with process by serving its 

registered agent: CT Corporation System, 1200 S. Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL 33324.

8. This is an action to recover damages in excess of $30,000, exclusive of fees, 

costs, and interest.

9. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. 

§§ 48.193(1)(a)(1), (1)(a)(2), and (1)(a)(6), because the claims stated herein arise out of

Defendant EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC:

a. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business 

or business venture in Florida or having an office or agency 

in Florida;

b. Committing a tortious act within Florida; or

c. Causing injury to persons or property within Florida arising 

out of an act or omission committed outside Florida where, at 

or about the time of the injury, either (i) Defendant 

EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC was engaged in solicitation or 

service activities within Florida, or (ii) products, materials, or 

things processed, serviced, or manufactured by Defendant 

EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC anywhere were used or 

consumed in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce, 

trade, or use.

10. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2), 

because Defendant EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC is engaged in substantial and not isolated 

activity within Florida.

11. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Target 

Corporation pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193(1)(a)(1), (1)(a)(2), 

and (1)(a)(6), because the claims stated herein arise out of Defendant Target Corporation:

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 53 of 85
Page 3 of 9

a. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business 

or business venture in Florida or having an office or agency 

in Florida;

b. Committing a tortious act within Florida; or

c. Causing injury to persons or property within Florida arising 

out of an act or omission committed outside Florida where, at 

or about the time of the injury, either (i) Defendant Target 

Corporation was engaged in solicitation or service activities 

within Florida, or (ii) products, materials, or things 

processed, serviced, or manufactured by Defendant Target 

Corporation anywhere were used or consumed in Florida in 

the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use.

12. This Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Target 

Corporation pursuant to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2), because Defendant 

Target Corporation is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within Florida.

13. Venue is proper in this Court because (i) all Defendants are foreign corporations 

and (ii) all Defendants have agents and representatives in Broward County, Florida.

FACTS

14. Defendants EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC (“Empower’) is in the business of and 

derive substantial revenue from designing, manufacturing, producing, importing, distributing, 

and selling a wide range of consumer goods and appliances, including clothing irons.

15. Defendant Target Corporation (“Target”) is in the business of and derives 

substantial revenue from selling a wide range of consumer goods and appliances, including 

clothing irons.

16. On or about May 12, 2015, Plaintiff purchased a “Black+Decker” model ICR05X 

clothing iron (the “subject iron”) from Target.

17. Empower is responsible for the subject iron’s design, manufacture, production, 

importation, distribution, and sale.

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 54 of 85
Page 4 of 9

18. On or about August 8, 2018, Plaintiff used the subject iron to iron clothing.

19. After Plaintiff finished ironing, Plaintiff unplugged the subject iron.

20. Suddenly, and without Plaintiff pressing the subject iron’s cord retractor button, 

the subject iron’s cord rapidly and violently retracted into the subject iron’s housing. As the cord 

retracted uncontrollably, the cord struck Plaintiff’s eye.

21. Plaintiff was injured as a result.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

22. All conditions precedent have been satisfied or excused.

COUNT I—STRICT LIABILITY

(Against Defendant EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC)

23. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein.

24. Defendant EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC is responsible for the subject iron’s 

design, manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale.

25. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning.

26. The subject iron’s defective condition rendered the subject iron unreasonably 

dangerous for its designed, intended, and foreseeable uses.

27. The subject iron’s defective and unreasonably dangerous condition actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant 

EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident 

giving rise to this action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all 

actual damages, consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 55 of 85
Page 5 of 9

anguish, emotional distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as 

the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II—NEGLIGENCE

(Against Defendant EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC)

28. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

29. Defendant EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC is responsible for the subject iron’s 

design, manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale.

30. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning.

31. Defendant EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC owed a duty to properly design, 

manufacture, import, distribute, and sell the subject iron so that it was in a safe condition and 

without defect.

32. Defendant EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC owed a duty to adequately test, inspect, 

and assure the quality of the subject iron before placing the subject iron into the stream of 

commerce.

33. Defendant EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC owed a duty to provide adequate 

warnings, instructions, and information with the subject iron.

34. Defendant EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC breached the above duties.

35. Defendant EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC’s breaches of the above duties actually 

and proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant 

EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident 

giving rise to this action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 56 of 85
Page 6 of 9

actual damages, consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental 

anguish, emotional distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as 

the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT III—STRICT LIABILITY

(Against Defendant Target Corporation)

36. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein.

37. Target sold the subject iron to Plaintiff.

38. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning.

39. The subject iron’s defective condition rendered the subject iron unreasonably 

dangerous for its designed, intended, and foreseeable uses.

40. The subject iron’s defective and unreasonably dangerous condition actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Target 

Corporation for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate.

COUNT IV—NEGLIGENCE

(Against Defendant Target Corporation)

41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein. 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 57 of 85
Page 7 of 9

42. Target sold the subject iron to Plaintiff.

43. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or warning.

44. Target owed a duty to sell the subject iron in a condition that was safe and not 

defective.

45. Target owed a duty to adequately test, inspect, and assure the quality of the subject 

iron before selling the subject iron to Plaintiff and placing the subject iron into the stream of 

commerce.

46. Target owed a duty to provide adequate warnings, instructions, and information 

with the subject iron.

47. Target breached the above duties.

48. Target’s breaches of the above duties actually and proximately caused injury and 

damage to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Target 

Corporation for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate.

COUNT V—BREACH OF IMPLIED

WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(Against Defendant Target Corporation)

49. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 of this Complaint as 

if fully stated herein.

50. The subject iron is a good.

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 58 of 85
Page 8 of 9

51. Target is a merchant with respect to the subject iron.

52. Target sold the subject iron to Plaintiff.

53. The subject iron was in a defective, unmerchantable, unsuitable, unfit, and 

unreasonably dangerous condition at the time the subject iron left Target’s possession, custody, 

and control.

54. By selling the subject iron to Plaintiff, Target impliedly warranted that the subject 

iron was of merchantable quality.

55. The subject iron was not of merchantable quality for at least the following 

reasons:

a. The subject iron is defective in its design, manufacture, and/or

warning;

b. The subject iron would not pass without objection in the trade 

under the contract description;

c. The subject iron is not of fair average quality;

d. The subject iron is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which 

such a good is used;

e. The subject iron does not run within the variations permitted of 

even kind, quality, or quantity;

f. The subject iron was not adequately contained, packaged, or 

labeled; and

g. The subject iron does not conform to the promises or 

affirmations of fact made by Target.

56. The subject iron’s defective, unmerchantable, unsuitable, unfit, and unreasonably 

dangerous condition does not conform to the merchantable condition impliedly represented by 

Target at the time Plaintiff purchased the subject iron.

57. As a result, Target breached the implied warranty of merchantability.

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 59 of 85
Page 9 of 9

58. Target’s breach of the implied warranty of merchantability actually and 

proximately caused injury and damage to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Annette Sysel demands judgment against Defendant Target 

Corporation for all injuries and damages sustained as a result of the incident giving rise to this 

action, whether already incurred or to be incurred in the future, including all actual damages, 

consequential damages, economic damages, non-economic damages, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, pain and suffering, costs, and interest, and for any such further relief as the Court deems 

appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: September 8, 2022 /s/ Mark T. B. Patterson

MARK T. B. PATTERSON, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 1035346

Morgan & Morgan, P.A.

20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600

Orlando, FL 32801

Telephone: (407) 839-4414

Email: mpatterson@forthepeople.com 

Secondary Email: taide@forthepeople.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 60 of 85
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ANNETTE SYSEL, 

Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC and TARGET 

CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: CACE-22-011055 

DEFENDANT EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC’S ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 Defendant Empower Brands, LLC (“Empower Brands”), by and through counsel, 

respectfully submits its Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as follows: 

1. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

2. Empower Brands admits that it is a foreign corporation. 

3. Empower Brands admits that it is not registered with or authorized by the Florida 

Department of State to do business in Florida. 

4. Empower Brands admits that it may be served with process by serving its 

registered agent: Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE, 19808. 

5. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

6. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

Filing # 157662219 E-Filed 09/19/2022 11:42:48 AM Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 61 of 85
2 

are therefore denied. 

7. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

8. Empower Brands admits that Plaintiff seeks to assert an action to recover 

damages in excess of $30,000, exclusive of fees, costs, and interest. Empower Brands denies that 

Plaintiff is entitled to any damages. Except as expressly admitted, Empower Brands denies the 

allegation in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

9. Empower Brands admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Empower 

Brands in this matter. Except as expressly admitted, Empower Brands denies the allegations of 

Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, including subparts a, b, and c. 

10. Empower Brands admits that this Court is authorized to exercise personal 

jurisdiction over Empower Brands in this matter. Except as expressly admitted, Empower 

Brands denies the allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

11. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, including 

subparts a, b, and c, and the same are therefore denied. 

12. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

13. The allegations in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint form a legal 

conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Empower 

Brands denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 62 of 85
3 

14. Empower Brands admits that its business includes designing, importing, 

distributing, and selling consumer appliances, including clothing irons, and that it derives 

revenue from same. Except as expressly admitted Empower Brands denies the allegations of 

Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

15. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

16. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

17. Empower Brands admits that it (or its predecessor company) participated in the 

design of and imports and distributes “Black+Decker” model ICR05X clothing irons. Except as 

expressly admitted Empower Brands denies the allegations of Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint. 

18. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

19. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

20. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 63 of 85
4 

21. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

 22. The allegations contained in Paragraph 22 call for a legal conclusion to which no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Empower Brands denies the 

allegation in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

 23. Empower Brands incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 

22 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

24. Empower Brands admits that it (or its predecessor company) participated in the 

design of and imports and distributes “Black+Decker” model ICR05X clothing irons. Except as 

expressly admitted, Empower Brands denies the allegations of Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint. 

25. Denied. 

26. Empower Brands specifically denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X 

clothing iron was defective. Empower Brands denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 26 

of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

27. Empower Brands specifically denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X 

clothing iron was defective. Empower Brands denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 27 

of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.. 

The Wherefore clause does not contain allegations to which a response is required. To 

the extent a response is required, denied. 

 28. Empower Brands incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 

22 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 64 of 85
5 

29. Empower Brands admits that it (or its predecessor company) participated in the 

design of and imports and distributes “Black+Decker” model ICR05X clothing irons. Except as 

expressly admitted, Empower Brands denies the allegations of Paragraph 29 of Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint. 

30. Denied. 

31. Empower Brands specifically denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X 

clothing iron was defective. The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 31 call for a legal 

conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Empower 

Brands denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

32. The allegations contained in Paragraph 32 call for a legal conclusion to which no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Empower Brands denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

33. The allegations contained in Paragraph 33 call for a legal conclusion to which no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Empower Brands denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 33 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

34. Denied. 

35. Denied. 

The WHEREFORE clause does not contain allegations to which a response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, denied. 

 36. Empower Brands incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 

22 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as though set forth at length herein. 

37. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 37 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 65 of 85
6 

are therefore denied. 

38. Denied. 

39. Empower Brands specifically denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X 

clothing iron was defective. Empower Brands denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 39 

of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

40. Empower Brands specifically denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X 

clothing iron was defective. Empower Brands denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 40 

of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

The WHEREFORE clause does not contain allegations to which a response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, denied. 

41. Empower Brands incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 

22 as if fully set forth herein. 

42. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 42 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

43. Denied. 

44. Empower Brands specifically denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X 

clothing iron was defective. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to 

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 44 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, 

and the same are therefore denied. 

45. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 45 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 66 of 85
7 

46. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 46 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

47. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 47 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

48. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 48 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

The WHEREFORE clause does not contain allegations to which a response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, denied. 

 49. Empower Brands incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 

22 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

50. The allegations contained in Paragraph 50 call for a legal conclusion to which no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Empower Brands denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 50 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

51. The allegations contained in Paragraph 51 call for a legal conclusion to which no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Empower Brands denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 51 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

52. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 52 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

53. Empower Brands denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X clothing iron 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 67 of 85
8 

was defective, unmerchantable, unsuitable, unfit, and unreasonably dangerous condition at the 

time that it left the control of Empower Brands. Empower Brands is without knowledge or 

sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 53 

of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are therefore denied. 

54. The allegations contained in Paragraph 54 call for a legal conclusion to which no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Empower Brands denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 54 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

55. Empower Brands denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X clothing iron 

was defective or not of merchantable quality for any of the enumerated reasons at the time that it 

left the control of Empower Brands. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient 

information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 55 of 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, including subparts a, b, c, d, e, f, and g, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

 56. Empower Brands denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X clothing iron 

was defective, unmerchantable, unsuitable, unfit, or in an unreasonably dangerous condition at 

the time that it left the control of Empower Brands. Empower Brands is without knowledge or 

sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 56 

of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are therefore denied. 

 57. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 57 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

are therefore denied. 

 58. Empower Brands is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 58 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 68 of 85
9 

are therefore denied. 

The Wherefore clause does not contain allegations to which a response is required. To the 

extent a response is required, denied. 

DEFENDANT EMPOWER BRANDS LLC’S 

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES

 Empower Brands submits the following additional affirmative and other defenses. 

Empower Brands expressly reserves the right to assert other defenses if, among other things, the 

facts developed during discovery warrant amendment. 

FIRST DEFENSE 

 Plaintiff’s claims are barred or limited by application of comparative fault principles and 

such comparative fault is sufficient to proportionately reduce or bar Plaintiff’s recovery, as set 

forth in Florida Statute §768.81. 

SECOND DEFENSE 

 Plaintiff’s damages herein were partially or totally caused by others, including nonparties and, therefore, Empower Brands asserts entitlement to the defenses and privileges set 

forth in Florida Statute § 768.81(3), with respect to apportionment of fault principles. 

THIRD DEFENSE 

 Plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred on the ground that one or more persons other than 

Empower Brands, its agents, servants or employees, negligently, intentionally or otherwise 

wrongfully mishandled, misused, misapplied, abused or subjected to abnormal use, the product 

or the component parts of the product in question in this action, which mishandling, misuse, 

misapplication, abuse or abnormal use could not have been reasonably foreseen by Empower 

Brands. 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 69 of 85
10 

FOURTH DEFENSE 

 Plaintiff’s own act(s) of negligence amount to a superseding cause that cuts off any 

causal connection between Empower Brands’ alleged negligence, if any, and Plaintiff’s damages, 

if any. 

FIFTH DEFENSE 

 Empower Brands’ product was altered or modified from the condition in which it was 

sold and prior to Plaintiff’s alleged incident, and thus Empower is not liable for any of Plaintiff’s 

alleged damages. 

SIXTH DEFENSE 

 Plaintiff failed to mitigate her alleged damages, or alternatively, Plaintiff mitigated her 

damages, and therefore, her damages, if any, should be reduced accordingly. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE 

Empower Brands affirmatively states that it is entitled to a set-off from any recovery 

against it to the extent of the value of all benefits and/or settlements paid or payable on behalf of 

Plaintiff and/or from any collateral source pursuant to Florida Statutes. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s claims are barred pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 768.1256 because at the time the 

product at issue in this litigation left the manufacturer’s control, it complied with applicable 

codes, standards, regulations, and specifications established, adopted, promulgated, or approved 

by the United States or by Florida law, or by any agency of the United States or Florida. The 

product was reasonably fit, suitable, and safe for its intended purpose. 

NINTH DEFENSE 

The subject product was designed, manufactured, and assembled in conformity with the 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 70 of 85
11 

then-existing state of the art, and in conformity with all applicable industry standards and 

governmental regulations, and § 768.1257, Florida Statutes, applies. 

TENTH DEFENSE 

Empower Brands affirmatively alleges that it satisfied any duty to warn based on 

manuals, labels, directions and product inserts. 

ELEVENTH DEFENSE 

Empower Brands reserves the right to raise all defenses provided in sections 2, 4, and 6 

of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product Liability, if the Court finds that it is applicable in 

this case. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, Empower Brands prays this Court for the following relief: 

1. That Plaintiff have and recover nothing of Empower Brands; 

2. That Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; 

3. That the costs of this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees, to the extent 

 permitted by law, be taxed against Plaintiff; 

4. For a trial by jury; and 

5. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 

 By: /s/ Samantha Duke 

DANIEL J. GERBER, ESQUIRE 

 F Florida Bar No. 0764957 

E-mail:dgerber@rumberger.com (primary) 

 docketingorlando@rumberger.com and 

 dgerbersecy@rumberger.com (secondary) 

SAMANTHA C. DUKE, ESQUIRE 

Florida Bar No. 0091403 

E-mail:sduke@rumberger.com (primary) 

 docketingorlando@rumberger.com and 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 71 of 85
12 

 sdukesecy@rumberger.com (secondary) 

 RUMBERGERKIRK 

 300 South Orange Avenue 

 Suite 1400 

 Orlando, FL 32801 

 Phone: (407-872-7300) 

 

 and 

 Dixie T. Wells (to be admitted pro hac vice) 

 N.C. State Bar No. 26816 

 ELLIS & WINTERS LLP 

 P.O. Box 2752 

 Greensboro, NC 27402 

 Ph: (336) 217-4193 

 Fax: (336) 217-4198 

 dixie.wells@elliswinters.com 

 

Counsel for Defendant Empower Brands, LLC 

 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 72 of 85
13 

17117315.v1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was served by e-Filing with the 

Clerk of Court and via Florida e-Filing Portal to the following, this 19th day of September, 2022. 

Mark T. B. Patterson, Esq. 

 Morgan & Morgan, P.A. 

 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 

 Orlando, Florida 32801 

 Email: mpatterson@forthepeople.com 

 Secondary Email: taide@forthepeople.com 

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

 /s/ Samantha Duke 

DANIEL J. GERBER, ESQUIRE 

 Florida Bar No. 0764957 

E-mail:dgerber@rumberger.com (primary) 

 docketingorlando@rumberger.com and 

 dgerbersecy@rumberger.com (secondary) 

SAMANTHA C. DUKE, ESQUIRE 

Florida Bar No. 0091403 

E-mail:sduke@rumberger.com (primary) 

 docketingorlando@rumberger.com and 

 sdukesecy@rumberger.com (secondary) 

 RUMBERGERKIRK 

 300 South Orange Avenue 

 Suite 1400 

 Orlando, FL 32801 

 Phone: (407-872-7300) 

 

 and 

 Dixie T. Wells (to be admitted pro hac vice) 

 N.C. State Bar No. 26816 

 ELLIS & WINTERS LLP 

 P.O. Box 2752 

 Greensboro, NC 27402 

 Ph: (336) 217-4193 

 Fax: (336) 217-4198 

 dixie.wells@elliswinters.com 

 

Counsel for Defendant Empower Brands, LLC 

 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 73 of 85
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ANNETTE SYSEL, 

Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

EMPOWER BRANDS, LLC and TARGET 

CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: CACE-22-011055 

DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 Defendant Target Corporation (“Target”) by and through counsel, respectfully submits its 

Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as follows: 

1. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

2. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

3. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

4. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

5. Target admits it is a foreign corporation. 

Filing # 157662219 E-Filed 09/19/2022 11:42:48 AM Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 74 of 85
2 

6. Target admits it is registered with and authorized by the Florida Department of 

State to do business in Florida. 

7. Target admits it may be served with process by serving its registered agent: CT 

Corporation System, 1200 S. Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL 33324. 

8. Target admits that Plaintiff seeks to assert an action to recover damages in excess 

of $30,000, exclusive of fees, costs, and interest. Target denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any 

damages. Except as expressly admitted, Target denies the allegation in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint. 

9. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

10. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

11. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, including subparts a, 

b, and c, and the same are therefore denied. 

12. Target admits that this Court is authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over 

Defendant Target in this matter. Except as expressly admitted, Target denies the allegations of 

Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

13. The allegations in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint form a legal 

conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Target denies 

the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 75 of 85
3 

14. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

15. Target admits that it is in the business of and derives revenue from selling a 

consumer goods and appliances, including clothing irons. 

16. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

17. This allegation is directed to a different defendant and no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, Target denies the allegations of Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint. 

18. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

19. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

20. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

21. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 76 of 85
4 

 22. The allegations contained in Paragraph 22 call for a legal conclusion to which no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Target denies the allegation in 

Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

 23. Target incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 22 of 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

24. This allegation is directed to a different defendant and no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, Target denies the allegations of Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint. 

25. Denied. 

26. Target specifically denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X clothing iron 

was defective. Target denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint. 

27. Target specifically denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X clothing iron 

was defective. Target denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 27 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint. 

The WHEREFORE clause does not contain allegations to which a response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, denied. 

 28. Target incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 22 of 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

29. This allegation is directed to a different defendant and no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, Target denies the allegations of Paragraph 29 of Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint. 

30. Denied. 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 77 of 85
5 

31. This allegation is directed to a different defendant and no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, Target denies the allegations of Paragraph 31 of Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint. 

32. This allegation is directed to a different defendant and no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, Target denies the allegations of Paragraph 32 of Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint. 

33. This allegation is directed to a different defendant and no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, Target denies the allegations of Paragraph 33 of Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint. 

34. This allegation is directed to a different defendant and no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, Target denies the allegations of Paragraph 34 of Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint. 

35. This allegation is directed to a different defendant and no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, Target denies the allegations of Paragraph 35 of Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint. 

The WHEREFORE clause does not contain allegations to which a response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, denied. 

 36. Target incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 22 of 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as though set forth at length herein. 

37. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 37 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

38. Denied. 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 78 of 85
6 

39. Target specifically denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X clothing iron 

was defective. Target denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 39 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint. 

40. Target specifically denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X clothing iron 

was defective. Target denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 40 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint. 

The WHEREFORE clause does not contain allegations to which a response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, denied. 

41. Target incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 22 as if 

fully set forth herein. 

42. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 42 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

43. Denied. 

44. Target specifically denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X clothing iron 

was defective. The allegations in paragraph 44 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint form a legal 

conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Target denies 

the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

45. The allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint call 

for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, 

Target denies the allegations in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

46. The allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint call 

for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 79 of 85
7 

Target denies the allegations in Paragraph 46 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

47. The allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint call 

for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, 

Target denies the allegations in Paragraph 47 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

48. Denied. 

The WHEREFORE clause does not contain allegations to which a response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, denied. 

49. Target incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 22 of 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

50. The allegations contained in Paragraph 50 call for a legal conclusion to which no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Target denies the allegations in 

Paragraph 50 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

51. The allegations contained in Paragraph 51 call for a legal conclusion to which no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Target denies the allegations in 

Paragraph 51 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

52. Target is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 52 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and the same are 

therefore denied. 

53. Target denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X clothing iron was 

defective, unmerchantable, unsuitable, unfit, and unreasonably dangerous condition at the time 

that it left Target’s possession. Target denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 53 of 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

54. The allegations contained in Paragraph 54 call for a legal conclusion to which no 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 80 of 85
8 

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Target denies the allegations in 

Paragraph 54 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

55. Target denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X clothing iron was 

defective or not of merchantable quality for any of the enumerated reasons at the time that it left 

the control of Target. Target denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 55 of Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint, including subparts a, b, c, d, e, f, and g. 

 56. Target denies that the “Black+Decker” model ICR05X clothing iron was 

defective, unmerchantable, unsuitable, unfit, or in an unreasonably dangerous condition at the 

time that it left the control of Target. Target denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 56 of 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

 57. Denied. 

 58. Denied. 

The WHEREFORE clause does not contain allegations to which a response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, denied. . 

DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION’S 

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES 

Target submits the following additional affirmative and other defenses. Target expressly 

reserves the right to assert other defenses if, among other things, the facts developed during 

discovery warrant amendment. 

FIRST DEFENSE 

 Plaintiff’s claims are barred or limited by application of comparative fault principles and 

such comparative fault is sufficient to proportionately reduce or bar Plaintiff’s recovery, as set 

forth in Florida Statute §768.81. 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 81 of 85
9 

SECOND DEFENSE 

 Plaintiff’s damages herein were partially or totally caused by others, including nonparties and, therefore, Target asserts entitlement to the defenses and privileges set forth in 

Florida Statute § 768.81(3), with respect to apportionment of fault principles. 

THIRD DEFENSE 

 Plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred on the ground that one or more persons other than 

Target, its agents, servants or employees, negligently, intentionally or otherwise wrongfully 

mishandled, misused, misapplied, abused or subjected to abnormal use, the product or the 

component parts of the product in question in this action, which mishandling, misuse, 

misapplication, abuse or abnormal use could not have been reasonably foreseen by Target. 

FOURTH DEFENSE 

 Plaintiff’s own act(s) of negligence amount to a superseding cause that cuts off any 

causal connection between Target’s alleged negligence, if any, and Plaintiff’s damages, if any. 

FIFTH DEFENSE 

 Target’s product was altered or modified from the condition in which it was sold and 

prior to Plaintiff’s alleged incident, and thus Target is not liable for any of Plaintiff’s alleged 

damages. 

SIXTH DEFENSE 

 Plaintiff failed to mitigate her alleged damages, or alternatively, Plaintiff mitigated her 

damages, and therefore, her damages, if any, should be reduced accordingly. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE 

Target affirmatively states that it is entitled to a set-off from any recovery against it to the 

extent of the value of all benefits and/or settlements paid or payable on behalf of Plaintiff and/or 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 82 of 85
10 

from any collateral source pursuant to Florida Statutes. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s claims are barred pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 768.1256 because at the time the 

product at issue in this litigation left the manufacturer’s control, it complied with applicable 

codes, standards, regulations, and specifications established, adopted, promulgated, or approved 

by the United States or by Florida law, or by any agency of the United States or Florida. The 

product was reasonably fit, suitable, and safe for its intended purpose. 

NINTH DEFENSE 

The subject product was designed, manufactured, and assembled in conformity with the 

then-existing state of the art, and in conformity with all applicable industry standards and 

governmental regulations, and § 768.1257, Florida Statutes, applies. 

TENTH DEFENSE 

Target affirmatively alleges that it satisfied any duty to warn based on manuals, labels, 

directions and product inserts. 

ELEVENTH DEFENSE 

Target reserves the right to raise all defenses provided in sections 2, 4, and 6 of the 

Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product Liability, if the Court finds that it is applicable in this case. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, Target prays this Court for the following relief: 

1. That Plaintiff have and recover nothing of Target; 

2. That Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; 

3. That the costs of this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees, to the extent 

 permitted by law, be taxed against Plaintiff; 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 83 of 85
11 

4. For a trial by jury; and 

5. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 

 By: /s/ Samantha Duke 

 DANIEL J. GERBER, ESQUIRE 

 Florida Bar No. 0764957 

 E-mail: dgerber@rumberger.com (primary) 

 docketingorlando@rumberger.com and 

 dgerbersecy@rumberger.com (secondary) 

 SAMANTHA C. DUKE, ESQUIRE 

 Florida Bar No. 0091403 

 E-mail: sduke@rumberger.com (primary) 

 docketingorlando@rumberger.com and 

 sdukesecy@rumberger.com (secondary) 

 RUMBERGERKIRK 

 300 South Orange Avenue 

 Suite 1400 

 Orlando, FL 32801 

 Phone: (407-872-7300) 

 

 and 

 Dixie T. Wells (to be admitted pro hac vice) 

 N.C. State Bar No. 26816 

 ELLIS & WINTERS LLP 

 P.O. Box 2752 

 Greensboro, NC 27402 

 Ph: (336) 217-4193 

 Fax: (336) 217-4198 

 dixie.wells@elliswinters.com 

 

Counsel for Target Corporation 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 84 of 85
12 

17117320.v1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was served by e-Filing with the 

Clerk of Court and via Florida e-Filing Portal to the following, this 19th day of September, 2022. 

 Mark T. B. Patterson, Esq. 

 Morgan & Morgan, P.A. 

 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 

 Orlando, Florida 32801 

 Email: mpatterson@forthepeople.com 

 Secondary Email: taide@forthepeople.com 

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

By: /s/ Samantha Duke 

DANIEL J. GERBER, ESQUIRE 

 Florida Bar No. 0764957 

E-mail:dgerber@rumberger.com (primary) 

 docketingorlando@rumberger.com and 

 dgerbersecy@rumberger.com (secondary) 

SAMANTHA C. DUKE, ESQUIRE 

Florida Bar No. 0091403 

E-mail:sduke@rumberger.com (primary) 

 docketingorlando@rumberger.com and 

 sdukesecy@rumberger.com (secondary) 

 RUMBERGERKIRK 

 300 South Orange Avenue 

 Suite 1400 

 Orlando, FL 32801 

 Phone: (407-872-7300) 

 

 and 

 Dixie T. Wells (to be admitted pro hac vice) 

 N.C. State Bar No. 26816 

 ELLIS & WINTERS LLP 

 P.O. Box 2752 

 Greensboro, NC 27402 

 Ph: (336) 217-4193 

 Fax: (336) 217-4198 

 dixie.wells@elliswinters.com 

 

Counsel for Defendant Target Corporation 

Case 0:22-cv-62385-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2022 Page 85 of 85