IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MAACO ENTERPRISES, INC. )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 05-1187

)

RICHARD GREIG and ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MERLE I. GREIG )

ANSWER

Defendants, Richard and Merle I. Greig (referred to collectively as “Greig”), by and 

through their attorneys, hereby answer the complaint of MAACO Enterprises, Inc. ( “MAACO”), 

and in support thereof aver as follows:

1. Admitted.

2. Admitted.

3. Denied.

4. Denied.

5. Denied.

6. Admitted in part; denied in part. Greig admits that MAACO is engaged in business 

as a franchisor under the name MAACO Auto Painting & Bodyworks Centers. The remaining 

allegations set forth in paragraph 6 are denied.

7. Admitted in part; denied in part. Greig admits that MAACO owns the mark and 

related logo as alleged and that it is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 

The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 7 are denied.

8. Greig is without sufficient knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth

Case 2:05-cv-01187-CMR Document 5 Filed 05/02/05 Page 1 of 8
2

or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 8, and they are therefore denied.

9. Admitted in part; denied in part. Paragraph 9 is admitted as to the Greig franchise 

agreement but otherwise denied.

10. Admitted.

11. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that that the franchise agreement 

provides for the payment of royalties, reasonable advertising contribution, and for ordered paint 

and supplies. The remainder of paragraph 11 is denied.

12. Denied.

13. Denied.

14. Denied.

15. Denied.

16. Admitted in part; denied in part. Greig admits that Exhibit B was delivered to them 

in December 2004 but denies that they owe franchisee fees, advertising contributions, or monies 

for paint/supplies as claimed by MAACO in Paragraph 16.

17. Admitted in part; denied in part. Greig admits that Exhibit C was received but 

otherwise denies the allegations in paragraph 17.

18. Admitted in part; denied in part. Greig admits that on February 2, 2005, MAACO 

was advised that the facility operated at 1233 Burlington, N. Kansas City, Missouri for over 29 

years would no longer be operated as a MAACO. The remainder of paragraph 18 is denied.

19. Admitted in part; denied in part. Greig admits that they received Exhibit D but 

otherwise denies the allegations in paragraph 19.

20. Denied.

21. Admitted in part; denied in part. Greig admits that Danco LLC, a Missouri limited 

Case 2:05-cv-01187-CMR Document 5 Filed 05/02/05 Page 2 of 8
3

liability company wholly owned by their son, with the knowledge of MAACO, operated the 

facility located at 1233 Burlington, North Kansas City, Missouri from 2001 through February 3, 

2005. Since that time Danco LLC has operated a non MAACO business on the premises of New 

Century without the use of MAACO’s proprietary marks. The remainder of the allegations in 

paragraph 21 are denied.

22. Denied.

COUNT I

23. Greig incorporates by reference their answers and denials to the preceding 

paragraphs as if set forth herein at length.

24. Denied.

25. Denied.

26. Denied.

27. Denied.

28. Denied.

COUNT II

29. Greig incorporates by reference their answers and denials to the preceding 

paragraphs as if set forth herein at length.

30. Denied.

31. Denied.

32. Denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Greig was 

obligated to provide reports to MAACO as alleged in paragraph 32.

Case 2:05-cv-01187-CMR Document 5 Filed 05/02/05 Page 3 of 8
4

COUNT III

33. Greig incorporates by reference their answers and denials to the preceding 

paragraphs as if set forth herein at length.

34. Denied.

35. Denied.

36. Denied.

COUNT IV

37. Greig incorporates by reference their answers and denials to the preceding 

paragraphs as if set forth herein at length.

38. Admitted in part; denied in part. Greig admits that an actual controversy exists 

concerning whether the franchise agreement was breached by the parties, but denies that the 

Declaratory Judgment Act is the appropriate basis for such action as referred to in Paragraph 38. 

39. Denied.

40. Denied.

WHEREFORE, Defendants Richard and Merle Greig respectfully request that Plaintiff’s 

complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants 

together with costs and counsel fees.

Case 2:05-cv-01187-CMR Document 5 Filed 05/02/05 Page 4 of 8
5

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

MAACO’s complaint should be dismissed because MAACO is obligated to pursue its 

claims by way of arbitration.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claims because the amount 

in controversy does not exceed $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

MAACO is estopped for seeking injunctive relief against Greig since it has known since 

2002 that, because of health, Richard Greig has been retired from the business and further for the 

reason that the actual operation of the business is Danco LLC, which is wholly owned by 

Defendants’ son.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

MAACO is estopped from seeking affirmative injunctive relief concerning the 

telephone number or other matters since MAACO has itself breached the franchise agreement by 

failing to meet its franchisor obligations to support the franchise by its diversion of commercial 

business from the Greig franchise location.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

To the extent that MAACO claims franchisee fees accruing prior to June 11, 2001,

Case 2:05-cv-01187-CMR Document 5 Filed 05/02/05 Page 5 of 8
6

such claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction and release.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

MAACO’s claims for royalties are barred by its breach of the franchise agreement

through failing to provide competent franchisee support and by wrongfully diverting DHL business 

to other MAACO franchisees.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

MAACO’s claims for advertising contributions are barred by its breach of its fiduciary 

duty and contract obligations to provide valuable and effective advertising for the benefit of 

MAACO franchisees and by its overcharging Greig for ineffective and poorly placed advertising.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

MAACO’s claims for paint and supplies are barred by damages sustained

concerning the supplying of a improper paint chip to be used in the painting a commercial vehicles 

for DHL.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Greig is entitled to set-off against the claims of MAACO for damages sustained

by MAACO’s breach of the franchise agreement described in this answer and by allowing other 

MAACO franchisees to hire North Kansas City employees.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

MAACO is estopped from asserting damage claims against Greig since it has had

actual knowledge since 2001 that Greig is not running the MAACO franchise and that obligations, 

if any, are those of Danco LLC, not Greig.

Case 2:05-cv-01187-CMR Document 5 Filed 05/02/05 Page 6 of 8
7

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

MAACO has a duty to mitigate its damages, if any, and has failed to do so.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

MAACO’s is estopped for asserting a claim for future lost profits by reason of its

breach of fiduciary duty, its breach of the franchise agreement, and its actual knowledge that 

Richard Greig retired from the business in 2001.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

MAACO’s claims are barred by laches.

May 2, 2005 Respectfully submitted,

DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

_____________/s/_______________

Jason P. Gosselin

18th &Cherry Streets

One Logan Square

Philadelphia, PA 19103

PH: 215-988-3371

Fax: 215-988-2757

Edward A. McConwell

McCONWELL LAW OFFICES

5925 Beverly Avenue

Mission, Kansas 66202

Phone: 913-262-0605 

Fax: 913-262-0652

For Defendants Richard Greig 

And Merle I. Greig

Case 2:05-cv-01187-CMR Document 5 Filed 05/02/05 Page 7 of 8
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MAACO ENTERPRISES, INC. )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 05-1187

)

RICHARD GREIG and )

MERLE I. GREIG )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jason P. Gosselin, do hereby certify that on this date a copy of Defendants’ ANSWER

has been filed electronically and is available for downloading and viewing from the ECF system.

Dated: May 2, 2005 /s/

Jason P. Gosselin

Case 2:05-cv-01187-CMR Document 5 Filed 05/02/05 Page 8 of 8