IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JAYME LAURENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

TROY DILTZ, et al., 

Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v.

NAPHCARE, INC.,

Third-Party Defendant.

: 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-343

Judge Rice

ANSWER TO THIRD-PARTY 

COMPLAINT, OF NAPHCARE, INC.

(JURY DEMAND ENDORSED 

HEREON)

Now comes the Third-Party Defendant, NaphCare, Inc., by and through the undersigned 

counsel, and for its Answer to the Third-Party Complaint of Montgomery County, Ohio, the 

Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, and Montgomery County Sheriff Phil Plummer,

(Doc. 14), states as follows:

ANSWER TO THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

1. Third-Party Defendant admits that Plaintiff’s pleadings speak for themselves. 

Third-Party Defendant otherwise denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of The ThirdParty Complaint.

2. Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of The 

Third-Party Complaint.

Case: 3:17-cv-00343-WHR-SLO Doc #: 44 Filed: 12/03/18 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 563
2

3. Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of The 

Third-Party Complaint.

4. Third-Party Defendant admits that Third-Party Plaintiffs’ pleadings speak for 

themselves. Third-Party Defendant otherwise denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4

of The Third-Party Complaint.

5. Upon information and belief, Third-Party Defendant admits the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 5 of The Third-Party Complaint. 

6. Third-Party Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of The 

Third-Party Complaint. 

7. Third-Party Defendant admits that a contract exists between itself and the Board 

of Commissioners, which speaks for itself. Third-Party Defendant otherwise denies the 

allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of The Third-Party Complaint.

8. Third-Party Defendant admits that a contract exists between itself and the Board 

of Commissioners, which speaks for itself. Third-Party Defendant otherwise denies the 

allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of The Third-Party Complaint.

9. Third-Party Defendant denies for want of knowledge the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 9 of The Third-Party Complaint.

10. Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of The 

Third-Party Complaint.

11. Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of The 

Third-Party Complaint.

Case: 3:17-cv-00343-WHR-SLO Doc #: 44 Filed: 12/03/18 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: 564
3

12. Third-Party Defendant admits that a contract exists between itself and the Board 

of Commissioners, which speaks for itself. Third-Party Defendant otherwise denies the 

allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of The Third-Party Complaint. 

COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT

13. Third-Party Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully 

rewritten herein. 

14. Third-Party Defendant admits that a contract exists between itself and the Board 

of Commissioners, which speaks for itself. Third-Party Defendant otherwise denies the 

allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of The Third-Party Complaint.

15. Third-Party Defendant admits that a contract exists between itself and the Board 

of Commissioners, which speaks for itself. Third-Party Defendant otherwise denies the 

allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of The Third-Party Complaint.

16. Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of The 

Third-Party Complaint.

17. Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of The 

Third-Party Complaint. 

18. Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of The 

Third-Party Complaint.

COUNT II – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

19. Third-Party Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00343-WHR-SLO Doc #: 44 Filed: 12/03/18 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: 565
4

20. Third-Party Defendant admits that a contract exists between itself and the Board 

of Commissioners, which speaks for itself. Third-Party Defendant otherwise denies the 

allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of The Third-Party Complaint.

21. Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of The 

Third-Party Complaint.

22. Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of The 

Third-Party Complaint and the “Wherefore” Paragraph of the Third-Party Complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Third-Party Defendant denies all allegations and claims asserted in The ThirdParty Complaint which are not specifically admitted herein. 

2. The Third-Party Complaint fails to state a claim against Third-Party Defendant

upon which relief can be granted. 

3. The Third-Party Complaint fails to comply with Ohio Civ. R. 10(D). 

4. Third-Party Plaintiffs have failed to join all necessary and indispensable parties 

required to be joined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

5. Third-Party Plaintiffs’ (or their agents/employees’) own negligence and/or 

intentional acts and/or breach of duty solely caused or proximately contributed to any injuries 

and/or damages allegedly sustained by Third-Party Plaintiffs. 

6. Plaintiff’s decedent’s death was caused by an Act of God. 

7. Plaintiff’s decedent’s death was caused by his own comparative negligence 

and/or assumption of risk. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00343-WHR-SLO Doc #: 44 Filed: 12/03/18 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: 566
5

8. Any injuries or damages allegedly sustained by Third-Party Plaintiffs were 

proximately caused by acts and/or omissions of third persons over whom Third-Party 

Defendant had no right or authority to control and for whom Third-Party Defendant is not 

liable. 

9. Third-Party Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any exist, were not directly, 

proximately, or actually caused by the allegedly tortious or unlawful conduct of Third-Party 

Defendant or its agents or employees. 

10. Third-Party Plaintiffs’ claims are barred due to an intervening and superseding 

cause. 

11. There has been an insufficiency of process and/or insufficiency of service of 

process upon Third-Party Defendant. Third-Party Defendant is entering a defense as to protect 

the answer date. Therefore, no defenses as to improper service or process are waived herein. 

12. This Court may lack personal or subject matter jurisdiction. 

13. Third-Party Plaintiffs may not have standing, capacity to sue and/or may not be 

the real party in interest. 

14. Third-Party Defendant are entitled to absolute and/or qualified immunity under 

state and/or federal law from any and all of Third-Party Plaintiffs’ claims. 

15. Third-Party Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred by the doctrines of laches, waiver, 

res judicata, and/or estoppel. 

16. Any claimed actions by Third-Party Defendant or claimed inactions were 

protected by an absolute or qualified privilege. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00343-WHR-SLO Doc #: 44 Filed: 12/03/18 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: 567
6

17. Third-Party Defendant did not perform any alleged wrongful act(s) in breach of 

any contract, negligently, knowingly, purposefully, with malicious purpose, in bad faith, 

intentionally, recklessly, willfully, or wantonly. 

18. The allegations contained in The Third-Party Complaint do not invoke 42 USC §

1983.

19. The individually named Third-Party Defendant’s employees/agents appropriately 

treated the Plaintiff’s decedent within the utmost consideration and care in compliance with all 

state and federal law.

20. Third-Party Defendant is not a state or federal actor.

21. Third-Party Defendant is immune from liability. 

22. The decedent was a pre-trial detainee.

23. Third-Party Defendant’s employees or agents did not act with deliberate 

indifference to a known serious medical need of the decedent.

24. Defendant NaphCare, Inc. did not create a policy, custom or procedure that led 

to any constitutional violation.

25. NaphCare, Inc. is not subject to vicarious liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 

26. Third-Party Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred by the applicable statute(s) of 

limitations and/or barred by the doctrine of laches. 

27. Third-Party Plaintiffs’ alleged damages may be subject to a statutory cap.

28. Third-Party Defendant reserves the right to seek a set-off and/or to apportion 

fault to one or more other persons/entities pursuant to Ohio law. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00343-WHR-SLO Doc #: 44 Filed: 12/03/18 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: 568
7

29. The Third-Party Defendant did not cause Third-Party Plaintiffs or Plaintiff’s

decedent any injury. 

30. Third-Party Defendant’s action(s) or inaction(s) did not arise to the level of 

deliberate indifference.

31. Third-Party Plaintiffs or their employees/agents breached the contract that exists 

between Third-Party Defendant and the Board of Commissioners.

32. By wrongfully accusing Third-Party Defendant of breach of its contract with the 

Board of Commissioners, Third-Party Plaintiffs have breached and anticipatorily repudiated the 

contract with Third-Party Defendant.

33. One or more of the Third-Party Plaintiffs is an unintended third-party beneficiary 

of Third-Party Defendant’s contract with the Board of Commissioners, to the extent that any of 

these parties is a third-party beneficiary at all.

34. Third-Party Defendant hereby gives notice that it intends to rely upon and utilize 

any other affirmative defenses which become apparent or available during the course of 

discovery and hereby reserve the right to amend their answer to assert such defense(s). 

WHEREFORE, having fully answered The Third-Party Complaint, Defendant, NaphCare, 

Inc., respectfully requests that The Third-Party Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, that 

judgment be entered in Third-Party Defendant’s favor and that Defendant recover all costs and 

attorney’s fees from Third-Party Plaintiffs.

Case: 3:17-cv-00343-WHR-SLO Doc #: 44 Filed: 12/03/18 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: 569
8

Respectfully submitted,

REMINGER CO., L.P.A.

s/ Robert W. Hojnoski

Robert W. Hojnoski (0070062)

Carrie Masters Starts (0083922)

Nathan A. Lennon (0091743)

525 Vine St., Suite 1700

Cincinnati, OH 45202; Tel: (513) 721-1311

Fax: (513) 721-2553

Email: rhojnoski@reminger.com

cstarts@reminger.com

nlennon@reminger.com

Counsel for Third-Party Defendant, Naphcare, Inc.

JURY DEMAND

Third-Party Defendnant, Naphcare, Inc., hereby demands a jury on all issues so triable. 

s/ Robert W. Hojnoski

Robert W. Hojnoski (0070062)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing has been electronically filed this 3rd day of 

December, 2018 through the Court’s CM/ECF system. Notice of filing will be automatically sent 

to all counsel (and their designees) who have entered their appearance of record and who are 

registered with this Court’s CM/ECF system. Such notice constitutes service by rule. 

s/ Robert W. Hojnoski

Robert W. Hojnoski

Case: 3:17-cv-00343-WHR-SLO Doc #: 44 Filed: 12/03/18 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: 570