IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRCIT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

INVESTORSHUB.COM, INC., 

a Florida corporation, 

MATTHEW BROWN, 

an individual, and 

ROBERT ZUMBRUNNEN, 

an individual, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. Case No.: 4:11cv9-RH/WS 

MINA MAR GROUP, INC., 

a foreign corporation, 

MINA MAR GROUP INC. (OF THE USA), 

n/k/a, EMRY CAPITAL GROUP, INC., 

a foreign corporation, and 

MIRO ZECEVIC, 

an individual, 

 Defendants. 

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

 Defendants, MINA MAR GROUP, INC., a foreign corporation, MINA MAR GROUP 

INC. (OF THE USA), n/k/a, EMRY CAPITAL GROUP, INC., a foreign corporation, and MIRO 

ZECEVIC, an individual, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby file their Answer and 

Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and state: 

ANSWER

 1. Denied that Defendants are engaged in libel tourism. Admitted that the 

Defendants brought claims in Canada against the Plaintiffs and others. 

 2. Admitted. 

Case 4:11-cv-00009-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 01/27/11 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5 

 3. Without knowledge. 

 4. Without knowledge. 

 5. Admitted that Plaintiff iHub hosts an Internet website. Otherwise, without 

knowledge and therefore denied. 

 6. Admitted. 

 7. Admitted. 

 8. Admitted. 

 9. Admitted only that the Plaintiffs seek such relief. 

 10. Admitted only that the Plaintiffs seek such relief. 

 11. Without knowledge. 

 12. Admitted that the Defendants recorded a cost judgment in this district. Admitted 

that Defendants sued third parties, but not the Plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court in and for Leon 

County, Florida. Otherwise, denied. 

 13. Admitted with respect to any foreign defamation judgment. 

 14. Admitted. 

 15. Without knowledge. 

 16. Without knowledge. 

 17. Without knowledge. 

18. Admitted that such an action was brought in Canada. Without specific knowledge 

as to whether iHub, Brown or Zumbrunnen posted any of the defamatory statements. 

 19. Without knowledge as to the whether the Plaintiffs were subject to the personal 

jurisdiction of the Canadian Court. The Plaintiffs, who were defendants in that action, did 

engage counsel who negotiated a resolution of the action in Canada with the Defendants. 

Case 4:11-cv-00009-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 01/27/11 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5 

 20. Admitted that a final judgment was entered. 

 21. Admitted with respect to the Costs Order. 

 22. The allegation is ambiguous and therefore denied. 

 23. The allegation is ambiguous and therefore denied. 

 24. Without knowledge. 

 25. Without knowledge. 

 26. Without knowledge. 

 27. Denied with respect to the Costs Order. 

 28. Denied. 

 29. Denied, because no effort has been made to enforce the judgment. Only the Costs 

Order has been filed and the Plaintiffs have agreed to pay the Costs Order. 

 30. Denied. 

 31. Denied. 

 32. Without knowledge. 

 33. Admitted only that they seek such a declaration. 

COUNT I

 34. The allegations in the referenced paragraphs are admitted or denied as set forth 

herein. 

 35. Denied. 

 36. Admitted. 

 37. Denied that the foreign judgment was filed. Admitted that the costs order was 

filed. 

38. Without knowledge. 

Case 4:11-cv-00009-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 01/27/11 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5 

 39. Without knowledge. 

 40. Generally without knowledge, but denied to the extent that a Plaintiff filed 

affidavits and negotiated a resolution with defense counsel in Canada. 

 41. Without knowledge. 

 42. Admitted that Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief. 

 Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought. 

COUNT II

 43. The allegations in the referenced paragraphs are admitted or denied as set forth 

herein. 

 44. Denied. 

 45. Admitted. 

 46. Denied that the foreign judgment was filed. Admitted that the costs order was 

filed. 

 47. Without knowledge. 

 48. Without knowledge. 

 49. Generally without knowledge, but denied to the extent that a Plaintiff filed 

affidavits and negotiated a resolution with defense counsel in Canada. 

 50. Without knowledge. 

 51. Admitted that Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief. 

 Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought. 

Case 4:11-cv-00009-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 01/27/11 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

 1. Plaintiffs are estopped from recovering by virtue of a negotiated resolution of the 

Canadian case. 

 2. Plaintiff has waived any right to such a declaration by virtue of a negotiated 

resolution of the Canadian case. 

 3. The defense of accord and satisfaction applies to the claims of the Plaintiffs, given 

the negotiated resolution of the Canadian case. 

 4. The Canadian case has been settled by a negotiated resolution. 

 Respectfully submitted this 27th day of January, 2011. 

 MESSER, CAPARELLO & SELF, P.A. 

 s\Thomas M. Findley .

 THOMAS M. FINDLEY 

 Florida Bar Number: 0797855 

 P.O. Box 15579 

 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 

 Telephone: (850) 222-0720 

 Facsimile: (850) 224-4359 

 Email: tfindley@lawfla.com

 Attorney for Defendants 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been delivered by 

U.S. Mail & Electronic Transmission to Deanna K. Shullman, Esq., Thomas & Locicero, PL, 

8461 Lake Worth Rd., Suite 242, Lake Worth, FL 33467, dshullman@tlolawfirm.com and Paul 

R. McAdoo, Esq., Thomas & Locicero, PL, 400 North Ashley Dr., Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 

33602, pmcadoo@tlolawfirm.com, on this 27th day of January, 2011. 

 

 s\Thomas M. Findley .

 Thomas M. Findley 

 

Case 4:11-cv-00009-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 01/27/11 Page 5 of 5