14180.06229HBM

MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,

COLEMAN & GOGGIN

425 EAGLE ROCK AVENUE, SUITE 302

ROSELAND, NJ 07068

(973) 618-4100

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS – WEST CORPORATION AND JANETTE KAY 

NELSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

** ELECTRONICALLY FILED **

RICHARD M. ZELMA, 

Plaintiff

v.

MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., 

d/b/a MEDCO; VAROLII, INC.; 

WEST CORPORATION, d/b/a WEST 

BUSINESS SERVICES INC. and 

JANETTE KAY NELSON and JOHN 

DOES' (1-10) and ABC 

CORPORATIONS' (1-10); each 

acting individually, in 

concert, or as a group,

Defendants

Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-03465-

FSH-PS

ANSWER 

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS 

WEST CORPORATION AND JANETTE KAY 

NELSON

Defendants, West Corporation and Janette Kay Nelson, by way 

of Answer to the Complaint, state: 

1. The answering defendants are without sufficient 

information to admit or deny the allegation that the plaintiff 

Case 2:11-cv-03465-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 07/06/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 160
resides at 940 Blanch Avenue, Norwood, New Jersey and as such, 

the plaintiff is left to his proofs.

2. This paragraph contains a list of statute, which the 

plaintiff claims were violated by the defendants. The answering 

defendants deny they violated any of the statutes listed in this 

paragraph.

3. The answering defendants are without sufficient 

information to admit or deny this allegation and the plaintiff 

is left to his proofs.

4. The answering defendants are without sufficient 

information to admit or deny this allegation and the plaintiff 

is left to his proofs.

5. The answering defendants are without sufficient 

information to admit or deny this allegation and the plaintiff 

is left to his proofs.

6. The answering defendants are without sufficient 

information to admit or deny this allegation and the plaintiff 

is left to his proofs.

7. It is denied that West Corporation is a telemarketing 

entity. It is admitted that West Corporation has offices at 

11808 Miracle Hills Drive, Omaha, Nebraska. It is denied West 

Corporation and Janette Kay Nelson were properly served. 

8. It is admitted that Janette Kay Nelson is a vice 

president and counsel at West. It is denied that "Nelson is the 

Case 2:11-cv-03465-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 07/06/11 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 161
decision maker and driving force behind the unlawful calls 

initiated from her organization." It is denied that any calls 

were unlawful. It is admitted that Ms. Nelson has an office at 

11808 Miracle Hills Drive, Omaha, Nebraska. 

9. This paragraph identifies fictitious parties, and as 

such, it is neither admitted nor denied. 

10. It is denied that there were any effects which took 

place in Bergen County. It is denied that the Superior Court of 

New Jersey has jurisdiction. 

11. It is denied that the answering defendants harassed, 

alarmed or annoyed the plaintiff or any member of his household, 

for financial gain or for any other reason. 

12. Denied. 

13. It is admitted that the plaintiff obtained pharmacy 

medication through Medco's mail order pharmacy. The other 

allegations in this paragraph are denied.

14. Denied.

15. This is a legal conclusion, requiring no response.

16. This is a legal conclusion, requiring no response.

17. This allegation is not directed to the answering 

defendants and as such, it is neither admitted nor denied. 

18. To the extent the plaintiff intends that the 

allegation in this paragraph should apply to the answering 

defendants, the allegation is denied. 

Case 2:11-cv-03465-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 07/06/11 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 162
19. To the extent the plaintiff intends that the 

allegation in this paragraph should apply to the answering 

defendants, the allegation is denied.

20. To the extent the plaintiff intends that the 

allegation in this paragraph should apply to the answering 

defendants, the allegation is denied.

21. To the extent the plaintiff intends that the 

allegation in this paragraph should apply to the answering 

defendants, the allegation is denied.

22. This allegation is not directed to the answering 

defendants, and as such, it is neither admitted nor denied.

23. To the extent the plaintiff intends that the 

allegation in this paragraph should apply to the answering 

defendants, the allegation is denied. 

24. To the extent the plaintiff intends that the 

allegation in this paragraph should apply to the answering 

defendants, the allegation is denied.

25. To the extent the plaintiff intends that the 

allegation in this paragraph should apply to the answering 

defendants, the allegation is denied.

26. This allegation is not directed to the answering 

defendants, and as such, it is neither admitted nor denied.

27. This allegation is not directed to the answering 

defendants, and as such, it is neither admitted nor denied.

Case 2:11-cv-03465-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 07/06/11 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 163
28. This allegation is not directed to the answering 

defendants, and as such, it is neither admitted nor denied.

29. This allegation is not directed to the answering 

defendants, and as such, it is neither admitted nor denied.

30. This allegation is not directed to the answering 

defendants, and as such, it is neither admitted nor denied.

31. This allegation is not directed to the answering 

defendants, and as such, it is neither admitted nor denied.

32. This allegation is not directed to the answering 

defendants, and as such, it is neither admitted nor denied.

33. This allegation is not directed to the answering 

defendants, and as such, it is neither admitted nor denied.

34. It is admitted that an employee of West Corporation 

called the plaintiff's telephone line on September 28, 2009. It 

is denied that there were any other calls. It is denied that the 

identity of the caller was forged. 

35. The transcript of the call attached as Exhibit 2 

speaks for itself. 

36. It is denied that there was an attempt to "up-sell."

37. Denied.

38. Denied.

39. Denied.

40. This is a statement of the plaintiff's legal theory. 

The answering defendants deny that the plaintiff's legal theory 

Case 2:11-cv-03465-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 07/06/11 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 164
is valid or that defendant Nelson is in anyway liable to the 

plaintiff.

41. Denied.

42. Denied.

43. Denied.

44. Denied.

45. Denied.

46. This is a statement of the plaintiff's legal theory. 

The defendant Nelson denies that she is liable to the plaintiff 

under this theory or any other legal theory. 

47. The answering defendants are without sufficient 

information to admit or deny this allegation and the plaintiff 

is left to his proofs.

48. The answering defendants are without sufficient 

information to admit or deny this allegation and the plaintiff 

is left to his proofs.

49. The answering defendants are without sufficient 

information to admit or deny this allegation and the plaintiff 

is left to his proofs.

50. To the extent the plaintiff means to imply in this 

paragraph that the answering defendants violated any statute or 

regulation, the allegation is denied.

51. Denied.

52. Denied.

Case 2:11-cv-03465-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 07/06/11 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 165
53. Denied.

54. Denied.

55. Denied.

56. Denied.

57. Denied.

58. Denied.

59. Denied.

60. Denied.

61. Denied.

62. To the extent the plaintiff means to imply in this 

paragraph that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for 

violating the statutes mentioned in this paragraph, the 

allegation is denied.

COUNT ONE

63. The answers to the allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs are repeated as if set forth fully at length herein.

64. Denied.

WHEREFORE, the answering defendants demand judgment 

dismissing the Complaint and awarding the defendants counsel 

fees and costs of suit.

COUNT TWO

65. The answers to the allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs are repeated as if set forth fully at length herein.

66. Denied.

Case 2:11-cv-03465-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 07/06/11 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 166
67. Denied.

68. Denied.

69. Denied.

70. Denied.

WHEREFORE, the answering defendants demand judgment 

dismissing the Complaint and awarding the defendants counsel 

fees and costs of suit.

COUNT THREE

71. The answers to the allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs are repeated as if set forth fully at length herein.

72. Denied.

73. Denied.

WHEREFORE, the answering defendants demand judgment 

dismissing the Complaint and awarding the defendants counsel 

fees and costs of suit.

COUNT FOUR

74. The answers to the allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs are repeated as if set forth fully at length herein.

75. Denied.

76. Denied.

77. Denied.

WHEREFORE, the answering defendants demand judgment 

dismissing the Complaint and awarding the defendants counsel 

fees and costs of suit.

Case 2:11-cv-03465-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 07/06/11 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 167
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense

The Complaint is barred by the applicable Statute of 

Limitations.

Second Affirmative Defense

The Complaint fails to set forth a claim upon which relief 

can be granted.

LOCAL RULE 11.2 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 11.2, I hereby 

certify that the matter in controversy is not currently the 

subject of any other action pending in any court or of any 

pending arbitration or administrative proceeding.

TRIAL COUNSEL DESIGNATION

Howard B. Mankoff is hereby designated as trial counsel for 

defendants West Corporation and Janette Kay Nelson.

MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,

COLEMAN & GOGGIN

Attorneys for Defendants, 

West Corporation and Janette

Kay Nelson.

 

By: ___/s/ Howard B. Mankoff 

 HOWARD B. MANKOFF, ESQ.

Dated: July 6, 2011

11/1291591.v1 

Case 2:11-cv-03465-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 07/06/11 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 168