Case 3:11-cv-00645-RCJ-VPC          Document 9     Filed 10/27/11            Page 1 of 5

 

Brent T. Kolvet, Esq.

State Bar No. 1597

Thorndal, Armstrong, Delk, Balkenbush & Eisinger

6590 S. McCarran, Suite B

Reno, Nevada 89509

Attorneys for Defendant

STOREY COUNTY

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

 

CASE NO. 3:11-CV-00645-RCJ-VPC

 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT SEEKING DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

THOMAS S. TAORMINA and MIDGE A.

TAORMINA,

 

            Plaintiffs,

vs.

 

STOREY COUNTY, NEVADA and DOES 1-10,

 

            Defendants.

 

 

            COMES NOW Defendant, Storey County, Nevada, by and through its attorneys, Thorndal, Armstrong, Delk, Balkenbush & Eisinger, and in answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, hereby admits, denies, and alleges as follows:

 

FIRST DEFENSE

 

I

            Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11a, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 26, 55, 61, 63, 64, 70, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 87, 88, 89, and 97 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and upon such basis denies said allegations.

 

 

II

            Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraphs 7, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 29, 30, 31,  37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 54, 56, 57, 58, 65, 67, 69, and 73 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

 


Case 3:11-cv-00645-RCJ -VPC         Document 9     Filed 10/27/11            Page 2 of 5

 

III

            Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 14, 23, 27, 28, 32, 38, 44, 48, 59, 60, 66, 68, 71, 72, 74, 76, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, and 98 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

 

IV

            In answer to Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Defendant states that the Storey County Code § 17.62.010 speaks for itself.

 

V

            In answer to Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Defendant states that 47 U.S.C. § 303 speaks for itself.

 

VI

            In answer to Paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Defendant states that 42 C.F.R. § 97.1 speaks for itself.

 

VII

            In answer to Paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Defendant states that the test of Public Law 103-408 (J. Res., 103d Congress, 1994) speaks for itself.

 

VIII

            In answer to Paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Defendant states that the Staff Report speaks for itself.

 

VIX

            In answer to Paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Defendant states that the Staff Report speaks for itself.

 

X

            In answer to Paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Defendant states that the Staff Report speaks for itself.

 

XI

            In answer to Paragraph 51 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive

 

-2-


Case 3:11-cv-00645-RCJ-VPC          Document 9     Filed 10/27/11            Page 3 of 5

 

 

Relief, Defendant states that the Staff Report speaks for itself.

 

XII

            In answer to Paragraph 52 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Defendant states that the Staff Report speaks for itself.

 

XIII

            In answer to Paragraph 53 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Defendant states that the Staff Report speaks for itself.

 

XIV

            In answer to Paragraph 62 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Defendant states that the Staff Report speaks for itself.

 

 

SECOND DEFENSE

 

            Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on file herein fails to state a claim against this Defendant upon which relief may be granted.

 

 

THIRD DEFENSE

 

            Defendant's alleged actions or omissions were taken with due care in the execution of the statutes and regulations, and therefore, Defendant is statutorily immune from this action.

 

 

FOURTH DEFENSE

 

            Defendant's alleged actions or omissions occurred in the exercise or performance of discretionary functions and duties, and therefore, Defendant is statutorily immune from this action.

 

 

FOURTH DEFENSE

 

            At the time and place alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Plaintiff had complete knowledge of each and every condition then and there existing, and with such knowledge, freely, voluntarily, and knowingly consented to and assumed the risk of injury and damage in the situation then existing, including the incidents which are referred to in the Complaint.

 

 

FIFTH DEFENSE

 

            It has been necessary for Defendant to employ the services of an attorney to defend this

 

-3-


Case 3:11-cv-00645-RCJ-VPC          Document 9     Filed 10/27/11            Page 4 of 5

 

 

action, and a reasonable sum should be allowed Defendant as and for attorney's fees, together with its costs expended in this action.

 

 

SIXTH DEFENSE

 

            Pursuant to NRCP Rule 11, as amended, all possible affirmative defenses may not have been alleged herein insofar as sufficient facts were not available to Defendant after reasonable inquiry upon the filing of Defendant's Answer, and therefore, Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer to allege additional affirmative defenses if subsequent investigation so warrants.

 

 

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays:

 

1. That Plaintiffs’ Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief be dismissed with prejudice and that they take nothing thereby;

 

2. That Defendant be awarded a reasonable attorney's fee and costs of suit; and

 

3. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

 

 

DATED this 27th day of October, 2011.

 

THORNDAL, ARMSTRONG, DELK, BALKENBUSH & EISINGER

 

By: /s/ Brent T. Kolvet

Brent T. Kolvet, Esq.

State Bar No. 1597

6590 S. McCarran Blvd., Suite B

Reno, Nevada 89509

Attorneys for Defendant

Storey County

 

-4-


Case 3:11-cv-00645-RCJ-VPC          Document 9     Filed 10/27/11            Page 5 of 5

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

Pursuant to FRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of Thorndal, Armstrong, Delk,  Balkenbush & Eisinger, and that on this date I electronically filed the foregoing ANSWER TO COMPLAINT SEEKING DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF with the United States District Court’s CM/ECF Electronic Filing system, which will serve the following parties electronically:

 

Brian M. McMahon, Esq.

McMahon Law Offices, Ltd.

3715 Lakeside Drive, Suite A

Reno, NV 89509-5239Phone:775-348-2701

Fax:775-348-2702

E-Mail:brian@mcmahonlaw.org

 

Fred Hopengarten, Esq.

Six Willarch Road

Lincoln, MA 01773

Phone:781-259-0088

Fax:419-858-2421

E-Mail:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu

 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Thomas S. Taormina

 

 

DATED this 27th day of October, 2011.

 

/s/ Mary C. Wilson

 

An employee of Thorndal, Armstrong, Delk, Balkenbush & Eisinger

 

-5-