By

Sample Nevada Affirmative Defenses*

* Not all defenses are appropriate for all matters or in all jurisdictions.  You should seek the advice of competent counsel in your jurisdiction before claiming any defense, as you may be responsible for the attorneys fees of your opponent if a claimed defense has no merit.  See Rule 11.

RULE 8 DELINEATED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

NRCP 8(c)(1).     In responding to a pleading, a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense, including: accord and satisfaction; arbitration and award; assumption of risk; contributory negligence; discharge in bankruptcy; duress; estoppel; failure of consideration; fraud; illegality; injury by fellow servant; laches; license; payment; release; res judicata; statute of frauds; statute of limitations; and waiver.

Accord and Satisfaction

Plaintiff’s claims, and each of them, are barred as a result of an accord and satisfaction.

Arbitration and Award

By contract, Plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration, and may not be resolved in a court of law.

Assumption of Risk

Plaintiff had knowledge of and assumed the risk. The injuries alleged by Plaintiff were caused by and arose out of the risk which Plaintiff had knowledge of and assumed.

At the time and place under the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, Plaintiff had full and complete knowledge and information in regard to the conditions and circumstances then and there existing, and through Plaintiffs own knowledge, conduct, acts and omissions, assume the risk attendant to any condition there or then present.

Contributory Negligence

The injuries sustained by Plaintiff were proximately caused by his own negligence, alternatively, if the negligence of Plaintiff was not the sole proximate cause of his injuries, then his was a proximate contributory cause of the injuries.

Discharge in Bankruptcy

The complaint is based upon a debt which was discharged by the United States Bankruptcy Court or which is subject to the Automatic Stay.  11 U.S.C. § 362.

Duress

Plaintiff’s claims, and each of them, are barred due to duress.

Estoppel

Plaintiff is estopped from recovering any sums claimed because and by reason of: 1) Plaintiff charged or claimed recovery due for persons not performing work on the jobsite; 2) Plaintiff knew such person or persons were not on the job site; 3) Plaintiff intended that Defendant rely on his statements to Obtain payments; 4) Defendants were ignorant of the truth or falsity of Plaintiff’s statements at the time they were made; and 5) Defendant relied on Plaintiffs representations to his injuries and damage.

Each and every one of Plaintiff’s alleged rights, claims, and obligations which it seeks to enforce against Defendant is, by Plaintiff’s conduct, agreement, or otherwise, barred by the doctrine of estoppel.

Plaintiff acted in such a way as to cause this Defendant to believe that plaintiff would not file suit, and Defendant relied on those actions or representations.

Failure of Consideration

Plaintiff’s claim is barred for failure of consideration.

Fraud

Plaintiff’s claims, and each of them, are barred due to fraud.

Illegality

The contract at issue is void, as it is an agreement to commit an illegal act.

Injury by Fellow Servant

Defendant is not responsible for injury to plaintiff, as the plaintiff was injured due to another employee’s actions.

Laches

The claims, and each of them, are barred as a result of the failure of the Plaintiff to timely make those claims as against this answering Defendant and allow this answering Defendant to collect evidence sufficient to establish its nonliability.  This answering Defendant relied upon the failure to allege claims by the Plaintiff and as a result are barred by the doctrine of laches.

License

Defendant has legal license and right to use the good or property over which Plaintiff bases its claim.

Payment

Plaintiff is not owed any money, as Defendant has made full payment to the actual creditor or assignee for the debt at issue, which payment was accepted.

Release

By virtue of Plaintiff’s actions, conduct, and omissions, this answering Defendant has been released.

Res Judicata

The claims, and each of them, are barred by res judicata.

Statute of Frauds

Any contract between Plaintiff and this answering Defendant is barred by the statute of frauds.

Statute of Limitations

The claims for reimbursement of or contribution for settlements made by others are barred as against this answering Defendant because the settling parties did not discharge any portion of a common liability within the applicable statutes of limitations.

The claims, and each of them, are barred by NRS 11.190.

Waiver

The claims of Plaintiff have been waived as a result of the acts and the conduct of the Plaintiff.

Each and all of Plaintiff’s rights, claims, and obligations as set forth in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, has, or have, by conduct, agreement or otherwise been waived.

Catch-all

The facts not having been fully developed, Defendant further affirmatively pleads the following affirmative defenses as may be applicable in this action: accord and satisfaction; arbitration and award; assumption of risk; contributory negligence; discharge in bankruptcy; duress; estoppel; failure of consideration; fraud; illegality; injury by fellow servant; laches; license; payment; release; res judicata; statute of frauds; statute of limitations; waiver; and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.

RULE 9 DEFENSE

The claims, and each of them, are barred by the failure of the Plaintiff to plead those claims with particularity.

RULE 12 DEFENSES

NRCP 12  (b) How Presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person, (3) insufficiency of process, (4) insufficiency of service of process, (5) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (6) failure to join a party under Rule 19. A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted. No defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion. If a pleading sets forth a claim for relief to which the adverse party is not required to serve a responsive pleading, the adverse party may assert at the trial any defense in law or fact to that claim for relief. If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (5) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

The Court lacks in personam jurisdiction over this answering Defendant.

Service of process was insufficient.

Process was insufficient.

Plaintiff failed to join necessary and indispensable parties in whose absence complete relief cannot be afforded.

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against this answering Defendant upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff must choose between alternative remedies.

JURISDICTIONAL DEFENSES

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

The Court lacks in personam jurisdiction over this answering Defendant.

Service of process was insufficient.

Process was insufficient.

The claims, and each of them, are barred by the applicable statute of limitation.

Insufficient notice was given to answering Defendant of this cause of action.

Venue is improper.

Plaintiff failed to join necessary and indispensable parties in whose absence complete relief cannot be afforded.

The claims, and each of them, are barred by the failure of the Plaintiff to plead those claims with particularity. This answering Defendant is not the real party in interest.

This answering Defendant has no personal liability herein and therefore is an improper party to this action.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Governmental Immunity Statutes of NRS Chapter 41.

NRS Chapter 41 limits the damages that may be collectible against a political subdivision of the State of Nevada to Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000).  The claims, and each of them, are barred by NRS 11.205.

NON-DELINEATED DEFENSES

General Defenses

The damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff, if any, were caused in whole or in part by the acts and omissions of third parties over whom Defendant has no control.

Plaintiff suffered no damage and therefore is not entitled to any relief.

If Plaintiff sustained any injuries, economic or otherwise, said injuries were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages, if any, and/or take corrective action.  Accordingly, any and all recovery is barred or should be limited to the extent or degree of Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate their damages, if any.

Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages.

Plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands and Plaintiff’s failure to do equity.

Any claims for damages which Plaintiff has against Defendant, if valid, are offset by the claims which Defendant has against Plaintiff.

Defendant is not jointly or severally liable for any of the damages alleged in the Claims.

Plaintiff has not paid more than its equitable share of the common liability.

Plaintiff lacks standing to the causes of action pled in the claims.

Pursuant to NRCP 11, all possible affirmative defenses may not have been alleged because insufficient facts are not yet available to allege them after reasonable inquiry upon the filing of this Answer.  Defendant reserves Defendant’s rights to assert additional affirmative defenses, if warranted, as additional facts become known during the course of discovery. This defense is no longer recognized by the NRCP.  See Comments to Rule 8.

The claims are barred because Plaintiff has engaged in acts and courses of conduct which render him in pari delicto.

Plaintiff, by his acts, conduct and/or omissions, has ratified the acts, conduct and omissions, if any, of these answering Defendants; therefore, Plaintiff is barred from seeking any relief from these answering Defendants.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Doctrine of Integration and the Parol Evidence Rule

Abuse of Process

Defendant did not have an ulterior purpose for filing the claim.

Plaintiff did not commit a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.

Plaintiff did not misuse regularly issued process.

Account Stated

No agreement was ever reached between Plaintiff and Defendant about any account.

Accounting

Plaintiff is not entitled to an accounting of answering Defendant.

Answering Defendant has no duty to account.

Answering Defendant alleges that there has been a stated account.

Alter Ego

Answering Defendant has not used any similar identical name likely to confuse, cause mistake, or deceive an appreciable number of reasonable customers.

There is no danger of public confusion, infringement of good will, or damage of reputation among Plaintiff’s customers.

The entity is not directed and controlled by answering Defendant.

The entity was not under capitalized.

There has been no commingling of funds.

There was no co-mingling of funds, under capitalization, unauthorized diversion of funds, treatment of corporate assets from as Defendant’s own, and failure to observe corporate formalities by entity.

Justice does not require the corporate fiction to be disregarded.

There is not such unity of interest and ownership between the entity and Defendant such that one is inseparable from the other.

Assault and Battery

Defendant did not intend to inflict injury on Plaintiff.

Attorney Fees

The amount of attorney fees claimed is not reasonable.

The fees were not properly documented.

The services underlying the attorney fees did not advance the interest of Plaintiff.

The services were undertaken on a contingent fee basis.

Plaintiff has rejected reasonable settlement offers and is barred from recovering attorney fees and must pay answering Defendant’s attorney fees.

It has been necessary for answering Defendant to retain the services of an attorney to defend this action and he is entitled to reasonable sums as and for attorney fees.

Attorney fees are only recoverable through contract or by statute and are not recoverable damages in a lawsuit.  Plaintiff’s claim for attorney fees as alleged in the Claims, are not recoverable.

Bond

The aggregate liability of surety for all claims on the bond, including any claims for costs, fees and expenses, including any claims for attorney fees, is limited to the penal sum of the bond.

The surety is entitled to assert the claims and defenses, both legal and equitable, of its principal and it hereby incorporates the same herein by this reference.

The surety reserves all its rights, remedies, and defenses in this matter and by its answer hereto does not waive any of its claims or defenses nor does it waive the claims or defenses of its principal which it hereby asserts in its own right.

Pursuant to NRS 624.273 and the bond, the surety is only liable for the unlawful acts, omissions, and defaults of its principal, occurring after the issuance of the bond, within the bond period and then only if there is an adjudication of the principal’s liability falling within the terms of the bond and NRS 624.273.

Any other claim pending or filed against the bond will reduce the bond amount and/or require pro-rata distribution of the bond proceeds.

All or part of the claims alleged did not arise from a construction contract and/or are otherwise improper pursuant to NRS Chapter 624 and the bond, and therefore said claims are not properly asserted against the bond.

Breach of Contract

Insofar as any alleged breach of contract is concerned, Plaintiff failed to give this answering Defendant timely notice thereof.

The claims of the Plaintiff are barred, as the contract lacks valid offer and acceptance; the contract lacks of consideration; the contract was validly rescinded; the contract is illusory and/or lacks mutuality; or the contract is void for vagueness.

This answering Defendant has not breached any contract.

This answering Defendant is not a party to the contract and, accordingly, is not in breach of contract.

This answering Defendant has substantially performed the contract.

This answering Defendant was justified in his failure to perform, if any.

Plaintiff’s claims, and each of them, are barred due to fraud.

Plaintiff’s claims, and each of them, are barred as a result of unconscionability.

The claims of Plaintiff are barred as a result of an invalid modification.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the parol evidence rule.

Plaintiff’s claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of mistake, excuse and/or nonperformance.

The claim for breach of contract is barred as a result of the failure to satisfy conditions precedent.

The claims, and each of them, for breach of contract are barred by the failure to satisfy conditions subsequent.

Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its/his/her damages.

This answering Defendant did not have knowledge of any valid contract between Plaintiff and Defendant.

The claims of Plaintiff are barred as a result of lack of good faith.

This answering Defendant validly delegated his duties to Plaintiff.

This answering Defendant at all times herein acted reasonably and in good faith in discharging his obligations and duties, if any.

This answering Defendant acted in conformity with the law and with reasonableness in discharging their duties.

Plaintiff has received everything it was entitled to receive from its agreement with answering Defendant.

This answering Defendant has properly and legally fulfilled his duties and obligations, if any, to the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff failed to complete the work they agreed to perform.

Plaintiff’s contractual causes of action are barred by Plaintiff’s own anticipatory breach of its contractual duties to answering Defendant, which breach relieved answering Defendant of any and all contractual obligations or promises to Plaintiff (which obligations and promises answering Defendant denies).

Any and all actions complained of by Plaintiff were approved or ratified by Plaintiff.

There is no privity of contract between the parties.

The contract lacks mutuality of obligation.

The contract at issue does not have a severability clause.

Plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by an accord and satisfaction.

To successfully establish the fact of an accord and satisfaction with regard to an unliquidated claim, the general rule is that a litigant must satisfy three elements, to wit: 1) a bona fide dispute over an unliquidated amount; 2) a payment tendered in full settlement of the entire dispute; and 3) an understanding by the creditor of the transaction as such, and acceptance of the payment

Plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the failure of Plaintiff to furnish consideration to support the contract at issue.

Plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the doctrine of mistake.

Plaintiff’s Claim is barred by the doctrines of release and payment.

Plaintiff’s Claim is barred by Plaintiff’s breaches of the agreement which preceded the acts complained of.

Plaintiff’s Claim is barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto.

All or part of Plaintiff’s Claims is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Plaintiff’s Claim is barred by Plaintiff’s ratification and confirmation of the alleged actions.

The relationship between Plaintiff and some or all of Defendant does not amount to a fiduciary or otherwise special relationship such that a covenant of good faith and fair dealing arose.

Plaintiff’s Claim is barred in whole or in part by the statute of frauds.

Plaintiff materially breached the terms and conditions of the agreement, thereby excusing further performance on the part of Defendant.

Defendant performed on Defendant’s part, each and every term and conditions owed by Defendant to Plaintiff.

Defendant remains willing to perform the terms and conditions of the agreement, however, Plaintiff refuses and continues to refuse to allow Defendant to perform.

Plaintiff materially breached the terms and conditions of the alleged agreement between it and Defendant, thus, as the breaching party, it cannot maintain an action for Respondents’ alleged failure to perform.

Any claim for loss of revenue or profits by Plaintiff are speculative, and not foreseeable within the terms of the Contract, if any, between the parties.

Defendant did not sign the contract at issue in his individual capacity.

Defendant is not a signatory to the contract at issue.

Defendant did not manifests a present intent not to perform any duty owed by her to Plaintiff.

Defendant did not make a clear, positive and unequivocal repudiation of the contract at issue.

Insofar as any alleged breach of contract is concerned. Plaintiff failed to give this answering Defendant timely notice thereof.

Plaintiff had knowledge of and prepared, or had prepared, the design and specifications and approved, or had approved, all work performed and materials supplied by this answering Defendant.

The alleged injuries and damages complained of by the Plaintiff, if at all related to the performance of certain construction work by this answering Defendant or the supply of certain materials for the construction project, were caused by and resulted from the change, modification, alteration, reconstruction, misuse of, damage to, addition to or removal of said work and materials subsequent to the original construction and/or supplying of material by this answering Defendant.

The claims, and each of them, for breach of contract and breach of warranty are barred by the failure to satisfy conditions subsequent.

Plaintiff breached his contract, if any, with Defendants and by reason of such breach of contract, these answering Defendants has been excused of any duty it may have had to perform any obligation set forth in any agreement with Plaintiff, if there be such an agreement.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Plaintiff breached its fiduciary duties to answering Defendant.

Plaintiff forfeited any entitlements because of its/his/her breach of fiduciary duties.

Plaintiff’s conduct was not conducted in the best interest of the corporation.

Plaintiff’s conduct was conducted for its/his/her own personal motivation.

Plaintiff violated its/his/her duty of loyalty to answering Defendant.

Plaintiff owed fiduciary duties to answering Defendant to exercise due care, a duty of loyalty and a duty to act in answering Defendant’s best interest.

No nexus exists between answering Defendant’s conduct and Plaintiff’s former official activity.

This answering Defendant is not an officer, director, or agent of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has no valuable trade secrets.

This answering Defendant did not misappropriate any trade secret of Plaintiff.

To the extent that any appropriation of Plaintiff’s trade secret occurred, such appropriation was not wrongful.

Plaintiff’s trade information is not a trade secret because it is known outside the business and the information is easily acquired by others.

Plaintiff’s information was not confidential or secret.

Plaintiff did not guard the secrecy of any information.

There is no special relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant.

If Plaintiff was discharged, Plaintiff was discharged for failure to perform in the best interest of the corporation.

Defendant enjoyed only an at will relationship, if any, with Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s relationship with Defendant is presumed to be an at will relationship.

Defendant did not owe Plaintiff a fiduciary obligation.

Plaintiff consented to the acts and omissions complained of.

Plaintiff acquiesced to the acts and omissions complained of.

Plaintiff ratified the acts and omissions complained of.

Plaintiff approved the acts and omissions complained of.

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Contract)

This answering Defendant fulfilled their duty to deal with Plaintiff in good faith.

This answering Defendant committed no intentional acts meant to disrupt or harm Plaintiff.

No disruption or harm occurred to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is barred because Plaintiff breached its reciprocal covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Tort)

This answering Defendant has no duty towards Plaintiff.

This answering Defendant has acted in good faith.

Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is barred because Plaintiff breached its reciprocal covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

No special or fiduciary relationship exists between Plaintiff and Defendant.

Breach of Warranty

At all times herein, the product or products supplied or installed by this answering Defendant were fit and proper for the use for which they were designed and intended.

There was a misuse of the product by some person or persons not employed or controlled by this answering Defendant and the said misuse proximately caused the events and occurrences described in the Complaint and is a bar to any recovery by the Plaintiff.

Claims for breach of warranty are barred by the doctrine of privity.

Under the factual circumstances set forth in the Complaint, there was a misuse of the product or products involved, if any, by Plaintiff or some third person and the misuse of the said product or products is an absolute bar to any recovery by the Plaintiff against this answering Defendant.

The claims, and each of them, for breach of warranty are barred by the failure to satisfy conditions subsequent.

Any and all alleged events, happenings, injuries and damages, if any, were caused or contributed to by the products in question having been used in a non-intended or abnormal manner, and not as a result of any defects in or failure of said products or any of their component parts.

Any warranty, express or implied, was disclaimed, excluded and limited in all of its parts and its entirety, explicitly and conspicuously both orally and in writing, in words that plainly conveyed the meaning to Plaintiff that such disclaimer and limitation of such warranty also excluded and modified in the course of dealing and usage of the trade, all as to preclude Plaintiff from reliance upon a recovery from this warranty.

The claims, and each of them, for breach of contract and breach of warranty are barred by the failure to satisfy conditions subsequent.

Claim and Delivery

Answering Defendant did not come into possession of the Property wrongfully.

Answering Defendant’s possession, if any, is not wrongful.

Plaintiff has no title nor right to possession of the Property.

Conspiracy

Defendants could not, as a matter of law, conspire with each other.

For a further and separate defense to Plaintiff’s petition, Defendant aver that the conspiracy they are alleged to have committed against Plaintiff is not actionable in that the only injury allegedly sustained by Plaintiff therefrom was [loss of revenue from Plaintiff business].

Defendant did not enter into a conspiracy to harm Plaintiff.

Defendant did not intend to accomplish an unlawful objective for the purpose of harming Plaintiff.

Construction Defect

Plaintiff had knowledge of and prepared, or had prepared, the design and specifications and approved, or had approved, all work performed and materials supplied by this answering Defendant.

Plaintiff has failed and refused to provide answering Defendant a reasonable opportunity to inspect and repair any claimed defects.

The alleged injuries and damages complained of by the Plaintiff, were caused by and resulted from the change, modification, alteration, reconstruction, misuse of, damage to, addition to or removal of said work and materials subsequent to the original construction and/or supplying of material by this answering Defendant.

At all times herein, the product or products supplied or installed by this answering Defendant were fit and proper for the use for which they were designed and intended.

The drawings of this answering Defendant were altered by some person or persons not under the control nor employed by this answering Defendant, thus causing the events and occurrences described in the Complaint of the above entitled.

There was a misuse of the product by some person or persons not employed or controlled by this answering Defendant and the said misuse proximately caused the events and occurrences described in the Complaint and is a bar to any recovery by the Plaintiff.

If any of the products or materials described within the Complaint herein were manufactured, designed or supplied by this answering Defendant, they were manufactured, designed and supplied in strict accordance with specifications supplied by others to this answering Defendant.

If there were any defects in said products or materials, such were caused by deficiencies in the specifications supplied to this answering Defendant which were neither known to this answering Defendant nor discoverable by it in the exercise of ordinary care.

The defect was not present at the time said products or materials left the custody, control and possession of this answering Defendant, but arose subsequent thereto and was caused by or due to the misuse, modification, alteration, repackaging, storage, lack of repair, or inadequate maintenance of said products or materials by one other than this answering Defendant.

No demand was made upon Defendant to repair any alleged defect.

No demand for contribution was made upon Defendant for contribution for any alleged defect.

No demand for mediation was made upon Defendant.

Defendant was never given the opportunity to repair any alleged defect.

The notice of claimed defects does not satisfy the requirements of NRS 40.600 et. seq.

The alleged liability of Defendant does not arise out of a constructional defect.

Constructive Trust

This answering Defendant has a right to exclusive ownership of the Property.

This answering Defendant has a right to the equity from the Property.

Plaintiff’s ownership rights, if any, were unbeknownst to answering Defendant.

This answering Defendant’s retention of title and possession of the Property is not wrongful.

No failure of justice resulted from answering Defendant’s acts.

Defendant is not the legal title holders of property which is rightfully Plaintiff’s.

Defendant did not wrongfully take any property belonging to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff did not gratuitously transfer property to Defendant.

The doctrine of unclean hands prohibits Plaintiff from claiming a constructive trust.

Defendant was not unjustly enriched.

No confidential relationship exists between Plaintiff and Defendant.

Defendant’s retention of legal title to their property would not be inequitable.

The creation of a constructive trust is not essential to the effectuation of justice.

There was no agreement, express or implied, between Plaintiff and Defendant that Defendant would hold Plaintiff’s property in trust.

The Claims as originally filed constituted a criminal act.

Contribution

The right of contribution is codified at NRS 17.285.  The claim for contribution as pled does not satisfy the plain and unambiguous requirements of NRS 17.285.

Plaintiff is not a joint tortfeasor with Defendant with respect to the claims asserted in the pleadings on file in this case.

Defendant is not alleged to be liable in Tort; accordingly there is no right of contribution.

The claim for contribution is barred by the plain and unambiguous wording of NRS 17.225.

The claims for indemnity for or Contribution to the payment of any settlement by settling parties is barred by their failure to provide this answering Defendant with timely notice of the terms of the settlement and an opportunity to object to the settlement.

The claims for indemnity for or contribution to the settlement proceeds paid by the settling parties is barred as a result of lack of good faith of the settlement.

Conversion

This answering Defendant has committed no acts of dominion over Plaintiff’s property/chattels.

This answering Defendant’s acts of dominion, if any, were not wrongful.

The claims, and each of them, for wrongful detention of personal property and conversion, are barred by the failure to satisfy conditions precedent.

Defendant did not seriously interfere with Plaintiff’s property rights.

Defendant is the owner of the property in question.

Defendant did not intend to possess Plaintiff’s property.

Covenant Not to Compete

The restrictive covenant by its terms does not survive the termination of the contract.

Pursuant to the contract at issue, Plaintiff cannot terminate the contract and enforce the covenant.

The restrictive covenant is in restraint of trade will not be enforced in accordance with its terms

The restrictive covenant is not reasonable.

The restrictive covenant is a greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the business and good will of Plaintiff.

The restrictive covenant imposes undue hardship upon Defendant.

The time for the restrictive covenant is longer than is reasonably necessary to protect the business and goodwill of Plaintiff.

The territory included in the restrictive covenant is greater than is reasonably necessary to protect the business and goodwill of Plaintiff.

The restrictive covenant at issue, if enforced, will result in Defendant’s loss of her employment; thus, the covenant is subject to strict scrutiny by the court.

The territory for the restrictive covenant is greater than the territory that Plaintiff has customer contacts and goodwill.

Declaratory Relief

Plaintiff should not be granted his declaration.

Plaintiff has no interest in this action that is adverse from answering Defendant.

No genuine judicial controversy exists as to relevant rights and obligations of the parties.

Defamation

This answering Defendant enjoys an absolute privilege.

This answering Defendant made no statements about Plaintiff.

This answering Defendant’s statements, if any, were opinion.

Plaintiff consented to Answering Defendant’s statements, if any.

This answering Defendant’s statements, if any, were true.

This answering Defendant’s statements, if any, were made by way of fair comment.

The claims of Plaintiff are barred as a result of the “single instance” rule.

This answering Defendant’s statements, if any, were innocently construed.

This answering Defendant’s statements, if any, were made in jest.

Defendant’s statement about Plaintiff was and is not false.

The statement complained of was and is purely opinion.

The statement complained of was and is substantially true.

The statement complained of did not and does not exhibit Plaintiff in a worse light than a full recital of the true facts about him.

The statement complained of was not made with actual malice (public official).

Plaintiff is a public official/person.

Plaintiff is an involuntary public figure.

Plaintiff is a vortex public figure.

The statements complained of were privileged.

The statements complained of are privileged under the doctrine of Neutral Reportage, Fair Comment, Consent, Self Defense, Opinion, Rhetorical hyperbole, Parody, Statements about the dead.

The statements complained of are privileged under the doctrine of Fair Comment.

Equitable

The Complaint is barred because Plaintiff lack capacity to sue.

The claims are barred by Plaintiff’s unclean hands.

Plaintiff’s claim is barred as a result of its prior wrongful conduct.

At all times, this answering Defendant acted in a legally permissible way.

Fraud

This answering Defendant made no false representations of material fact which he knew to be false.

This answering Defendant had no intent to defraud Plaintiff.

This answering Defendant did not intend for Plaintiff to rely on misrepresentations.

Plaintiff did not detrimentally rely on misrepresentations.

This answering Defendant’s conduct was not oppressive, fraudulent, nor committed with malice.

This answering Defendant’s acts were not misleading in any material way.

Plaintiff has not been injured as a result of any deceptive acts of answering Defendant.

This answering Defendant committed no deceptive acts directed at customers.

This answering Defendant has not made any false or misleading statements in a commercial setting.

This answering Defendant’s statements have not actually deceived and are not likely to deceive any part of an intended audience.

Plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the statements which it made, which were fraudulent when made, were known by Plaintiff to be fraudulent when made, and were made with the intention that Defendant rely upon the fraudulent nature of the statements and to induce Defendant into the agreement complained of herein, and Defendant did in fact rely upon the fraudulent statements to Plaintiff’s detriment.

Plaintiff did not justifiably nor reasonably rely on any alleged representation of Defendant.

Plaintiff failed to plead the alleged fraud with the requisite particularity.

Any punitive or exemplary damages are limited, in whole or in part, by, inter alia, Nevada Revised Statute 42.005.

Defendant did not make a false statement.

Defendant did not knowingly make a false statement.

Defendant did not make a statement without sufficient basis or information.

Defendant did not intend to induce Plaintiff’s reliance upon a false statement.

Defendant did not intend to induce Plaintiff’s reliance upon a statement made without basis or information.

Plaintiff was not damaged by relying upon a false statement.

Plaintiff was not damaged by relying upon a statement made without sufficient basis or information.

Defendant did not in the course of Defendant’s business, profession or employment, or in any other action in which Defendant has a pecuniary interest, supply false information to Plaintiff for the guidance of their business transactions.

Fraudulent Conveyance

Defendant was not insolvent, if it ever was, at the time of the transfers complained of.

Defendant received fair consideration for the transfers complained of.

The transfers complained of were not made to insiders of Defendant.

The transfers complained of were made in good faith.

Defendant was not aware that Defendant was insolvent, if it was, when it received the complained of transfer.

The transfers complained of to Defendant was for a valid and enforceable pre-existing debt.

Defendant was not made insolvent, if it ever was, by making the transfers complained of.

Plaintiff was not a creditor at the time of the transfers complained of.

The transfers complained of were made in the ordinary course of business of the Defendant.

The transfers complained of were made in payment of debt incurred by the Defendant in the ordinary course of business.

The transfers complained of were made according to ordinary business terms.

Fraudulent Transfer

The challenged transaction involved neither a transfer nor an obligation.

The transfer complained of did not go to an insider.

Defendant did not receive funds or property from the debtor.

Debtor is permitted to prefer one creditor to another.

Debtor received reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the property that was transferred.

Plaintiff was not a creditor of answering Defendant.

Debtor was not insolvent at the time of making the transfer.

Debtor did not become insolvent as a result of the transfer.

When Debtor made the transfer complained of, it did not intend to hinder or delay or defraud other creditors.

The other creditors were not prejudiced by the transfer complained of.

This answering Defendant was a subsequent transferee or obligee who received the asset or obligation in good faith and for value.

This answering Defendant did not intend to hinder, delay, or fraud Plaintiff.

The result of the transaction complained of did not leave Debtor with an unreasonably small amount of capital.

The transfer complained of did not make the Debtor unable to pay its debts as they came due.

The transfer complained of was intended by the debtor and the creditor to or for whose benefit such transfer was made to be a contemporaneous exchange for new value given to the debtor; and was in fact a substantially contemporaneous exchange.

The transfer complained of was in payment of a debt incurred by the debtor in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee, and such transfer was made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee.

The transfer complained of was in payment of a debt incurred by the debtor in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee, and such transfer was made according to ordinary business terms.

The transfer complained of was in payment of a debt incurred by the debtor in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee, and such transfer created a security interest in property acquired by the debtor and the security interest secures new value that was given at or after the signing of a security agreement that contains a description of such property as collateral was given by or on behalf of the secured party under such agreement; was  given to enable the debtor to acquire such property; used by the debtor to acquire such property; and was perfected on or before 30 days after the debtor receives possession of such property.

The transfer complained of was to or for the benefit of a creditor, to the extent that, after such transfer, such creditor gave new value to or for the benefit of the debtor was not secured by an otherwise unavoidable security interest; and on account of which new value the debtor did not make an otherwise unavoidable transfer to or for the benefit of such creditor.

The transfer complained of created a perfected security interest in inventory or a receivable.

The transfer complained of is the fixing of a statutory lien that is not avoidable under section 545 of title 11 of the United State Code.

The transfer complained of was a bona fide payment of a debt for a domestic support obligation.

Indemnity

The claims for indemnity for or contribution to the payment of any settlement by settling parties is barred by their failure to provide this answering Defendant with timely notice of the terms of the settlement and an opportunity to object to the settlement.

The claims for indemnity for or contribution to the settlement proceeds paid by the settling parties is barred as a result of lack of good faith of the settlement.

Any and all damages were wholly or partly caused by the acts, facts, events, circumstances and/or conduct of other parties.

The acts complained of by Plaintiff in the underlying Claims consist of intentional torts, thus Plaintiff is not entitled to indemnification or contribution.

Defendant and Plaintiff bear equal responsibility for the loss, if any.

Defendant’s level of wrongdoing only amounted to passive activity.

Plaintiff was the active wrongdoer.

Plaintiff has not discharged a legal obligation to a third party.

Defendant is not liable to a third party.

As between Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff should bear the costs of making

Injunctions

This answering Defendant is not exercising exclusive ownership of the Property.

This answering Defendant’s exclusive ownership, if any, is not wrongful.

This answering Defendant should not be enjoined or restricted from exercising any rights regarding the Property.

This answering Defendant has not made any threats towards Plaintiff.

This answering Defendant’s threatened actions, if any, are not wrongful.

This answering Defendant enjoys a reasonable probability of success.

No irreparable harm will come to Plaintiff by not enjoining answering Defendant.

Irreparable harm will come to answering Defendant if enjoined.

Plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction, either for a limited period or perpetually.

The acts and omissions set forth in the claims, if committed, will not cause great or irreparable injury to Plaintiff.

The acts and omissions set forth in the claims, if committed, will not violate Plaintiff’s rights in such a manner as to render judgment ineffectual.

Plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits.

Plaintiff cannot show a reasonable probability Defendant’s conduct, if allowed to continue, will cause Plaintiff irreparable harm.

The public interest in having qualified title officers and the hardships placed on Defendant outweigh Plaintiff’s reasons, if any, for an injunction.

There is no clear basis for the issuance of an injunction in this matter.

Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law.

Injunction Encroachment

A mandatory injunction to compel the removal of structures placed on Plaintiff’s land will operate inequitably or oppressively.

The effect of the encroachment, if any, is negligible compared to the cost of correcting it.

Plaintiff acquiesced to the encroachment.

Intentional Interference with a Contract/Prospective/Economic Advantage

Answering Defendant committed no intentional acts intended or designed to disrupt contractual relationships of Plaintiff.

No actual disruption of contract occurred to Plaintiff’s contracts.

Plaintiff does not enjoy any prospective contractual relationships between himself and third parties.

This answering Defendant has no knowledge of any prospective relationships between Plaintiff and third parties.

This answering Defendant did not intend to harm Plaintiff if any relationship was prevented between Plaintiff and the third party.

This answering Defendant enjoys a privilege or justification if any relationship between Plaintiff and a third party were prevented.

Defendant was not aware of any a prospective contractual relationship between Plaintiff and a third party.

Defendant did not intend to harm Plaintiff by preventing any relationship.

Defendant was privileged to conduct the acts complained of.

Defendant was justified to conduct the acts complained of.

Interpleader

The chattel/property/money belongs to answering Defendant.

This is not a proper case for interpleader and Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to compel answering Defendant to interplead.

Plaintiff voluntarily accepted funds knowing that they are subject to competing claims.

Allowing interpleader would reward inequitable or improper conduct.

This answering Defendant’s claim has priority over any other claims.

Liquidated Damages

The liquidated damages claimed are not a good faith estimate of the actual damages suffered by Plaintiff.

The liquidated damages claimed by Plaintiff are not a measure of compensation for the alleged breach of contract, rather they are a penalty.

The liquidated damages claimed by Plaintiff were inserted into the contract to secure performance of the contract rather than compensated Plaintiff in the event the contract was not performed.

The liquidated damages are disproportionate to the actual damages, if any, suffered by Plaintiff.

Mechanics Lien Foreclosure

A notice of lien was not served as required by Chapter 108 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.

Plaintiff did not supply labor, materials, or equipment toward the improvement of the Property.

No notice to the owner of materials, supply or work performed as required by NRS 108.2394 was served.

Plaintiff’s mechanics lien is fraudulent and has not been filed in accordance to Nevada law, and the lien is therefore unenforceable.

Plaintiff’s lien was not made with reasonable cause.

No notice to the owner of materials, supply or work performed as required by NRS 108.2394 was served.

A notice of lien was not served as required by Chapter 108 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.

Plaintiff failed to complete the work he agreed to perform.

Plaintiff had knowledge of and prepared, or had prepared, the design and specifications and approved, or had approved, all work performed and materials supplied by this answering Defendant.

The alleged injuries and damages complained of by the Plaintiff, if at all related to the performance of certain construction work by this answering Defendant or the supply of certain materials for the construction project, were caused by and resulted from the change, modification, alteration, reconstruction, misuse of, damage to, addition to or removal of said work and materials subsequent to the original construction and/or supplying of material by this answering Defendant.

Negligence

That any or all negligence or fault on the part of the Plaintiff, if any, would be active and primary, and any negligence or fault of answering Defendant, if any, would be secondary and passive.

Plaintiff had knowledge of and assumed the risk.  The injuries alleged by Plaintiff were caused by and arose out of the risk which Plaintiff had knowledge of and assumed.

At the times and place and under the circumstances alleged, the Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care, caution or prudence for their own safety, thereby approximately causing or contributing to the cause of their own damages, if any, through their own negligence.

At all times, this answering Defendant acted with due care and diligence relating to the incident alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and therefore, this answering Defendant breached no duty to the Plaintiff.

At the time and place under the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, Plaintiff had full and complete knowledge and information in regard to the conditions and circumstances then and there existing, and through Plaintiff’s own knowledge, conduct, acts and omissions, assume the risk attendant to any condition there or then present.

The liability, if any, of this answering Defendant must be reduced by the percentage of fault of others, including the Plaintiff.

This answering Defendant could not foresee any injury or damage to Plaintiff as a result of the actions alleged in the Complaint.

The incidents alleged in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the resulting damage, if any, to Plaintiff were proximately caused or contributed to by Plaintiff’s own negligence and such negligence was greater than the negligence, if any, of this answering Defendant.

The conduct of this answering Defendant as pertaining tot he incident alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, was not extreme, outrageous, or reckless. The conduct of this answering Defendant conformed to the law.

The liability, if any, of this answering Defendant is several and not joint and based upon its own acts and not the acts of others.

The claims, and each of them, are premature.

Plaintiff has suffered no damages and, therefore, is not entitled to relief.

Plaintiff has suffered no harm as a result of answering Defendant’s conduct.

Any damages suffered by Plaintiff were not the direct or proximate result of answering Defendant’s actions.

Any and all damages sustained by Plaintiff are the result of negligence, breach of contract and breach of warranty, express and/or implied of third party over whom this answering Defendant has no control.

The incidents and occurrences described in the Complaint on file in the above entitled matter are the result of an unavoidable accident.

Any and all alleged problems and damages were proximately caused or contributed to by the acts of other person and/or other entities and that said acts were an intervening and/or superseding cause of the injuries and damages, if any, thus barring any recovering against answering Defendant.

Any conduct on the part of answering Defendant was not the cause of Plaintiff’s alleged losses or damages, the existence of which is denied, relieving answering Defendant from any liability.

This answering Defendant was without knowledge of the acts giving rise to and could not have averted the damages alleged by the Plaintiff.

This answering Defendant is not negligent with respect to the transactions which are the subject of the Complaint, and are/were not in breach of contract or warranty (express or implied).

The damages, if any, suffered by the Plaintiff must be reduced by the amount of the consideration agreed to be paid or paid to Plaintiff by others by any joint tortfeasor.

The damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff, if any, were caused in whole or in part by the acts and omissions of Plaintiff, which negligence exceeds any fault, if any, of Defendant.

If Plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss, damage or injury as alleged in the Claims, such loss, damage or injury was proximately caused and contributed to by Plaintiff’s failure to conduct himself in a manner ordinarily expected of a reasonably prudent person conducting his affairs.

Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care, caution or prudence to avoid the loss complained of in the claims and that failure directly and proximately contributed to, and was caused by the negligence, misconduct or fault of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is barred from asserting any claims against Defendant because the alleged damages were the result of intervening and superseding conduct of others.

Defendant at all times complied with the duty of care owed by Defendant to Plaintiff, and therefore were/was not negligent.

The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant did not give rise to a duty being owed by Defendant to Plaintiff.

Defendant performed on Defendant’s part, each and every duty, if any, owed by it towards Plaintiff.

Any or all negligence or fault on the part of the Plaintiff, if any, would be active and primary, and any negligence or fault of answering Defendant, if any, would be secondary and passive.

Any and all damages sustained by Plaintiff are the result of negligence, breach of contract and breach of warranty, express and/or implied of third-party over whom this answering Defendant has no control.

This answering Defendant is not negligent with respect to the transactions which are the subject of the Complaint, and are and were not in breach of contract or warranty (express or implied).

The incidents and occurrences described in the Complaint on file in the above-entitled matter are the result of an unavoidable accident.

At all times herein, the product or products supplied or installed by this answering Defendant were fit and proper for the use for which they were designed and intended.

There was a misuse of the product of this answering Defendant by some person or persons not employed or controlled by this answering Defendant and the said misuse proximately caused the events and occurrences described in the Complaint and is a bar to any recovery by the Plaintiff.

Under the factual circumstances set forth in the Complaint, there was a misuse of the product or products involved, if any, by Plaintiff or some third person and the misuse of the said product or products is an absolute bar to any recovery by the Plaintiff against this answering Defendant.

At the times and place and under the circumstances alleged, the Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care, caution or prudence for their own safety, thereby approximately causing or contributing to the cause of their own damages, if any, through their own negligence.

The liability, if any, of this answering Defendant must be reduced by the percentage of fault of others, including the Plaintiff.

The damages, if any, suffered by the Plaintiff must be reduced by the amount of the consideration agreed to be paid or paid to Plaintiff by others by any joint tortfeasor.

The claims of the Plaintiff have been waived as a result of the acts and the conduct of the Plaintiff.

If any of the products or materials described within the Third-Party Complaint herein were manufactured, designed or supplied by this Third-Party Defendant, they were manufactured, designed and supplied in strict accordance with specifications supplied by others to this Third-Party Defendant; that if there were any defects in said products or materials, such were caused by deficiencies in the specifications supplied to this Third-Party Defendant which were neither known to this Third-Party Defendant nor discoverable by it in the exercise of ordinary care.

If any of the products or materials described in the Third-Party Complaint herein were manufactured, designed or supplied by this Third-Party Defendant, and if Third-Party Plaintiff sustained injuries or damages proximately caused by a defect in said products or materials, said defect was not present at the time said products or materials left the custody, control and possession of this Third-Party Defendant, but arose subsequent thereto and was caused by or due to the misuse, modification, alteration, repackaging, storage, lack of repair, or inadequate maintenance of said products or materials by one other than this Third-Party Defendant.

Plaintiff had knowledge of and assumed the risk. The injuries alleged by Plaintiff were caused by and arose out of the risk which Plaintiff had knowledge of and assumed.

Plaintiff(s) or the person insured by plaintiff failed to file and pursue a claim with the responsible government agency before filing this lawsuit.

The damages the plaintiff(s) or the person insured by plaintiff claims to have suffered were caused or made worse by an event that occurred after the accident described in the complaint.

The damages the plaintiff(s) or the person insured by plaintiff claims to have suffered were almost entirely caused by an event that occurred after the accident described in the complaint, thus this defendant is not responsible for plaintiff’s claimed damages.

Negligent Hiring/Supervision

Defendant did not have knowledge that Employee’s conduct would subject Plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of harm. (Supervision)

Defendant conducted a reasonable background check on Employee prior to hiring him/her to determine whether or not he/she was fit for his/her position. (Hiring)

Defendant adequately trained Employee to perform his/her job duties. (Hiring and Supervision)

Negligent Misrepresentation

Answering Defendant did not know or could not have known that the statements, if any, were misrepresentative as a result of lack of complete or correct records.

This answering Defendant did not violate a duty owed to Plaintiff, as he made no affirmative misrepresentations, but merely omitted negative comments or information.

Negligence Per Se

This answering Defendant’s actions, if any, were not in violation of any statute.

The statute was not intended to protect persons such as Plaintiff.

The statute was not intended to protect against the type of injury that occurred.

This answering Defendant’s actions, if any, were not negligent.

Non-Disclosure

This answering Defendant’s non-disclosures, if any, were not intentional.

This answering Defendant owed no duty of disclosure to Plaintiff.

One Action Rule

The One Action Rule cannot be waived.

Guarantors of loan documents are entitled to the protections set forth in NRS Chapter 40 all of which are incorporated by reference.

Plaintiff forfeited its rights to the real property securing the underlying obligation.

Plaintiff has not foreclosed on its security interest, therefore no personal judgment can be entered against Defendant.

Plaintiff is over secured by its lien against the real property, therefore no judgment can be entered against Defendant.

No notice of default was mailed to Defendant.

Partition

Plaintiff are not entitled to any interest in the Property.

Plaintiff are not entitled to a partition of the Property.

A partition of the Property would not be fairly and equitably divided and would confer unfair advantage to particular owners thereof.

Upon partition, if any, Plaintiff are not entitled to possession of the Property.

Partnership

No partnership exists between answering Defendant and Plaintiff as they had not agreed to be partners, did not share the rights of management in a business, or did not share profits or the risk of loss

No partnership exists between answering Defendant and third party as they had not agreed to be partners, did not share the rights of management in a business, or did not share profits or the risk of loss

Plaintiff should be estopped from claiming the existence of a partnership.

Patent Infringement

Defendant did not directly infringe, do not contributorily infringe, and do not induce infringement of any properly construed valid claim of the Patent under any theory, including literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and Defendant have not directly infringed, have not contributorily infringed, and have not induced infringement of any properly construed valid claim of the Patent under any theory, including literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

The Patent and each claim thereof is invalid because of its failure to meet the conditions of patentability and to comply with one or more of the requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code including, without limitation, §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.

Defendant did not and have not willfully infringed any properly construed valid claim of the Patent.

Prior to filing the instant action, Plaintiff failed to provide Defendant with sufficient notice of her allegations of infringement.  Therefore, Plaintiff cannot recover any damages or other relief for any actions by Defendant prior to the initiation of this litigation.

The Patent is unenforceable because of inequitable conduct committed during the prosecution of the Patent.

Defendant are entitled to sanctions, including costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 35 U.S.C. § 285, for Plaintiff’s failure to properly investigate her allegations prior to filing its Claims and for bringing this action for improper purposes.

The patents are invalid for failing to comply with one or more of the statutory conditions of patentability set forth in at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112, and/or the patents are unenforceable.

The manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation of any products has not infringed and does not infringe, directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the patents.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, under the doctrines of laches, estoppel, and other equitable remedies.  Further, upon information and belief, Plaintiff have not marked their products under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

Promissory Estoppel

This answering Defendant made no promises.

This answering Defendant did not intend for Plaintiff to rely on his representations, if any.

Plaintiff did not rely to its detriment on answering Defendant’s representations, if any.

Defendant did not make a promises or assurances to Plaintiff that ______________________ in exchange for _____________________________.

Plaintiff did not act in reliance upon Defendant’s promises and assurances.

Plaintiff did not place a great deal of trust and confidence in Defendant.

Plaintiff did not act with prudence and in reasonable reliance on the promises made by Defendant.

Defendant did not make any promises to Plaintiff to induce Plaintiff to _______________.

Defendant did not know nor should it have reasonably expected that Plaintiff would to take based on its statements.

It was not reasonably foreseeable that Plaintiff would rely on the Defendant’s statements and forego ___________ due to Defendants’ broken promises.

Plaintiff will not suffer an injustice if the alleged promise is not enforced.

Equities do not support enforcement of the alleged agreement.

Punitive Damages

This answering Defendant’s conduct was not oppressive nor made or committed with malice, oppression, or fraud.

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set forth any facts which would constitute a basis for any claim for punitive or exemplary damages as against answering Defendant.

Punitive damages as claimed will be excessive and otherwise violate the provisions of both the United States and Nevada Constitutions.

Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages.

Punitive damages are not available for breach of contract.

Any punitive or exemplary damages are limited, in whole or in part, by, inter alia, Nevada Revised Statute 42.005.

Quiet Title

Plaintiff has no interest in the Property.

This answering Defendant is legally entitled to the Property in equity/through title/by easement/through adverse possession.

Rescission

This answering Defendant and Plaintiff did not share a misconception about the contract.

The misconception, if any, did not affect the material purpose of the contract.

Answering Defendant has not made any intentional misrepresentations to Plaintiff.

The misrepresentation, if any, was not intentionally made to induce the Plaintiff to execute the contract.

Plaintiff is not entitled to rescind the contract.

Respondeat Superior

The initial prerequisites for vicarious liability do not exist.

There was no tortious conduct by the employee and/or the tortfeasor was not an employee of answering Defendant.

The tortious conduct, if any, was not within the scope of the employee’s employment at the time the tort was committed as the conduct was not undertaken by the employee to further answering Defendant’s interests, and/or there was no objective causal connection between the employment and the tort.

Retaliatory Discharge

Defendant did not have a significant degree of supervision over Plaintiff.

Defendant did not pay Plaintiff his salary.

Defendant did not have the power to hire or fire Plaintiff.

Defendant did not have the right to control the hours and location of Plaintiff’s employment.

The activities of Plaintiff were for, and did, benefit the general business concerns of entity.

The relationship between Defendant and Plaintiff was not an employer/employee relationship, rather, Plaintiff was an employee of an independent contractor.

Defendant did not fire Plaintiff from his position with entity.

Defendant lacked the requisite intent to harm Plaintiff.

Nevada is an at-will employment state, and Defendant may at any time for any reason terminate any employee.

Specific Performance

Plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance.

A remedy at law would adequately compensate Plaintiff.

Specific performance would cause severe hardship to answering Defendant.

Specific performance is impossible.

Specific performance consists of a personal service.

The terms of the agreement are neither definite nor certain.

Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law.

Plaintiff failed to tender performance for the property in question.

Plaintiff had notice of the alleged defect in the property.

Pursuant to NRS Chapter 113, Plaintiff’s remedies were contractually limited to rescission or acceptance of the property.

Plaintiff’s damages are contractually capped at $________.

Trademark

Plaintiff’s mark is not inherently distinctive.

Plaintiff’s mark has not acquired a secondary meaning.

Plaintiff does not own the trademark.

Any trademarks are entitled to fair use by Answering Defendant.

Plaintiff’s mark does not contain any commercial goodwill.

Plaintiff’s mark has not been debilitated or diluted.

Plaintiff was not the first to adopt and use the trademark in commerce.

Trespass

Plaintiff consented to answering Defendant’s entry on Plaintiff’s property.

This answering Defendant enjoyed a privilege of necessity.

This answering Defendant has no reason to know that he was trespassing on the rights of Plaintiff.

This answering Defendant did not trespass on the rights of Plaintiff.

Ultra Vires

This answering Defendant’s actions were within the scope of powers granted by answering Defendant’s charter, the laws authorizing its formation, or similar founding documents.

Undue Influence

Defendant did not exercise control over Plaintiff.

Defendant did not destroy Plaintiff’s free will.

Defendant did not constrain Plaintiff and force him to do what he did not want to do.

Defendant did not owe Plaintiff a fiduciary duty.

Defendant did not exert undue influence over Plaintiff.

Defendant did not have an opportunity to exert undue influence over Plaintiff.

There was no desired effect produced resulting from any alleged act of undue influence.

The doctrine of undue influence does not include marriage.

Plaintiff is a young individual with a sound mind.

Defendant did not receive any financial gain from the alleged act of undue influence.

There was no gift given or contract entered into by Plaintiff as a result of the alleged acts of undue influence.

Plaintiff was not placed under distress by Defendant.

Mere influence, direction, insistence or guidance does not constitute undue influence.

Venue is improper in this Court because Defendant have not conducted business in this judicial district, do not reside in this judicial district, have not committed acts of infringement in this judicial district, and do not have a regular and established place of business in this judicial district

Unjust Enrichment

The Plaintiff did not confer any benefit upon answering Defendant by either substantially performing or satisfying conditions precedent to the contract.

This answering Defendant has made all necessary payments or abided by all necessary provisions to Plaintiff.

This answering Defendant has not retained any benefit which in equity and good conscience belongs to Plaintiff.

To the extent that answering Defendant has not received any benefits from Plaintiff, answering Defendant has not been unjustly enriched.

Plaintiff is not equitably entitled to obtain any money from Defendant.

Plaintiff is not entitled to the reasonable value of any services.

There is no reasonable value for Plaintiff’s services because Plaintiff damaged Defendant.

Defendant has not retained any benefit which in equity and good conscience belongs to Plaintiff.

Defendant has not retained any money or property against fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

Plaintiff’s claims are merely conjecture and speculation.

Plaintiff did not confer a benefit on Defendant.

Plaintiff did not appreciate any benefits from Defendant.

Plaintiff did not accept and retain any benefit under circumstances such that it would be inequitable for them to retain the benefit without payment of the value thereof.

No cause of action for unjust enrichment can be made when there is an express contract between the parties.

Unlawful Detainer

This answering Defendant and Plaintiff do not have a landlord-tenant relationship.

This answering Defendant’s lease, if any, does not indicate an expiration date.

This answering Defendant’s possession, if any, is not wrongful.

Plaintiff did not make a demand for surrender of the premises.

This answering Defendant has not refused to surrender the premises.

 

About the Author

Jay Young is a Las Vegas, Nevada attorney. His practice focuses on acting as an Arbitrator and Mediator.

Mr. Young can be reached at 702.667.4868 or at jay@h2law.com.

The information provided on this site does not, and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You understand each legal matter should be considered to be unique and subject to varying results. You should not take or refrain from taking action based on any information contained on this website without first consulting legal counsel, as it is not intended to advise you on your particular matter. Further, you understand that no guarantee is given that the information contained herein is an accurate statement of the law at any given point in time, as the law is constantly changing. Please see http://nevadalaw.info/disclaimer

 
%d bloggers like this: