ASB-FBT-CV-23-6120092-S : SUPERIOR COURT :
`
`CONRAD JOHNS AND ELIZABETH :
`JOHNS :
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALFA LAVAL, INC., ET AL. :
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
`
`AT BRIDGEPORT
`
`APRIL 5, 2023
`
`DEFENDANT DURACELL U.S. OPERATIONS, INC.’S ANSWER, SPECIAL
`DEFENSES AND CROSS CLAIMS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Duracell U.S. Operations, Inc. (hereinafter “Duracell” or “Defendant”), hereby
`
`responds to the allegations of the Third Amended Complaint [#140.00] (hereinafter
`
`“Complaint”) dated March 29, 2023 as follows:
`
`COUNT I (Product liability as against all defendants)
`
`1. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1 and, as such, denies them.
`
`2. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 2 and, as such, denies them.
`
`3. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 3 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 3.
`
`4. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 4 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`
`
`CONRAD JOHNS AND ELIZABETH :
`JOHNS :
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALFA LAVAL, INC., ET AL. :
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
`
`AT BRIDGEPORT
`
`APRIL 5, 2023
`
`DEFENDANT DURACELL U.S. OPERATIONS, INC.’S ANSWER, SPECIAL
`DEFENSES AND CROSS CLAIMS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Duracell U.S. Operations, Inc. (hereinafter “Duracell” or “Defendant”), hereby
`
`responds to the allegations of the Third Amended Complaint [#140.00] (hereinafter
`
`“Complaint”) dated March 29, 2023 as follows:
`
`COUNT I (Product liability as against all defendants)
`
`1. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1 and, as such, denies them.
`
`2. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 2 and, as such, denies them.
`
`3. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 3 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 3.
`
`4. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 4 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 4.
`
`5. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 5 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 5.
`
`6. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 6 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 6, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 6.
`
`7. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 7 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 7.
`
`8. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 8 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 8, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 8.
`
`9. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 9 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 9, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 9.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`10. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 10 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 10.
`
`11. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 11 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 11 and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 11.
`
`12. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 12 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 12, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 12.
`
`13. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 13 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 13, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 13.
`
`14. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 14 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 14, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 14.
`
`15. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 15 and its subparts are directed against
`
`Defendant, they are denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 15 and its subparts and therefore
`
`denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 15.
`
`16. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 16 and its subparts are directed against
`
`Defendant, they are denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 16 and therefore denies the
`
`remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 16 and its subparts.
`
`17. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 17 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 17, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 17.
`
`18. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 18 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 18, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 18.
`
`19. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 19 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 19, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 19.
`
`20. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 20 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 20, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 20.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`21. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 21 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 22, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 21.
`
`22. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 22 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 22, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 22.
`
`23. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 23 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 23, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 23.
`
`COUNT II (Recklessness as to all Defendants)
`
`1-23. Defendant repeats and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-23,
`
`inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.1-23.
`
`24. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 24 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 24, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 24.
`
`25. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 25 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 25, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 25.
`
`26. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 26 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 26, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 26.
`
`27. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 27 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 27, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 27.
`
`28. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 28 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 28, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 28.
`
`COUNT III (As to Plaintiff Elizabeth Johns and all Defendants)
`
`1-28. Defendant repeats and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-28,
`
`inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.1-28.
`
`29. Insofar as the allegations of Paragraph 29 are directed against Defendant, they are
`
`denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 29, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 29. To the extent the “Wherefore” Paragraphs of Count III of Plaintiffs’
`
`Complaint can be read as alleging that any act or omission of Duracell caused the alleged
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`damages in the “Wherefore” paragraph, it is denied. Defendant further denies the damages
`
`claimed by Plaintiffs.
`
`SPECIAL DEFENSES
`
`FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The defendant asserts that another party retained non-alkaline battery liabilities and
`
`Duracell is only responsible for liabilities extending to its current business, alkaline batteries.
`
`Duracell did not assume any liabilities outside of alkaline batteries.
`
`SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
` Plaintiffs are not entitled to the damages claimed or to the relief requested.
`
`THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
` The Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
`
`FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of repose.
`
`FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ breach of warranty claims are barred for lack of privity.
`
`SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
` Plaintiffs’ warranty claims are barred by reason of the failure of Plaintiffs to give
`
`reasonable notice of the alleged breaches.
`
`SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ alleged injury or damage was not caused by any act or omission of this
`
`Defendant. Such injury or damage, if any, was caused by the intervening act(s) or omission(s) of
`
`persons or entities other than this Defendant.
`
`EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over this Defendant.
`
`NINTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Each and every count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a cause of action for which
`
`relief can be granted.
`
`TENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs have failed to join all necessary parties for the just adjudication of this matter
`
`and has further omitted reason for such failure.
`
`ELEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Service of process on this Defendant was improper and insufficient.
`
`TWELFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The doctrine of strict liability in tort is inapplicable to Plaintiffs’ claims against this
`
`Defendant.
`
`THIRTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
` Plaintiff Conrad Johns willingly, knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of the
`
`alleged injuries for which relief is now sought.
`
`FOURTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Conrad Johns was not in the exercise of due care and his negligence contributed
`
`to or caused the injury or damage complained of in whole or in part.
`
`FIFTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
` If Plaintiffs have settled with and/or released other defendants or entities who are
`
`tortfeasors, this Defendant is entitled to a reduction of any judgment, either in the total of all the
`
`settlement amounts or the pro-rata share of fault of said tortfeasors as determined by the Court or
`
`jury - whichever is greater.
`
`SIXTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The alleged product or component sold or complied by the defendant or any legal
`
`predecessor contains no asbestos.
`
`SEVENTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
` This Defendant is not liable as a matter of law because its product was manufactured in
`
`accordance with contract specifications of a third-party, the United States Navy.
`
`EIGHTEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`This Defendant is not liable as a matter of law because its product was manufactured in
`
`accordance with contract specification of the United States government.
`
`NINETEENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
` Plaintiffs’ claims against this Defendant are barred by the exclusivity provision of the
`
`Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-284.
`
`TWENTIETH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages were cause by the abnormal and unintended use
`
`of this Defendant's product(s).
`
`TWENTY-FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff Conrad Johns’ employer and/or the purchaser of this Defendant's product(s)
`
`possessed a high degree of knowledge and sophistication and had equal or superior means and
`
`ability to appreciate and warn of any hazards concerning the use of this Defendant's product(s).
`
`TWENTY-SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`At all relevant times the state of medical and scientific knowledge and the state of art and
`
`design and manufacture of Defendant's products was such that this Defendant neither knew nor
`
`should have known that any of its products presented a health risk.’’
`
`TWENTY-THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
` Plaintiffs have released, settled, entered into an accord and satisfaction or otherwise
`
`compromised the claims herein.
`
`TWENTY-FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
` Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
`
`TWENTY-FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`The imposition of punitive damages as to this Defendant would violate public policy and
`
`our United States Constitution as the imposition of punitive damages will serve no deterrent
`
`effect and would be duplicative and excessive in nature.
`
`TWENTY-SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs failed to mitigate or otherwise act to lessen or reduce the injuries and damages
`
`alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
`
`TWENTY-SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`This Defendant gave no warranties, express or implied, to Plaintiffs or to anyone acting
`
`on Plaintiffs’ behalf.
`
`TWENTY-EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant further states that plaintiff’s injuries are work related and his recovery is
`
`limited to work-related compensation benefits provided by his past employers, including the
`
`United States Navy.
`
`TWENTY-NINTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`This Defendant cannot be held responsible for products manufactured, sold and
`
`distributed by third-parties over which this Defendant had no responsibility or control.
`
`THIRTIETH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
` Plaintiff Conrad Johns knew or reasonably should have known of the potential dangers
`
`associated with this Defendant's products and therefore this Defendant's alleged failure to warn
`
`him have no causal connection to Plaintiffs’ injuries.
`
`THIRTY-FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff Conrad Johns’ alleged exposure to asbestos as a result of working with or around
`
`this Defendant's product(s) - which this Defendant vigorously denies - was so minimal as to be
`
`insufficient to establish a reasonable degree of probability that the product(s) caused Plaintiffs’
`
`alleged injuries.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`THIRTY-SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
` This Defendant is entitled to a set-off of any verdict in the amount of compensation
`
`Plaintiffs have received as a result of any claim for workers' compensation benefits.
`
`THIRTY-THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppel and waiver.
`
`THIRTY-FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`This Defendant denies that it manufactured, sold, or distributed any products which
`
`allegedly caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.
`
`THIRTY-FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff Conrad Johns’ employer was in control and possession of his worksite and
`
`responsible for maintaining a safe work environment, to the exclusion of this Defendant, and
`
`failed to do so, thereby breaking the chain of causation between this Defendant and Plaintiffs’
`
`alleged injuries.
`
`THIRTY-SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs were users of tobacco products despite being aware of the dangers of using such
`
`products and such use caused or contributed to any injuries or damages Plaintiffs seek
`
`compensation for in this matter.
`
`THIRTY-SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed because it was filed in an improper venue.
`
`THIRTY-EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of forum
`
`nonconveniens.
`
`THIRTY-NINTH SPECIAL DEFENSE \
`
`To the extent that there is a prior pending action between the parties, this case should be
`
`dismissed as a matter of law.
`
`FORTIETH SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Pursuant to Connecticut choice of law principles, the law of Connecticut is inapplicable
`
`and the law of an alternate forum should be applied.
`
`FORTY-FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
` Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ recovery is barred for the reason that any alleged
`
`exposure to this Defendant’s products, which it denies, was so minimal as to be insufficient to
`
`cause the claimed injury and illness
`
`FORTY-SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
` Defendant would show that Mr. Johns’ employers, agents, servants, employees, and/or
`
`directors failed to act in a manner consistent with the employers’ non-delegable duties as
`
`established by OSHA and the Connecticut Department of Labor Division of Occupational Safety
`
`and Health, thereby proximately causing Mr. Johns’ alleged injuries, illness, diseases,
`
`disabilities, losses, and/or damages, if any. Such failure on the part of Mr. Johns’ employers
`
`includes, but is not limited to: A. Failure to adequately train Mr. Johns on how to safely utilize
`
`the products, as an ordinary prudent employer would have done in like or similar circumstances;
`
`B. Failure to adequately disseminate product information as to the safe use of products as an
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`ordinary prudent employer would have done in like or similar circumstances; C. Failure to timely
`
`establish a written respiratory program; D. Failure to provide properly trained supervisors for
`
`Mr. Johns’ work crews; E. Failure to provide appropriate ventilation equipment and respiratory
`
`equipment; and F. Failure to provide proper filtering and monitoring devices for air-fed
`
`respiratory equipment.
`
`FORTY-THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE
`
`Defendant would show that Mr. Johns’ alleged injuries or illnesses, if any, were
`
`occupational diseases resulting from Mr. Johns’ work and not from any isolated incident or
`
`contact with any products made, manufactured, packaged, furnished, delivered, distributed,
`
`and/or sold by Defendant; and which Defendant is not legally liable or responsible for such
`
`occupational disease, if any, brought about or caused by conditions arising in the course and
`
`scope of Mr. Johns’ employment. In addition, Defendant would show that Mr. Johns, or Mr.
`
`Johns’ employers, owners of various premises in 16 which Mr. Johns worked, and the various
`
`government entities, including OSHA, were charged with the duty of inspecting the safety of Mr.
`
`Johns’ working conditions. Therefore, Defendant would show that the negligent acts and/or
`
`omissions of Mr. Johns, his employers, owners of the various premises in which he worked, and
`
`the various government agencies were the sole proximate cause of Mr. Johns’ alleged injuries,
`
`illnesses, or damages, if any.
`
`CROSS CLAIM OF DEFENDANT/CROSS-CLAIM PLAINTIFF DURACELL
`
`U.S. OPERATIONS, INC. AGAINST ALL CO-DEFENDANTS
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1. Plaintiffs in this action filed a complaint against Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff
`
`alleging that Plaintiffs sustained certain asbestos-related diseases and other injuries, and all said
`
`allegations were denied by Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff.
`
`2. Although Defendant Duracell denies all the claims set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, in
`
`the event that Defendant Duracell is found liable to Plaintiffs, then all other defendants are liable
`
`for equitable contribution and/or statutory contribution pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. §52-572o,
`
`and /or allocation of fault.
`
`3. Only in the event that Defendant Duracell is found liable to Plaintiffs, for purposes of
`
`this cross-claim, all allegations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint or related third party complaints
`
`against said defendants are adopted and incorporated as set forth fully herein.
`
`4. Only in the event that Defendant Duracell is found liable to Plaintiffs, in whole or in
`
`part, then the cross-claim defendants are liable to Defendant Duracell for all or part of Plaintiffs’
`
`claimed damages.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant/cross-claim Plaintiff claims: a. Contribution for Plaintiffs’
`
`alleged damages pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52- 572o; b. Equitable contribution from the
`
`cross-claim defendants for their share of any judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiffs; c. An
`
`allocation of responsibility among defendants; and d. Such other relief as the Court may deem
`
`just and proper.
`
`ANSWER TO ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE CROSS-CLAIMS
`
`Defendant Duracell denies each and every allegation contained in any crossclaim which
`
`may be asserted against it, refers all questions of law to the court and leaves crossclaim Plaintiffs
`
`to their proof.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Duracell demands judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint with costs,
`
`disbursements, and attorneys’ fees; awarding judgment against Plaintiffs and/or co-defendants
`
`for the full amount of any verdict judgment or for a proportionate share thereof that Plaintiffs
`
`may recover against Duracell, and for such other and further relief as this court may deem just
`
`and proper.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`The defendant requests a trial by jury on all issues in this case.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Defendant Duracell U.S. Operations, Inc
`By their attorneys,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kevin J. O’Leary
`
`
`
`
`
`Kevin J. O’Leary, Juris No. 437692
`Benjamin H. Levites, Juris. No. 438801
`Coughlin Betke LLP
`175 Federal Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`(617) 988-8050
`koleary@coughlinbetke.com
`blevites@coughlinbetke.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Kevin J. O’Leary, attorney for Defendant Duracell U.S. Operations, Inc, hereby certify
`that I served a copy of the above document electronically on Christopher Meisenkothen, Esq. of
`Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen, LLC and notice of same on all known defense
`counsel of record, on May 12, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kevin J. O’Leary
`
`___________________________________
`Kevin J. O’Leary
`
`
`
`16
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
