Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 5 Filed 04/04/05 Page 1 of 8 PageID 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
______________________________________
)
JAMIE ANN NAUGHRIGHT,
)
) Case No. 8:05-CV-637-T-24-TBM
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
)
)
v.
)
)
PEYTON MANNING,
)
)
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
)
)
______________________________________ )
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant Peyton Manning ( Manning ) answers the Amended Complaint of
Jamie Ann Naughright ( Naughright or Plaintiff ) as follows:
1.

Admits that Plaintiff alleges that this is an action for breach of a

Settlement Agreement between the parties and that Plaintiff seeks more than $15,000 in
damages, but, except as so admitted, denies each and every allegation contained in
paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint.
2.

Admits that the Settlement Agreement upon which Plaintiff bases her

claim was executed in connection with the action Jamie Ann Naughright v. Peyton
Manning, Case No. 2002 CA-2228, in the Circuit Court in and for Polk County,
Florida, affirmatively alleges that this court has jurisdiction over this action because
there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs), but, except as so

\\\NY - 23693/0001 - 886864 v1

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 5 Filed 04/04/05 Page 2 of 8 PageID 29

admitted, denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 2 of the Amended
Complaint.
3.

Admits that Plaintiff and Manning are subject to the jurisdiction of this

Court and the Florida Circuit Court for the purposes of venue and for the purposes of
rendering a judgment against one party or the other.
4.

Admits that Plaintiff and Manning, along with other parties and

individuals, entered into a Settlement Agreement that resolved the matter Naughright v.
Manning, et al., Case No. 53-2002CA-002228-0000-00, in the Circuit Court for the
Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida on or about December 2, 2003
(the Settlement Agreement ), but, except as so admitted, denies each and every
allegation contained in paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint.
5.

Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 5 of the

Amended Complaint.
6.

Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 6 of the

Amended Complaint.
7.

Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 7 of the

Amended Complaint.
8.

Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 8 of the

Amended Complaint and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any or all of the relief
requested in paragraphs 8A-F of the Amended Complaint, except that Manning asserts
that any filing of the Settlement Agreement must be under seal.

2
\\\NY - 23693/0001 - 886864 v1

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 5 Filed 04/04/05 Page 3 of 8 PageID 30

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense
The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Second Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff s purported claim is barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
Third Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff s purported claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff s purported claim is frivolous and sanctionable.
Reservation
Defendant reserves the right to add those affirmative defenses which it deems
necessary to his defense during or upon the conclusion of discovery.
COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Peyton Manning ( Manning ), by and
through his undersigned counsel, as and for his counterclaim against Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant

Jamie

Ann

Naughright

( Counterclaim-Defendant

or

Naughright ), states as follows:

Nature of the Action
1.

Counterclaim-Defendant has brought a baseless claim against Manning for

breach of contract. But it is the Counterclaim-Defendant

and not Manning who

breached the settlement agreement entered into by the parties.

2.

Accordingly, Counterclaim-Defendant should be required to pay damages

pursuant to the settlement agreement as a result of that breach.

3
\\\NY - 23693/0001 - 886864 v1

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 5 Filed 04/04/05 Page 4 of 8 PageID 31

The Parties
3.

Manning is a citizen of the State of Indiana and a resident of Indianapolis,

Indiana.
4.

Naughright is a citizen of the State of Florida and a resident of Lakeland,

Florida.
Jurisdiction and Venue
5.

This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of

28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Manning and Naughright were citizens of different states at the
time of Naughright s breach of contract and are now citizens of different states and the
amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
6.

Venue is appropriate in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b),

because, inter alia, Naughright resides in the district and the State, and Naughright has
sufficient contacts with this District to subject her to personal jurisdiction in this
District.
Factual Allegations
7.

Naughright and Manning, along with others, entered into a settlement

agreement that resolved the matter Naughright v. Manning, et al., Case No. 532002CA-002228-0000-00, in the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Polk County, Florida on or about December 2, 2003 (the Settlement Agreement ).
8.

On or about January 16, 2005, Naughright knowingly and voluntarily

contacted Mike Freeman ( Freeman ), a columnist at The Florida Times-Union and

made statements to Freeman that violated the Settlement Agreement.

4
\\\NY - 23693/0001 - 886864 v1

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 5 Filed 04/04/05 Page 5 of 8 PageID 32

9.

Freeman then wrote an article entitled Manning still battling college foe

which was published in the issue of The Florida Times-Union dated January 16, 2005.
A copy of that article is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.
10.

Naughright s action in contacting Freeman and commenting on the

contents of the Settlement Agreement violated said Settlement Agreement.

First Counterclaim for Relief
(Breach of Contract)
11.

Manning repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

through 10 of this Counterclaim.

12.

The Settlement Agreement was and is a valid contract existing between

Manning and Naughright.

13.

Manning fully complied with and performed his obligations under the

Settlement Agreement.
14.

Naughright materially breached the Settlement Agreement by contacting

Freeman.
15.

Naughright materially breached the Settlement Agreement by making

statements to Freeman.
16.

Manning has been damaged by Naughright s breaches of the Settlement

Agreement, in an amount to be determined at trial, but at a minimum in the amount of

damages articulated in the Settlement Agreement, and attorneys fees and costs
incurred in connection with this matter.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, defendant and counterclaim-plaintiff Peyton Manning prays

5
\\\NY - 23693/0001 - 886864 v1

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 5 Filed 04/04/05 Page 6 of 8 PageID 33

judgment as follows:
1.

Dismissing the Amended Complaint with prejudice;

2.

Awarding his attorneys fees and costs incurred;

3.

Awarding Manning damages in an amount enumerated in the Settlement

Agreement based on Naughright s breach of the Settlement Agreement;

4.

An Order that the Settlement Agreement remains in full force and effect

until the end of time; and

5.

Awarding such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Dated: April 4, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

s/Lara J. Tibbals
_
Benjamin H. Hill, III, Esq., FBN 094585
Lara J. Tibbals, Esq., FBN 129054
HILL, WARD & HENDERSON, P.A.
101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, S. 3700
P. O. Box 2231
Tampa, Florida 33601
Tel: (813) 221-3900/Fax: (813) 221-2900
ltibbals@hwhlaw.com
and
Slade R. Metcalf, Esq.
Katherine M. Bolger, Esq.
HOGAN & HARTSON, L.L.P.
875 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 918-3000
Fax: (212) 918-3100
srmetcalf@hhlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
Peyton Manning

6
\\\NY - 23693/0001 - 886864 v1

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 5 Filed 04/04/05 Page 7 of 8 PageID 34

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 4, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that I
forwarded the foregoing document and the notice of electronic filing by first-class mail to
the following non-CM/ECF participant: Michael D. Martin, Esq., Post Office Box 367,
Lakeland, Florida, 33802-0367.

s/Lara J. Tibbals
Lara J. Tibbals, Esq.

7
\\\NY - 23693/0001 - 886864 v1

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 5 Filed 04/04/05 Page 8 of 8 PageID 35

This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com.

The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 5-2 Filed 04/04/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 36

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 5-2 Filed 04/04/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 37