Tobey v. Napolitano et al

Filing 64

ANSWER to Complaint Second Amended Complaint by Jeffrey Kandler, Anthony Mason, Quentin Trice, Calvin Vann.(Jones, Belinda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
AARON TOBEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANET NAPOLITANO, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:11cv154-HEH

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Pursuant to the Court’s August 30, 2011, Order, Capital Region Airport
Commission (the “Commission”) and Victor Williams (“Williams”) were dismissed from
this action. Defendants Quenton Trice (“Trice”), Calvin Vann (“Vann”), Anthony Mason
(“Mason”), and Jeffrey Kandler (“Kandler”) also were dismissed in their official
capacities. Defendants Trice, Vann, Mason and Kandler (collectively, the “Defendant
Officers”),1 in their individual capacities, by counsel, state for their Answer and
Affirmative Defenses to the Second Amended Complaint as follows:
ANSWER
Preliminary Statement
The Defendant Officers incorporate their responses to Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint except as follows:
7.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 7, the Commission is no

longer a party to this action and no response is required. To the extent a response is
1

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint purports to include the claims and parties previously
dismissed in accordance with the Court’s August 30, 2011, Order (Doc. No. 54). To the extent any
responses are required of the dismissed parties or with respect to the dismissed claims, the responses to
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint are incorporated herein.

required, the Defendant Officers incorporate their response to paragraph 7 set forth in
their Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
8.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 8, Williams is no longer a

party to this action and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the
Defendant Officers incorporate their response to paragraph 8 set forth in their Answer to
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
10.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 10, the Defendant Officers

deny that Vann is a party to this action in his official capacity. The remaining allegations
set forth in paragraph 10 are admitted.
11.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 11, the Defendant Officers

deny that Trice, Kandler or Mason are parties to this action in their official capacities.
The Defendant Officers admit the first two sentences of paragraph 11. The Defendant
Officers state that Trice was Chief of the RIC Police and had some management,
direction and supervisory responsibilities of the Police employed by the Commission and
some responsibilities with respect to programs, policies, practices and procedures over
police employed by the Commission with respect to supervision and interaction of such
police with other agencies. The last two sentences in paragraph 11 are legal conclusions
and require no response, however, to the extent a response is required, the Defendant
Officers deny any liability. The Defendant Officers deny any allegations inconsistent
herewith.
33.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 33, the Defendant Officers

admit that Vann and Mason were approached by DOE and informed of the incident. The
Defendant Officers deny that Vann and Mason were told to take any specific action

2

against Plaintiff. With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 33, the
Defendant Officers lack sufficient information to admit or deny, and, therefore, they are
denied.
35.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 35, the Defendant Officers

lack sufficient information to admit or deny DOE’s alleged actions, and therefore, those
allegations are denied. The remaining allegations in paragraph 35 are denied.
67.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 67, the Commission is no

longer a party to this action. Answering further, the Defendant Officers incorporate their
response to paragraph 67 set forth in their Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint.
70.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 70, the Commission is no

longer a party to this action. Answering further, the Defendant Officers incorporate their
response to paragraph 70 set forth in their Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint.
85.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 85, the Commission,

Williams, and Trice, in his official capacity, are no longer parties to this action.
Answering further, the Defendant Officers incorporate their response to paragraph 85 set
forth in their Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
86.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 86, the Commission,

Williams, and Trice, in his official capacity, are no longer parties to this action.
Answering further, the Defendant Officers incorporate their response to paragraph 86 set
forth in their Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

3

87.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 87, the Commission,

Williams, and Trice, in his official capacity, are no longer parties to this action.
Answering further, the Defendant Officers incorporate their response to paragraph 87 set
forth in their Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
89.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 89, the Commission,

Williams, and Trice, in his official capacity, are no longer parties to this action.
Answering further, the Defendant Officers incorporate their response to paragraph 89 set
forth in their Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
100.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 100, the Commission,

Williams, and Trice, in his official capacity, are no longer parties to this action and no
response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Defendant Officers
incorporate their response to paragraph 100 set forth in their Answer to Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint.
106.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 106, the Commission,

Williams, and Trice, in his official capacity, are no longer parties to this action and no
response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Defendant Officers
incorporate their response to paragraph 106 set forth in their Answer to Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint.
113.

With respect to the allegations in paragraph 113, the Commission,

Williams, and Trice, in his official capacity, are no longer parties to this action and no
response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Defendant Officers
incorporate their response to paragraph 113 set forth in their Answer to Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint.

4

Prayer For Relief
The Defendant Officers deny that plaintiff is entitled to any relief against them
and pray that all claims as to them be dismissed with prejudice.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1.

The Commission employees sued in their individual capacities are

immune from the federal and state law claims under the doctrine of qualified immunity.
2.

The Defendants Officers acted with probable cause.

3.

Plaintiff’s alleged damages are caused by Plaintiff’s conduct and/or the

conduct of others and not the conduct of the Defendant Officers.

Respectfully Submitted,
QUENTON TRICE, ANTHONY MASON,
CALVIN VANN, and JEFFREY
KANDLER
/s/ Belinda D. Jones
Paul W. Jacobs II (VSB No. 16815)
Henry I. Willett, III (VSB No. 44655)
Belinda D. Jones (VSB No. 72169)
CHRISTIAN & BARTON, L.L.P.
909 East Main Street, Suite 1200
Richmond, Virginia 23219-3095
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 18th day of October, 2011, the foregoing was
electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send
notification of such filing to all counsel of record, including:
James Jeffrey Knicely
KNICELY & ASSOCIATES
487 McLaws Circle
PO Box GK
Williamsburg, VA 23187
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Alan C Veronick
Anand Agneshwar
Arnold & Porter LLP (NY-NA)
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Counsel for Aaron Tobey

________/s/ Belinda D. Jones
CHRISTIAN & BARTON, L.L.P.
909 East Main Street, Suite 1200
Richmond, Virginia 23219-3095
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
1203016v2

6