You are on page 1of 16

TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT SUMMARY INCIDENT REPORT

REPORT NUMBER: 2018014080

INCIDENT INFORMATION
INCIDENT CODE INCIDENT TYPE INITIAL X DATE/TIME STARTED DATE/TIME ENDED DATE/TIME REPORTED
17G Sex/All Others SUPP 06/01/1978 11:55 PM 08/15/1978 01:00 AM 02/28/2018 04:06 PM
REPORT FILED FROM TRACKING NUMBER LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE APPROVED BY:
*** T18002517 1400 East 52 STREET, Tulsa, OK 10666/T Trevor
LOCATION TYPE THEFT TYPE METHOD OF ENTRY METHOD OF EXIT PT OF ENTRY PT OF EXIT ENTRY LOC

PERSON LISTINGS
TYPE LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME DOB RACE SEX DRIVER LIC NO LIC ST
IV Cochrun James *** *** * *** ***
SSN ETHNICITY RESIDENT EYE COLOR HAIR COLOR AGE HEIGHT WEIGHT CELL PHONE
***
1
EMAIL RESIDENCE ADDRESS HOME PHONE
gmail.com *** ***
EMPLOYER NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS WORK PHONE
***
TYPE LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME DOB RACE SEX DRIVER LIC NO LIC ST
SUS Smith Robert *** *** *
SSN ETHNICITY RESIDENT EYE COLOR HAIR COLOR AGE HEIGHT WEIGHT CELL PHONE
*** *** *** 62 510 200
2
EMAIL RESIDENCE ADDRESS HOME PHONE
*** ***
EMPLOYER NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS WORK PHONE
***

NARRATIVE

In 1978 I was 12 years old and I lived with my family in the 1400 block of E.52nd Street in a row of homes owned by Osborn
Ministries Intl. My father was the music minister at a church housed on the OMI campus. Robert D. Smith, 22, was my youth
pastor. One Saturday night at Robert's house, he poked his head around the wall of his bedroom, and called out “Hey –
Fred,” come in here a minute”. Entering his room, I saw him laying in bed. “Close the door – I want to show you something”. I
tentatively obeyed – he was my youth pastor. I climbed into the bed and he pushed the sheet to his waist to reveal that he
was naked and had an erection. He admonished me and said “Don’t go – stay here”. I obeyed. Robert placed my hand on his
erect penis, instructing me to grasp it and begin stroking him. I pulled my hand back and so “No! I don’t want to do this”. “It’s
OK - you’ll like it – I promise. I did as I was instructed and Robert told me to continue – I was doing fine. This continued for
several minutes until Robert’s body went tense as he ejaculated – it went everywhere – on his chest, stomach and coated my
hand. Robert produced a towel from next to the bed and began cleaning up the mess. He turned toward me and said “now it’s
my turn” and pushed me back on the bed. Robert pulled sheet back, removed clothing and began to stroke my penis. My
body responded and I got an erection…Robert smiled and said “I knew you would like it” I was dizzy and confused…what was
happening? Robert continued then stopped and slid down on the bed. He lowered his head and took my penis into his mouth.
I was confused and angry. I got up from the bed, retrieved my clothing from the bed and got dressed and told Robert I was
going to watch SNL. He asked “Are you OK Fred? This is going to be our little secret. You can never tell ANYONE about this.”
This scene was repeated several more times over that Summer of 1978. In 2008/2017 I confronted and I have a recorded
admission I can provide to TPD.

Report Created On 03/14/2018 10:18 AM Page 1 of 2
REPORT NUMBER: 2018014080

Report Created On 03/14/2018 10:18 AM Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

ROBERT D. SMITH, §
Plaintiff §
§
v. § Case No: 3:18-cv-00225
§ Judge Campbell
JIM COCHRUN, § Magistrate Judge Frensley
Defendant §
§

DEFENDANT JIM COCHRUN’S AMENDED ORIGNAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Defendant JIM COCHRUN (“Cochrun”), and files this his Amended

Original Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, in the above-numbered and styled case.

Paragraphs No. 1 through and including 40 correspond to the same paragraph numbers in

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint.

I. Nature of Proceedings

1. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of many of

the allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively

denied. However, it is denied that the Plaintiff has been damaged and it is denied that the

statements made by the Defendant were false or defamatory. It also is denied that the Plaintiff

is entitled to a restraining order or any other form of injunctive relief.

II. Parties

2. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.
1
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 72
3. Cochrun admits that he is a resident of Austin, Texas.

III. Jurisdiction and Venue

4. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied

as to Tennessee state courts. Cochrun admits that the Federal District Courts of the Middle

District of Tennessee have jurisdiction and venue over this action.

5. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied

as to Tennessee state courts. Cochrun admits that the Federal District Courts of the Middle

District of Tennessee have jurisdiction and are the proper venue over this action.

6. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied

as to Tennessee state courts. Cochrun admits that the Federal District Courts of the Middle

District of Tennessee have jurisdiction and are the proper venue over this action.

IV. Facts

7. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of such

allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

8. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

9. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

10. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

2
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 73
11. Cochrun denies that he set a plan in motion as alleged by Plaintiff. Cochrun lacks knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this

paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

12. Cochrun admits to contacting Andy Andrews in the fall of 2017. Cochrun denies that he

defamed Plaintiff in these telephone and written communications. Cochrun lacks knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this

paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

13. Cochrun denies defaming Smith. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form

a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such

allegations are therefore effectively denied.

14. Cochrun denies defaming Smith and denies publishing defamatory statements to third parties.

In reality, the events as alleged by Cochrun took place as follows:

Amid telling his story of the sexual abuse and molestation suffered at the hands of
Robert D. Smith, Cochrun has been sued by his alleged abuser and Christian writer
and artist Robert D. Smith.

In 1978, Defendant was 12 years old and lived in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His father was
the music minister at a local church. Robert D. Smith, then aged 22 years was the
Defendant’s youth pastor. One Saturday night at Plaintiff’s house, Smith poked his
head around the wall of his bedroom, and called out “Hey, Fred. Come in here for
a minute.” It was commonplace for Plaintiff to call Defendant by the name Fred in
reference to the character Bassett Hound in Smokey and the Bandit. Entering his
room, Defendant saw him lying in bed. “Close the door. I want to show you
something.” Defendant tentatively obeyed. Smith was his youth pastor. Defendant
climbed into bed and Plaintiff pushed the sheet to his waist to reveal that he was
naked and had an erection. Plaintiff admonished Defendant and said, “Don’t go,
stay here.” Defendant obeyed. Plaintiff placed Defendant’s hand on his erect penis,
instructing Defendant to grasp it and begin stroking Plaintiff’s penis. Defendant
pulled his hand back and said, “No! I don’t want to do this.” “It’s OK. You’ll like
it. I promise,” said Plaintiff Smith. Defendant did as instructed and Plaintiff told
Defendant to continue. This continued for several minutes until Plaintiff’s body
went tense as he ejaculated. It went everywhere—on Plaintiff’s chest, stomach, and
coated Defendant’s hand. Plaintiff produced a towel from next to the bed and began
cleaning up the mess. He turned to Defendant and said “now it’s my turn” and

3
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 74
pushed Defendant back on the bed. Plaintiff pulled the sheet back, removed
clothing and began to stroke Plaintiff’s penis. Defendant’s body responded and he
got an erection. Plaintiff smiled and said, “I knew you would like it.” Defendant
was dizzy and confused. What was happening? Plaintiff continued then stopped
and slid down on the bed. He lowered his head and took Defendant’s penis into his
mouth. Defendant was confused and angry. Defendant got up from the bed,
retrieved his clothing and got dressed and told Plaintiff that he was going to watch
Saturday Night Live. Plaintiff asked, “Are you OK, Fred? This is going to be our
little secret. You can never tell ANYONE about this.” This scene was repeated
several more times over the summer of 1978.

Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of
the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are
therefore effectively denied.

15. Cochrun denies disseminating defamatory allegations to additional people. Cochrun denies

that Plaintiff is entitled to any further temporary restraining order, a temporary injunction or

otherwise any injunctive relief from this Court. Cochrun notes that Plaintiff had obtained an

ex parte temporary restraining order in the Tennessee state courts prior to removal to federal

court, and Plaintiff has allowed such temporary restraining order to expire nearly a month ago

and has not sought further temporary injunctive relief in this Court. Cochrun lacks knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this

paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

Count I – Defamation – Slander

16. The Defendant incorporates and reasserts all previous responses to the allegations of the

Verified Complaint.

17. This paragraph calls for a legal conclusion. Cochrun admits that Tennessee law requires the

elements to prove a prima facie case of defamation by slander as stated in the Plaintiff’s

Complaint; however, Cochrun denies that the list of elements of the law is fully accurate as

Plaintiff’s recitation misses the legal element of “actual malice” required to prove defamation

in the case of a public figure such as the Plaintiff.

4
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 75
18. Cochrun denies that the allegations regarding Plaintiff were false. Cochrun lacks knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this

paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

19. Cochrun denies that the allegations regarding Plaintiff were false. Cochrun lacks knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this

paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

20. Cochrun denies that he knew the statements were false when he published them. In fact,

Cochrun believes the statements he made to be true.

21. Cochrun denies that the statements were false. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and

accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

22. Cochrun denies that the statements were defamatory. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and

accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

Count II – Defamation

23. The Defendant incorporates and reasserts all previous responses to the allegations of the

Verified Complaint.

24. This paragraph calls for a legal conclusion. Cochrun admits that Tennessee law requires the

elements to prove a prima facie case of defamation as stated in the Plaintiff’s Complaint;

however, Cochrun denies that the list of elements of the law is fully accurate as Plaintiff’s

recitation misses the legal element of “actual malice” required to prove defamation in the case

of a public figure such as the Plaintiff.

25. Cochrun admits that Plaintiff sexually molested him approximately forty (40) years ago.

5
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 76
Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

remaining allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore

effectively denied.

26. Cochrun denies that he knew the statements were false when he published them. In fact,

Cochrun believes the statements he made to be true.

27. Cochrun denies making defamatory statements. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and

accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

28. Cochrun denies making defamatory statements. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and

accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

Count III – Invasion of Privacy - False Light

29. The Defendant incorporates and reasserts all previous responses to the allegations of the

Verified Complaint.

30. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

31. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

32. Cochrun denies that he placed Plaintiff in a false light. Cochrun lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this

paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

33. Cochrun denies that he placed Plaintiff in a false light. Cochrun lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this

6
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 77
paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

34. Cochrun denies that he placed Plaintiff in a false light. Cochrun lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this

paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

Count IV – Tortious Interference with Business Relations

35. The Defendant incorporates and reasserts all previous responses to the allegations of the

Verified Complaint.

36. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

37. Cochrun denies that he intended to cause a breach or termination of the business relationships.

Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

remaining allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore

effectively denied.

38. Cochrun denies that he induced any third parties to terminate business relations. Cochrun

denies that he disseminated any false defamatory information. Cochrun lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and

accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

39. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

40. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.

41. And now having answered fully, the Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the Verified

Complaint at the cost of the Plaintiff.

7
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 78
V. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

42. The Verified Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief cannot be granted in that Cochrun

asserts the defense of truth, in that Cochrun’s statements about Plaintiff Robert D. Smith are

true and by definition cannot be defamatory.

43. The Verified Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief cannot be granted in that Cochrun

asserts the defense that the Verified Complaint does not allege actual malice against Plaintiff,

a public figure.

44. The Verified Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief cannot be granted in that

Cochrun further asserts that recovery by Plaintiff is barred by the doctrines of unclean hands

or in pari delicto or both.

45. The Verified Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief cannot be granted in that Cochrun

asserts the affirmative defense of proportionate responsibility and contributory negligence.

Plaintiff’s own acts or omissions caused or contributed to his injury, not any action or omission

by Cochrun.

46. Cochrun affirmatively pleads the defense of failure to mitigate damages. Plaintiff failed to

mitigate his own damages.

47. Cochrun affirmatively pleads the defense of offset. Plaintiff has entered into a settlement

agreement with Andy Andrews that purportedly paid Plaintiff under his agreements with

Andrews. Defendant pleads that any such monies paid to Plaintiff would offset any damages

Plaintiff could plead in this case. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has no damages at all.

48. The following assertions of avoidance or defense may or may not be considered affirmative

defenses. In any case, the following assertions of avoidance do not alter the fact that Plaintiff

has the burden of proof with regard to establishing all of the causes of action brought in his

8
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 79
Original Complaint, and Cochrun does not waive or assume a burden of proof or persuasion

on any defense. These avoidances or defenses are in the alternative, and as a supplement to the

other provisions of this answer.

49. Defendant Cochrun affirmatively pleads the defense of release. Plaintiff has released

Defendant Cochrun of the claims Plaintiff now asserts.

50. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by estoppel as Plaintiff has admitted to Cochrun on at least one

occasion the underlying claims of sexual abuse and should be estopped from denying his

prior admissions which Cochrun relied upon.

51. Plaintiff’s claimed are barred by waiver as Plaintiff has purportedly entered into a settlement

agreement with Andy Andrews in which he has waived the claims raised in Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

52. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by fraud.

53. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Plaintiff’s own acts and omissions caused or contributed

to the Plaintiff’s injury.

54. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because the contract between Plaintiff and third parties (namely

Andy Andrews and Thomas Nelson a/k/a Harper Collins) were not terminated, or in the

alternative, were lawfully terminated by said third parties.

55. Defendant Cochrun affirmatively pleads that Plaintiffs has no standing to sue Defendant

because any injury in fact to Plaintiff has not been caused by Defendant Cochrun, but rather

by Plaintiff’s business partners or former business partners.

56. Defendant Cochrun affirmatively pleads the defense of laches, in particular to any request for

injunctive relief at this time. Plaintiff has been unreasonably dilatory and/or negligent in

pursuing his rights or claims, if any.

9
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 80
57. Defendant Cochrun further asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent Plaintiff

would be unjustly enriched by any recovery in that he has recovered in full from his

settlement agreement with Andy Andrews.

58. Defendant Cochrun further asserts that he was justified in taking the actions that he did as

they conform to law.

59. Defendant Cochrun did not have actual knowledge of the contract between Smith and any

third parties (including Andy Andrews and Thomas Nelson a/k/a Harper Collins) and with no

knowledge of said contract(s), Defendant Cochrun could not have interfered with them.

60. Defendant Cochrun did not proximately cause the cancellation of any contract between

Plaintiff and any third party (including Andy Andrews and Thomas Nelson a/k/a Harper

Collins) .

61. Defendant states that the imposition of punitive damages against him in this case would be

fundamentally unfair and would violate the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution

of the State of Tennessee in the following respects:

(a) That Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages seeks an unconstitutional remedy by
seeking to impose an excessive fine within the meaning of the excessive fines clause of the
Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(b) That Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages seeks an unconstitutional remedy by
seeking to impose an excessive fine with the meaning of the excessive fine clause of Article 1,
§ 16 of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee.

(c) That the assessment of punitive damages would be to allow a remedy that is essentially
criminal in nature but absent safeguard other than those afforded by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and law, thereby constituting infliction of a criminal penalty without safeguards
guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, and without safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Tennessee.

(d) That Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages seeks an unconstitutional remedy in terms
of size and obstructs the exercise of Defendants' right of access to the Courts in violation of the
Due Process and Contracts clauses of the United States Constitution as applied at both state and
federal levels.

10
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 81
(e) That as due process requires proof of gross negligence and punitive damages by a
standard greater than "preponderance of the evidence," Plaintiff be required to prove such claims
beyond a reasonable doubt under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or, in
the alternative, by a clear and convincing standard of proof.

(f) That assessing punitive damages would violate the double jeopardy protection
afforded a Defendant under both state and federal law.

62. If, however, Defendant Cochrun is found liable for exemplary damages, those damages must

be capped under applicable Tennessee law, the Due Process Clause of the United States

Constitution, and the relevant provisions of the Tennessee Constitution.

63. Plaintiff has failed to state any item of special damage he claims to have suffered with

specificity, as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 9(g) and, therefore, cannot recover any alleged

special damages.

64. Defendant Cochrun further asserts that Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are barred

because Plaintiff has an adequate and complete remedy at law, and because Plaintiff has not

suffered, and will not suffer, any irreparable injury.

65. Defendant Cochrun further asserts that any application for equitable and/or injunctive relief

against Cochrun must be denied because all of the required elements to obtain such

extraordinary relief are entirely absent given that: (a) Cochrun has not committed an act giving

rise to a remedy in equity; (b) there is no imminent harm that is amenable to injunctive relief;

(c) Plaintiff has not not suffered, and will not suffer, irreparable injury as a result of any

wrongful act; and (d) in any event, Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law.

VI. JURY DEMAND

66. Cochrun demands a jury trial on all issues pursuant to Rules 38 and 39 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

11
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 82
VII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

67. Cochrun reserves the right to raise any additional defenses, affirmative defenses, and

avoidances that may arise after discovery is conducted.

VIII. PRAYER

68. Cochrun denies all claims and requests for relief and allegations made in the prayer of

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, demands a trial by jury, request that the Plaintiff’s Original

Complaint be dismissed, request a take-nothing judgment against the Plaintiff and in favor of

Jim Cochrun, award his attorneys’ fees and court costs, and grant such other relief to which he

is entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

EDWARDS SUTARWALLA PLLC

By: /s/ George Edwards III

George Edwards III
Texas State Bar No. 24055438
Federal ID No. 1031248
Murtaza Sutarwalla
Texas State Bar No: 24056398
Federal ID No. 2589991
Brent Webster
Texas State Bar No. 24053545
1300 McGowen Street, Suite 270
Houston, Texas 77004
Telephone: (832) 717-2562
Fax: (713) 583-8715
Email: george@eslawpartners.com
Email: murtaza@eslawpartners.com
Email: brent@eslawpartners.com

Each of the above lawyers has been
admitted Pro Hac Vice to this Court.

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
JIM COCHRUN

12
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 83
/s/ John D. Kitch (signed with permission)
John D. Kitch, BPR #4569
Of Counsel
CORNELIUS & COLLINS LLP
511 Union Street, Suite 1500
P.O. Box 190695
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
(615) 244-1440/fax 254-9477
jdkitch@cclawtn.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
JIM COCHRUN

13
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 84
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Defendant Jim Cochrun’s Amended Original
Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, was served electronically on those persons who receive
electronic notification from the Court through the Court’s CM / ECF filing system, and by email
and facsimile to Plaintiff’s counsel, as indicated below pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, on this, the 29th day of March, 2018:

Jonathan Jackson Pledger
219 Third Avenue North
Franklin, TN 37064
Telephone: 615-479-3011
Fax: 615-823-2937
Email: jjpldeger@comcast.net
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Kurt Beasley
Waterford Law Group, PLLC
PO Box 1089
Franklin, TN 37065
Telephone: 615-373-2500
Email: kbeasley@waterfordlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

/s/ Murtaza F. Sutarwalla
Murtaza Sutarwalla

14
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 85