You are on page 1of 23

Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 261

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC.,

Plaintiff / Case No.: 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB


Counter-Defendant
v.

AMI STORES MANAGEMENT, INC.,


AMI 57 LLC d/b/a AMI 70 FOOD MART,
and AMI 63 LLC d/b/a AMI 63 FOOD
MART,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.

and

AMI 59, LLC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC.,

Defendant.
________________________________/

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, DEMAND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES,


COUNTERCLAIM AND JOINDER PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM

Defendants, AMI Stores Management, Inc., (“AMI”) AMI 57 LLC

d/b/a AMI 70 Food Mart (“AMI 70") and AMI 63 d/b/a AMI 63 Food

Mart (“AMI 63"), (together referred to as the “AMI Units”) come

now and hereby answer the complaint of Plaintiff, Noble Roman’s,

Inc. (“NRI”), set forth their affirmative defenses, demand

attorney’s fees under Indiana law, move to strike Plaintiff NRI’s

demand for attorney’s fees as to Count I, and counterclaim as

follows. Plaintiff, AMI 59, LLC., also hereby sues Defendant,

Page 1 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 262

Noble Roman’s, Inc., as follows.

ANSWER

Each numbered paragraph below corresponds to the like-

numbered paragraph of the complaint:

1. Admitted.

2. Admitted.

3. Admitted.

4. Admitted.

5. Admitted.

6. Denied as worded.

7. Admitted that jurisdiction in this Court is proper.

Otherwise denied.

8. Speaks for itself.

9. Admitted as to the brand names and marks, otherwise

without knowledge.

10. Denied as worded for lack of specificity.

11. Denied as worded as to Plaintiff NRI’s definition of

“Intellectual Property;” admitted that it has exclusive

rights to franchising and licensing of its intellectual

property.

12. Without knowledge.

13. Admitted.

14. Admitted.

15. Admitted.

16. Admitted that the agreements attached are agreements

Page 2 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 263

entered into, and that the dates reflected are

accurate. Otherwise denied.

17. Admitted.

18. Admitted.

19. Admitted.

COUNT I - Breaches of the Franchise Agreements

20. Speaks for itself.

21. Admitted.

22. Admitted.

23. Admitted.

24. Admitted.

25. Denied.

26. Denied.

27. Denied.

COUNT II - Trademark Infringement by the AMI Defendants

28. Speaks for itself.

29. Admitted.

30. Admitted.

31. Denied.

32. Denied.

33. Denied.

34. Denied.

35. Denied.

36. Denied any were used.

37. Denied.

Page 3 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 264

38. Denied.

39. Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Defense: Estoppel. Plaintiff NRI is estopped to claim

that any of the AMI Units Defendants breached any contract /

franchise agreement, or violated any trademark, for or respecting

Noble Roman, Inc., or its products that were delivered to any

non-franchise location, unsolicited by any AMI Units Defendant,

and by the exclusive agent for sale of such products assigned by

Plaintiff NRI, when such products were never ordered, never

requested, never expected, and were used inadvertently only by

hourly-employees who had no reason to understand that the

products that they were delivered by Plaintiff NRI’s exclusive

product sales and delivery agent were not supposed to have been

delivered, were delivered due to no request or fault of any of

the AMI Units Defendants, and which were never intended to be

received or used by any AMI Units Defendants. Plaintiff NRI

cannot use its de facto agent to surreptitiously “slip” Noble

Roman ingredients and products into non-franchise stores, and

then complain that unknowing hourly employees, with no

understanding of business dealings between Plaintiff NRI and the

AMI Units Defendants, would know not to use the products.

Second Defense. Contributory Negligence. If in fact any

AMI Units Defendants acts of unknowingly using Noble Roman

products delivered to them when they were not ordered or

Page 4 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 265

requested, by Plaintiff NRI’s de facto exclusive sales and

delivery agent constitute negligence, then Plaintiff NRI was

contributorily negligent in having said products delivered or not

taking proper actions to prevent their delivery.

Third Defense. Payment. The AMI Units Defendants have paid

Plaintiff NRI all the royalties they were owed under a proper

calculation of royalties owed under the franchise agreements.

Fourth Defense. Duress. At all times relevant the AMI

Units Defendants stood ready and willing to allow Plaintiff NRI

to auto-debit royalties from their bank accounts, and only

suspended such right after Plaintiff NRI gave notice that it

intended to auto-debit more monies than it was justifiably owed.

The AMI Units Defendants made multiple attempts in writing to

seek assurances that if they allowed Plaintiff NRI to continue to

auto-debit funds that Plaintiff NRI would not auto-debit the

sudden $35,000-plus amount that it claims was suddenly owing and

was wholly disputed. When Plaintiff NRI failed to give

assurances its privileges were revoked. The AMI Units Defendants

are not obligated to allow Plaintiff NRI access to their accounts

when Plaintiff NRI makes clear it intends to use that access to

auto-debit monies it is not owed.

Fifth Defense. Waiver. At all times relevant the AMI

Units Defendants stood ready and willing to allow Plaintiff NRI

to auto-debit royalties from their bank accounts, and only

suspended such right after Plaintiff NRI gave notice that it

Page 5 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 266

intended to auto-debit more monies than it was justifiably owed.

The AMI Units Defendants made multiple attempts in writing to

seek assurances that if they allowed Plaintiff NRI to continue to

auto-debit funds that Plaintiff NRI would not auto-debit the

sudden $35,000-plus amount that it claims was suddenly owing and

was wholly disputed. When Plaintiff NRI failed to give

assurances its privileges were revoked. The AMI Units Defendants

are not obligated to allow Plaintiff NRI access to their accounts

when Plaintiff NRI makes clear it intends to use that access to

auto-debit monies it is not owed. Thus, Plaintiff NRI waived its

rights to demand to auto-debit funds.

Sixth Defense. Fraud. Plaintiff NRI attempted to illegally

extort and coerce the AMI Units Defendants to enter into a new

franchise agreement with Plaintiff NRI. Solely and wholly as a

result of the AMI Units Defendants’ refusal to do so did

Plaintiff NRI suddenly change the calculation methods of

royalties, and demand large additional back payments for

royalties. Such claims of Plaintiff NRI, and their motivation,

were at all times fraudulent.

Seventh Defense. Failure of Statutory Conditions

Precedent. At no time did the AMI Units Defendants willfully

intend to trade on Plaintiff NRI’s reputation associated with its

trademark, nor did they intend to cause confusion, deception or

mistake with said trademark and, as such, Plaintiff NRI is not

entitled to damages or injunctive relief pursuant to Indiana Code

Page 6 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 267

Section 24-2-1-13 and 24-2-1-13.5, nor is Plaintiff NRI able to

meet the standard for an award of attorney’s fees under Indiana

law inasmuch as the matter of the case is not “exceptional” as

contemplated by Section 24-2-1-14(2).

Eighth Defense. Failure of Statutory Conditions Precedent.

At no time did the AMI Units Defendants use any mark or make any

false designation of origin, false or misleading description of

fact, or false or misleading representation of fact which

were/was likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to

deceive as to the affiliation, connection or association of the

AMI Units Defendants with Plaintiff NRI, or as to the origin,

sponsorship or approval of any action by the AMI Units Defendants

by Plaintiff NRI, and as such, Plaintiff NRI cannot meet the

standard for claim of damages under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1114 or 1125.

DEMAND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

The AMI Units Defendants demand attorney’s fees should they

be the prevailing party in defending against Plaintiff NRI’s

Count I for breach of contract pursuant to Indiana Code Section

34-52-1-1 Sec. 1(b)(1), which provides that the Court may award

the AMI Units Defendant’s their attorney’s fees incurred as the

prevailing party should they establish that Plaintiff NRI brought

it’s suit for breach of contract based upon frivolous, groundless

or unreasonable basis.

Page 7 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 268

COUNTERCLAIM

Counter-Plaintiffs, AMI Stores Management, Inc., (“AMI”) AMI

57 LLC d/b/a AMI 70 Food Mart (“AMI 70") and AMI 63 d/b/a AMI 63

Food Mart (“AMI 63"), collectively hereby referred to as “AMI

Units,” come now and hereby sue Counter-Defendant, Noble Roman’s,

Inc., (hereafter “NRI”), and alleges as follows:

1. The AMI Units are all entities formed and operating

under Florida law with their principal place of

business in Panama City, Florida, as alleged by NRI in

it’s complaint and admitted in the above-answer.

2. NRI is a corporation formed and registered under the

laws of Indiana.

3. This Court has jurisdiction to hear these causes of

action pursuant to U.S.C. Sec. 1367.

4. The AMI Units are parties to franchise agreements where

NRI is the franchisor and the AMI Units are

franchisees, as correctly pleaded in NRI’s complaint in

this matter and admitted by the AMI Units in their

answer above. All such franchise agreements are

attached to NRI’s complaint filed with the Court

already, and are incorporated herein by reference.

COUNT I - COUNTERCLAIM BY THE AMI UNITS FOR VIOLATIONS OF


FLORIDA’S DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT

5. The AMI Units reallege paragraphs 1 through 4, supra

6. This is an action brought pursuant to Section 501.201,

Page 8 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 269

et seq., Florida Statutes, the “Deceptive and Unfair

Trade Practices Act” (the “Act”), and at all times

relevant, the AMI Units were a “consumer” as defined by

§ 501.203(7) of the Act, and pursuant to e.g.,

Bookworld Trade, Inc. v. Daughters of St. Paul, Inc.,

532 F.Supp. 2d 1350, 1364 (M.D. Fla 2007), and then AMI

Units and NRI were in contractual relationship for

“trade or commerce,” as defined by § 501.203(8).

7. At all times relevant during the negotiations and

formation of the franchise agreements at issue and all

times relevant subsequent, Troy Branson was an officer

or employee of NRI.

8. At all times relevant during the negotiations and

formation of the franchise agreements at issue and all

times relevant subsequent, Troy Branson interacted with

officers and agents and employees of the AMI Units

while same were present in Florida.

9. As such, all acts giving rise to this Count occurred in

Florida so as to be sufficient to subject NRI to be

obligated to comply with the Act.

10. At the time of negotiating the franchise agreements at

issue, the AMI Units were offered by Bronson two

alternative methods of paying for royalty-type fees

from the AMI Units to NRI.

11. The first method offered was that they pay NRI a

Page 9 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 270

royalty fee of 7% on applicable sales as contemplated

in the franchise agreements that the AMI Units and NRI

ultimately entered into.

12. In the alternate, however, NRI offered the AMI Units,

through Troy Branson, an option to instead pay a

percentage increase in the cost of materials sold to

the AMI Units to make NRI products. The franchise

agreements at issue require that the AMI Units only buy

approved NRI products and ingredients from a supplier

approved by NRI, and in pragmatic reality, there was,

and always has been, only one such supplier at a time

authorized by NRI. Thus, put another way, at all times

relevant, the AMI Units have had to purchase NRI

products and ingredients to make and sell NRI pizza and

products from only one supplier which is authorized by

NRI.

13. The AMI Units, however, did not accept the alternative

offer to pay a percentage increase over product cost,

and instead elected in all cases to pay the 7% royalty

fee on applicable sales.

14. Unbeknownst to the AMI Units until recently, however,

NRI has been requiring its sole supplier to the AMI

Units to charge the AMI Units a 3% up-charge on all NRI

products and supplies.

15. Thus, NRI in effect de facto achieved both sources of

Page 10 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 271

franchisor income from the AMI Units; the 7% sales

royalty, and a 3% up-charge on products and ingredients

purchased.

16. Thus, in offering the AMI Units the option of paying

either fee, but then in fact charging both fees, the

actions of NRI were fraudulent, deceptive, unfair, and

unconscionable acts or practices in the conduct of a

trade or commerce, as defined by § 501.204(1), Fla.

Stat.

17. NRI’s actions then in charging the AMI Units both type

of fees, when it originally offered an option of either

upon which offer the AMI Units made an election and

contracted with NRI in accordance therewith, constitute

unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or

practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in

the conduct of a trade or commerce, as defined by §

501.204(1), Fla. Stat.

18. At all times relevant NRI willfully engaged in those

deceptive acts in contravention and violation of §

501.204(1), and continues to engage willfully in

charging the 3% up-charge.

19. Pursuant to § 501.2105, Fla. Stat., the AMI Units are

entitled to recover from NRI their reasonable

attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting a claim against

NRI for violations of the Act.

Page 11 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 272

20. Pursuant to § 501.211(1), the AMI Units are entitled to

seek a declaratory judgment that NRI has violated the

Act, as well as an injunction preventing it from future

violations in Florida against the ATM Units, which

continue to be subject to paying the improper and

fraudulently-obtained 3% fee, as well as against other

franchise locations in Florida that are paying such fee

if improperly obtained.

21. As a result of NRI’s violations of the ACT the AMI

Units have incurred damages in the amount the of 3% up-

charge they improperly paid on all products and

ingredients sold the ATM Units by NRI through its

suppliers, which amount is approximately $40,000 to

date, but still under review.

WHEREFORE, the ATM Units demand judgment against NRI for:

1. Compensatory, incidental, and consequential

damages, plus pre-judgment interest.

2. A declaratory judgment that NRI has violated the

Act.

3. An injunction enjoining NRI from future violations

of the Act in Florida.

4. The ATM Units’ reasonable attorney’s fees and

costs.

Page 12 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 273

COUNT II - FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT TO CONTRACT


BY NRI AS TO THE AMI UNITS

22. The AMI Units reallege paragraphs 1 through 4, supra.

23. This is an action for common law fraudulent inducement

to contract brought under both Florida and Indiana law,

or in the alternative, either if only one should apply.

All acts giving rise to this Count occurred in Florida

because at all times the AMI Units performed all

negotiations in Florida, and entered into all relevant

agreements from Florida. As such, NRI is subject to

Florida law. Inasmuch as NRI is an Indiana Corporation

acting in and from Indiana it is also subject to

Indiana law.

24. At the time of negotiating the franchise agreements at

issue, the AMI Units were offered two alternative

methods of paying for royalty-type fees from the AMI

Units to NRI by Troy Branson, officer, agent and

employee of NRI.

25. The first method offered was that they pay NRI a

royalty fee of 7% on applicable sales as contemplated

in the franchise agreements that the AMI Units and NRI

ultimately entered into.

25. In the alternative, however, NRI offered the AMI Units,

through Troy Branson, an option to instead pay a

percentage increase in the cost of materials sold to

Page 13 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 274

the AMI Units to make NRI products. The franchise

agreements at issue require that the AMI Units only buy

approved NRI products and ingredients from a supplier

approved by NRI, and in pragmatic reality, there was,

and always has been, one such supplier authorized by

NRI at any given time. Thus, put another way, at all

times relevant, the AMI Units have had to purchase NRI

products and ingredients to make and sell NRI pizza and

products from only one supplier which is authorized by

NRI.

27. The AMI Units, however, did not accept the alternative

offer to pay a percentage increase over product cost,

and instead elected in all cases to pay the 7% royally

fee on applicable sales.

28. Unbeknownst to the AMI Units until recently, however,

NRI has been requiring its sole supplier to the AMI

Units to charge the AMI Units a 3% up-charge on all NRI

products and supplies.

29. Thus, NRI in effect de facto achieved both sources of

franchisor income from the AMI Units; the 7% sales

royalty, and a 3% up-charge on products and ingredients

purchased.

30. Thus, in offering the AMI Units the option of paying

either fee, but then in fact charging both fees, the

actions of NRI were fraudulent, deceptive, unfair, and

Page 14 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 275

unconscionable acts or practices. The actions of

Defendant as alleged herein constitute intentional

misrepresentations made in order to deceive the AMI

Units to induce them to contract with it.

31. The actions of NRI did in fact deceive the AMI Units

which did contract with NRI and, but for the NRI

actions and misrepresentations, the AMI Units would not

have contracted with NRI.

32. As a result of NRI’s actions, the ATM Units have

suffered financial losses of about $40,000 to date,

plus prejudgment interest, in paying the improper 3%

extra up-charge.

WHEREFORE, the AMI Units demand judgment against NRI for

damages as set forth above, plus court costs.

COMPLAINT BY JOINDER PLAINTIFF AMI 59. LLC., AGAINST NOBLE


ROMAN’S, INC., FOR VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA’S DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR
TRADE PRACTICES ACT

1. AMI 59, LLC., ("AMI 59") is a Limited Liability Company

formed and operating under Florida law with its

principal place of business in Panama City, Florida.

2. NRI is a corporation formed and registered under the

laws of Indiana.

3. This Court has jurisdiction to hear these causes of

action pursuant to U.S.C. Sec. 1367. This Court has

juridiction over this case as a threshhold matter under

both original jurisdiction grounds, due to NRI’s

Page 15 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 276

federal-law based claims against the Defendants in this

cause (hereafter the “AMI Units” Defendants), and by

diversity of citizenship grounds. Pursuant to U.S.C.

Sec. 1367(a) this Court has supplemental jurisdiction

therefore to hear claims of that involve joinder of

additional parties “that are so related to claims in

the action within such original jurisdiction that they

form part of the same case or controversy.” The matters

at issue in this complaint by AMI 59 involve exactly

the same operative facts as all claims of Plaintiff NRI

and the counterclaims of the AMI Units Defendants so

that they are so related that they form the same case

or controversy.

4. This is an action brought pursuant to Section 501.201,

et seq., Florida Statutes, the “Deceptive and Unfair

Trade Practices Act” (the “Act”), and at all times

relevant, AMI 59 was a “consumer” as defined by §

501.203(7) of the Act, and for all actions by Defendant

NRI that occurred within Florida it was required to

comply with it in dealing with AMI 59 in its capacity

as “consumer” under the act.

5. On or about March 2021, AMI 59 owned and operated a

combination gas station / convenience store at 11100

Panama City Beach Parkway, Panama City Beach, Florida,

32407.

Page 16 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 277

6. While other AMI and related entities have franchise

agreements with NRI, as better and already alleged in

NRI’s complaint filed in and at issue in this lawsuit,

AMI 59 did not, and does not, have any franchise

agreement with NRI.

7. Rather, AMI 59 prepared and sold pizza and related

products on its own, without use of or relationship

with any franchise. That is, while the AMI Units

Defendants have franchise agreements with NRI to sell

NRI pizza in related gas station / convenience store

operations, AMI 59 did and does not.

8. AMI 59 sold pizza and related items by buying

ingredients and products from suppliers to prepare

pizzas which ingredients and supplies were NOT in any

manner related to, or purchased from NRI. AMI 59

bought wholly different ingredients and products, not

NRI branded or produced, and used these ingredients and

products to sell pizzas.

9. AMI 59, however, would buy (and still does buy) its

non-NRI related ingredients and products from the same

supplier who, at NRI’s insistence and direction,

provides NRI products to other AMI and AMI related

operations (Defendants). The NRI supplier that NRI has

chosen to supply NRI products does not just exclusively

supply NRI products. Rather, NRI products are but one

Page 17 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: 278

line of products they supply.

10. Owing to confusion wholly and solely on the part of

this supplier, on or about and during a couple weeks in

March 2021, the supplier for NRI products accidentally

delivered to AMI 59, on two or possible three

occasions, NRI products and ingredients for the making

NRI pizzas, etc. None of such were ordered or

requested by AMI 59, however. Rather, they just were

inadvertently delivered.

11. The employees who work directly full time and

principally at AMI 59 are hourly employees of a

clerical or cashiering nature. They are not involved

in any AMI corporate decisions. They have no knowledge

of AMI 59's decisions as to product purchases. As

such, when products are received, they are assumed by

staff to have been ordered, and they are used for

purposes of selling items or otherwise.

12. The employees at AMI 59 are used to making pizza with

raw ingredients and supplies delivered by the same

supplier that serves NRI, except that such supplier

normally only delivers to AMI 59 non-NRI products.

13. As such, when the employees received NRI products when

they were inadvertently delivered, these employees did

not consider whether this was a mistake. They assumed

the products and ingredients delivered were delivered

Page 18 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 19 of 23 PageID #: 279

to make pizza. So they began making pizza and of

course selling it.

14. NRI discovered that AMI 59 was selling pizza and using

NRI products and ingredients to do so; how NRI

discovered such is unknown to AMI 59. However,

management of AMI 59 was advised by Troy Bronson,

officer, agent and employee of NRI, that AMI 59 was

selling pizza made with NRI ingredients and products

and that such was not proper.

15. AMI 59 immediately acted upon such advice, as

management of AMI 59 had no idea such was occurring.

Pizza’s being sold were being sold in non-NRI boxes and

so the error in what ingredients were used was not

obvious. As such, management immediately asked Bronson

what they should do with the NRI product on hand.

Bronson instructed that all remaining NRI product and

supplies located at AMI 59 be immediately destroyed and

that AMI 59 stop selling any NRI products.

16. AMI 59 complied immediately and all products and

ingredients were destroyed, and AMI 59 even

photographed their destruction.

17. Bronson then advised the principal of AMI 59, Ali

Hamid, and also Mike Jones, the operations manager for

AMI 59, that throwing away the product and ingredients

was not enough and that “the damage was already done.”

Page 19 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 20 of 23 PageID #: 280

18. Bronson then contended that he intended to take legal

action against AMI 59, as to AMI 59, and also possibly

with regard to other franchises held by the listed

Defendant in this matter, unless AMI 59 agreed to

immediately buy and open a NRI franchise for AMI 59,

and that AMI 59 stop selling its own pizza products and

use only NRI franchise products and pay NRI franchise

expenses.

19. AMI 59 management personnel protested that this was de

facto extortion inasmuch as they never intended to do

anything wrong, never ordered the NRI products or

ingredients, the employees used it not understanding,

and AMI 59 even paid for the product that was both sold

and then destroyed.

20. Bronson, however, was having none of it and insisted

that unless AMI 59 acquiesced and purchased and opened

a franchise with NRI, NRI would take legal action

against AMI 59 and potentially other of Defendants.

21. Bronson, and therefore NRI’s, actions using the threat

and intimidation of bringing legal action against AMI

59, and even independent companies from AMI 59 like the

other Defendants in this cause, in an attempt to coax,

threaten, intimidate and extort AMI 59 to enter into a

franchise agreement with NRI to sell NRI products,

constitutes unfair methods of competition,

Page 20 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 21 of 23 PageID #: 281

unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or

deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of a trade

or commerce, as defined by § 501.204(1), Fla. Stat.

22. At all times relevant NRI willfully engaged in those

deceptive acts in contravention and violation of §

501.204(1).

23. Pursuant to § 501.2105, Fla. Stat., AMI 59 is entitled

to recover from NRI their reasonable attorney’s fees

incurred in prosecuting a claim against NRI for

violations of the Act.

24. Pursuant to § 501.211(1), AMI 59 is entitled to seek a

declaratory judgment that NRI has violated the Act, as

well as an injunction preventing it from future

violations in Florida against AMI 59, as well as

against other “consumers” in Florida as defined by the

Act.

WHEREFORE, AMI 59 demands judgment against NRI for:

1. Compensatory, incidental, and consequential

damages, if any.

2. A declaratory judgment that NRI has violated the

Act.

3. An injunction enjoining NRI from future violations

of the Act in Florida.

4. AMI 59's reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Page 21 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 22 of 23 PageID #: 282

JURY DEMAND

All the AMI Units Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs, and

Joinder Plaintiff AMI 59, LLC., each and all demand a trial by

jury on all matters so triable.

Respectfully submitted

ALL FLORIDA JUSTICE, LLC


Law Office of Don Pinaud

_________________________
Donald E. Pinaud, Jr.
Trial Counsel
Fla. Bar No.: 111694
4530 St. John’s Avenue
Suite 15-202
Jacksonville, Florida 32210
(904)552-5500
(904)467-3500 - Fax
AllFloridaJustice.com
Don@AllFloridaJustice.com
Attorneys for Defendants /
Counter-Plaintiffs
Pro Hac Vice

Page 22 of 23
Case 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB Document 8 Filed 07/09/21 Page 23 of 23 PageID #: 283

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the

foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of Court’s electronic

filing CMC/ECF system, which system will send copies via email to

all parties and counsel of record, on this 9 day of July, 2021.

ALL FLORIDA JUSTICE, LLC


Law Office of Don Pinaud

_________________________
Donald E. Pinaud, Jr.
Trial Counsel
Fla. Bar No.: 111694
4530 St. John’s Avenue
Suite 15-202
Jacksonville, Florida 32210
(904)552-5500
(904)467-3500 - Fax
AllFloridaJustice.com
Don@AllFloridaJustice.com
Attorneys for Defendants /
Counter-Plaintiffs
Pro Hac Vice

Page 23 of 23