IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POTTAWATTAMIE COUNTY

SERVICE DOGS BY WARREN

RETRIEVERS, INC., F/K/A Case No. LACV111413
Guardian Angel Service Dogs, Inc.

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL SPIZZIRRI AND JEANA
SPIZZIRRI,

Defendants.

___________________________________


ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants, Michael and Jeana Spizzirri, (hereinafter Defendants ) files this Answer and
Affirmative Defenses in response to Service Dogs By Warren Retrievers, Inc., (herein after
Plaintiff) complaint, and states as follows:

ANSWER
1. Admits to allegations in Paragraphs 1 thru 4 of Plaintiffs petition.
2. Denies allegations in Paragraphs 5 and 6.
3. Admits to Paragraphs 7 and 8
4. Denies Paragraph 9 and further states that the Defendants did not default on payment.
Plaintiff defaulted on services after Defendant paid for services.
5. Denies Paragraph 10 and further states that the service dog was delivered to the
Defendants prior to the signing of any agreement. The Plaintiff refused to communicate
with the Defendants regarding any return or settlement agreement for the dog. The dog
legally belongs to the Defendants.
6. Denies paragraphs 11 thru 13.
7. Denies paragraph 14 and states that the Plaintiff refused to communicate with the
Defendants and that access was never denied.
8. Denies paragraph 15 and states that the Defendants paid an outside source to complete
the dogs training which is specific to the Defendants child.
9. Denies the remaining paragraphs of the petition.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense
10. The Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.
Plaintiff breached its contractual obligations by not providing a fully trained service dog
as contracted. The Plaintiff provided the Defendants with a puppy, unable to perform as a
service dog, and failed to provide the proper training for dog. The Plaintiffs knowingly
and intentionally withheld information about the puppys medical condition.
Second Affirmative Defense
11. The Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the Defendants were
fraudulently induced by the Plaintiff to sign the contract in question. The Plaintiff failed
to disclose the existence of a contract to the Defendants until after the Defendants had
paid money to the Plaintiff. The Defendants were forced to sign the contract or lose the
dog and any monies they had paid.
Third Affirmative Defense
12. The contract is unconscionable. The Defendants had no input into the forming of the
contract. The contract provides for the protection of the Plaintiff only and gives no
bargaining power to the Defendants upon Plaintiffs breach of contract.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
13. Estoppel. The Plaintiff informed the Defendants that all monies due were to be fundraised
on behalf of the Plaintiff and provided the Defendants with a letter to assist with
fundraising. Plaintiff was not legally registered to fundraise in the state of Iowa. The
Plaintiff repeatedly told the Defendants that their only obligation would be to assist in
fundraising and that the dog would not and could not ever be removed from the
possession of the Defendant if the Defendants failed to pay any money to the Plaintiff as
long as the Defendants tried to hold fundraisers. The Plaintiff further stated that the
contract was only enforceable against those who did not hold fundraising events.


WHERFORE, the Defendants request the Courts dismiss this case, with prejudice, and
request immediate return of the dog that was taken from them.

DATED this 10
th
day of June, 2014.