STATE OF INDIANA COUNTY OF MARION KAY KIM Plaintiff, vs

) ) ss: )

PERRY TOWNSHIP SMALL CLAIMS COURT CAUSE NUMBER: 49K04-1108-SC-2739 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

VILLAGE AT EAGLE CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSO, SHANNON LAMPSA(LOVE) & KYLE LOVE, Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS-SHANNON LOVE AND KYLE LOVES MOTION TO DISMISS Comes now the Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se Filed Plaintiffs Respond To Defendants Shannon Love And Kyle Love as follows and not limited to: 1. Defendants Motion to Dismiss is based the judgment of $1,042.86 in 2009 and

subsequent lawsuit were fraud as follows and not limited to: a. Judgment of $1,042.86. for the Plaintiff, Kay Kim Pro Se on September

29, 2009 was for the Plaintiffs 2nd bathroom toilet leaks. b. Initial Plaintiffs lawsuit was amount of $2,726.82. against Defendants-

Shannon Lampsa and Kyle love for the damages to the ceiling and the walls; but, the Pike and Perry Small Claims Court never considered the claimed for the wall damages. c. Later, Plaintiff found out that Village at Eagle Creek Home Owners

Association also, should be held account for the Plaintiffs damages. d. Make a long story short, this Perry Small Claims Court deny of Plaintiffs

default judgment. This courts bias, prejudice, disregards of the law which with its own motion for numerous continuance for long periods at a time, Plaintiffs petition the Court to dismiss the
Page 1 of 4 IN SM PERRY Respond to Def-SKLove Mot tDismiss 18AUG2011

case and attached to the ongoing Indiana State Civil Superior court case and the Court granted Plaintiffs petition. (See Attached for Order of Judge Robert S. Spear.) 2. Since the Courts ruling for the judgment of $1,042.86 on September 29, 2009,

Plaintiff started to fix 2nd bathroom but halted as of today due to financial reason. With this situation, I, Plaintiff cannot complete the 2nd bathroom for years to come. 3. Plaintiff s this lawsuit is toilet leaks damaging to master bathroom ceiling, walls

and punitive damages-nuisance, trespass, negligence/gross negligence, discrimination, conspiracy, retaliation. 4. Plaintiffs master bathroom leaks started August 5, 2011 and notified the

Defendants. No response from the Defendants and the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on August 8, 2011. On the day of trial-August 23, 2011, Plaintiff will present/file Exhibit(s) for the lawsuit. 5. Your honor, you welcome to send anyone you wishes or yourself to my

condominium unit, to verify what I, plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se stated in this respond is true or not. 6. A partys act is the proximate cause of an injury if it is the natural and probable

consequence of the act and should have been reasonably foreseen and anticipated in light of the circumstances. Munsell v. Hambright, 776 N.E.2d 1272, 1279 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. 7. Proximate cause requires, at a minimum, that the harm would not have occurred

but for the defendants conduct. Id. The plaintiff does not have to prove that actions undertaken in furtherance of the conspiracy were the only or most immediate, cause of the injuries. Intervening acts which are readily foreseeable and the proximate result of the conspirators

Page 2 of 4 IN SM PERRY Respond to Def-SKLove Mot tDismiss 18AUG2011

actions will not break the chain of legal causation. Vance v. Chandler, 231 Ill App3d 747, 173 Ill Dec 525, 597 NEx2d 233 (1992) app den 147 Ill2d 637, 180 Ill Dec 159, 606 Ne2d 1236 (1992). 8. Punitive damages are not designed to make a plaintiff whole but rather to deter

and punish wrongful activity. Wohlwend v. Edwards, 796 N.E.2d 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Because an award of punitive damages goes beyond compensation for a Plaintiffs losses and damages, they are only awarded if a Defendants conduct was so obdurate that the Defendant should be punished for the good of the overall general public. Bell v. Clark, 670 N.E2d 1290 (Ind. 1996), Budget Car Sales v. Stott, 656 N.E.2d 261 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). 9. A motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted only when it is clear

from the face of the complaint that under no circumstances could relief be granted. Natl R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Everton by Everton, 665 N.E.2d 360, 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied (1996). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se respectfully request that the Court to Deny Defendants motion to dismiss and all other proper relief for the Plaintiff expeditiously. Respectfully submitted Date: August 18, 2011 Kay Kim, Pro Se-Plaintiff 4250 Village pkwy c e apt2 Indiana polis, IN 46254 Tel# 317-641-5977 Em: chang2597@gmail.com

Page 3 of 4 IN SM PERRY Respond to Def-SKLove Mot tDismiss 18AUG2011

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 18, 2011, a true and complete copy of the foregoing was mailed by U.S. 1st class mail postage prepaid the following:

Kay Kim, Pro Se-Plaintiff 4250 Village pkwy c e apt2 Indiana polis, IN 46254 Tel# 317-641-5977 Em: chang2597@gmail.com State Farm Litigation Counsel (Def-Shannon & Kyle Love-) 6640 Intech Blvd., Suite 210 Indianapolis, IN 46278 P.O. Box 68995 Indianapolis, IN 46268-0995 Tel: 317-684-6161 Fax: 317-684-6153 Em: INDI.LAW-INDYCLC.366L18@StateFarm.com Village At Eagle Creek Homeowners Association C/O Community Association Services Of Indiana 11711 North College Ave., Suite 100 Carmel, IN 46032 Tel# 317-875-5600

Kay Kim, Pro Se-Plaintiff

Filed: Perry Township of Marion County Small Claims Court 4925 S. Shelby St., Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46227 Tel# 317-786-9242 / Fax# 317-788-4826

Page 4 of 4 IN SM PERRY Respond to Def-SKLove Mot tDismiss 18AUG2011