Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
13,616 characters extracted
—
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
JAMESGARDAI,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZONED_JJ, in his individual and
official capacities as the Adjutant
General of the Ridgeway National
Guard,
Defendant.
Action No. RSC-CV-0853
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS
Defendant Zoned_JJ (“Defendant”), in his individual capacity, by and through the
undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rid. R. Civ. P. 12, submits his answer, affirmative
defenses, and counterclaims:
ANSWER
Defendant, by and through the undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rid. R. Civ. P. 12,
states his answer as follows, and invokes a general denial of all allegations and requests
for relief within the complaint unless otherwise stated:
Parties
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
Jurisdiction
3. Paragraph 3 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
4. Paragraph 4 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
1
Facts
5. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits that Plaintiff acting
on behalf of the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office. Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge to admit or deny what title he held or where he was generally patrolling.
6. Denied.
7. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits that Plaintiff
attempted to apprehend CharlesLXV. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit
or deny the purpose of such.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits that he was acting on
behalf of the Ridgeway National Guard. Defendant admits that he tased Plaintiff.
Defendant denies that he obstructed Plaintiff.
10. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant denies that Plaintiff was
defending himself. Defendant admits that Plaintiff tased Defendant.
11. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits that he was
handcuffed by a member of the Ridgeway National Guard. Defendant denies that he was
in a position unreachable to Plaintiff.
12. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits that Plaintiff tasered
and attempted to apprehend the individual. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to
admit or deny the purpose of such.
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted.
15. Admitted.
2
16. Denied.
17. Paragraph 17 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits
that he was acting in the course and scope of his employment. Defendant denies any
wrongdoing.
18. Paragraph 18 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
First Cause of Action
(Official Misconduct – 1 R. Stat. § 3114)
19. Paragraphs 19–27 are not directed to the individual capacity. To the extent
that an answer is required, denied.
Second Cause of Action
(Wrongful Death – 1 R. Stat. § 3109)
28. Defendant reincorporates his answer to all prior paragraphs.
29. Paragraph 29 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
30. Paragraph 30 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
31. Paragraph 31 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
32. Paragraph 32 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
33. Paragraph 33 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
34. Paragraph 34 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
3
35. Paragraph 35 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
36. Paragraph 36 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
37. Paragraph 37 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
Third Cause of Action
(Deprivation of Rights – 1 R. Stat. § 3115)
38. Paragraphs 38–47 have been dismissed with prejudice and without leave to
amend. To the extent that an answer is required, denied.
Fourth Cause of Action
(Assault – 1 R. Stat. § 3103)
48. Defendant reincorporates his answer to all prior paragraphs.
49. Paragraph 49 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
50. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits that he tased
Plaintiff. Defendant denies the remainder.
51. Paragraph 51 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
52. Paragraph 52 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
53. Paragraph 53 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
54. Paragraph 54 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
4
55. Paragraph 55 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
56. Paragraph 56 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
57. Paragraph 57 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
58. Paragraph 58 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
59. Paragraph 59 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
Fifth Cause of Action
(Deprivation of Rights – 1 R. Stat. § 3115)
60. Defendant reincorporates his answer to all prior paragraphs.
61. Paragraph 61 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
62. Paragraph 62 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
63. Paragraph 63 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
64. Paragraph 64 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
65. Paragraph 65 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
66. Paragraph 66 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
5
67. Paragraph 67 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
68. Paragraph 68 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
69. Paragraph 69 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To
the extent an answer is required, denied.
Prayer for Relief
70. As to paragraphs 70–74, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any
relief.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant, by and through the undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rid. R. Civ. P. 12,
states his affirmative defenses as follows, and reserves the right to amend the answer to
assert any other defenses as become known or available:
1. Defendant is entitled to statutory, sovereign, or absolute immunity because
he is being sued in his individual capacity for official acts.
2. Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity actions because his actions
were objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law.
3. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
4. Plaintiff is barred from bringing claims by the statutes of limitations.
5. Plaintiff is barred from bringing claims by the doctrines of estoppel, laches,
and waiver, as he has previously taken positions and actions inconsistent with these
allegations, unreasonably delayed bringing suit, and voluntarily relinquished his rights.
6. Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages.
6
7. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his alleged damages.
8. Plaintiff was allegedly injured due to his own carelessness, heedlessness,
negligence, and failure to otherwise act in a reasonable, prudent manner, and those
actions and omissions were the proximate cause of his injury, if any.
9. Plaintiff was allegedly injured due to his own wrongful acts.
10. Defendant acted in good faith and without malice.
11. Defendant acted to prevent a greater harm.
12. Defendant acted lawfully and properly with reasonable suspicion and
probable cause.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that the court enter judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff by dismissing this matter with prejudice and awarding Defendant the
fees and costs incurred in defending this matter and any such further relief as the court
deems just and proper.
COUNTERCLAIMS
Counter-Plaintiff Zoned_JJ (“Counter-Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned
counsel, seeking all available relief, in his counterclaims against Counter-Defendant
JamesGardai (“Counter-Defendant”), alleges the following:
JURISDICTION
1. The Ridgeway Superior Court has original jurisdiction over “all civil and
criminal cases or controversies.” RID. CONST. art. 5, § 4.
2. Venue is proper as the acts and omissions which give rise to this
counterclaim occurred in the State of Ridgeway.
7
PARTIES
3. Counter-Plaintiff is an individual, resident, and citizen of the State of
Ridgeway. Counter-Plaintiff is the Adjutant General of the Ridgeway National Guard.
4. Counter-Defendant is an individual, resident, and citizen of the State of
Ridgeway. Counter-Defendant was, at all times relevant, a law enforcement officer acting
on behalf of the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office.
FACTS
5. On or about February 21, 2026, Counter-Plaintiff was present at or around
the Ridgeway National Guard, Palmer Car Dealership, and Palmer Auto Repair in
Palmer, Ridgeway.
6. Counter-Defendant was present at or about the same time and location.
7. CharlesLXV (hereinafter “Judge Charles”), a sitting Superior Court Judge
on team and fulfilling his official duties, was present at the same location.
8. Judge Charles fell from a roof, causing him to ragdoll and take damage.
9. Judge Charles landed on Counter-Defendant.
10. Judge Charles did not land on Counter-Defendant intentionally or
knowingly, but was ragdolled as a result of game mechanics.
11. Judge Charles did not, and could not as a matter of game mechanics, cause
Counter-Defendant injury from falling on him.
12. Counter-Defendant had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
believe Judge Charles was going to commit, had committed, or was committing, any
crime under state law.
8
13. Despite this, Counter-Defendant handcuffed Judge Charles because Judge
Charles fell off a roof and landed on Counter-Plaintiff.
14. Counter-Plaintiff intervened by deploying a taser against
Counter-Defendant solely to prevent the continued unlawful seizure and detention of a
sitting Superior Court Judge.
15. The intervention was lawful, reasonable, and necessary under the
circumstances.
16. In response to the intervention, Counter-Defendant deployed his taser
against Counter-Plaintiff.
17. At the time Counter-Defendant tased Counter-Plaintiff, Counter-Plaintiff
was not fleeing, was not threatening Counter-Defendant, and posed no immediate threat
of harm to Counter-Defendant or any other person.
18. At all relevant times, Counter-Defendant was wearing a government-issued
uniform and using government-issued equipment.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unreasonable Seizure, U.S. CONST. amend. IV – 1 R. Stat. § 3115)
19. Counter-Plaintiff repeats and reincorporates paragraphs 1–18 above as
though fully incorporated herein.
20. Counter-Defendant was, at all times relevant, acting under the color of state
law and in the course and scope of his employment.
21. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “the
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. CONST. amend. IV.
9
22. Counter-Plaintiff was seized when he was tased by Counter-Defendant.
23. Counter-Defendant had no probable cause and no reasonable suspicion that
Counter-Plaintiff had committed, was committing, or was about to commit any criminal
offense.
24. Counter-Defendant had no probable cause and no reasonable suspicion that
Counter-Plaintiff posed a genuine and immediate threat of serious harm to any individual.
25. The act of tasing Counter-Plaintiff was excessive and objectively
unreasonable because Counter-Defendant had no lawful justification to use force against
Counter-Plaintiff, a compliant, non-threatening individual who posed no immediate
danger to Counter-Defendant or any other party.
26. No reasonably prudent law enforcement officer in Counter-Defendant’s
position could have believed that deploying a taser against a compliant, non-threatening
senior official who was lawfully intervening in an unlawful arrest was constitutionally
permissible.
27. The actions taken by Counter-Defendant were objectively unreasonable,
willful, wanton, intentional, and done with a callous and reckless disregard for the
constitutional rights of Counter-Plaintiff.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the court enter judgment in his favor and
against Defendants as follows:
a. Award compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
b. Award punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
c. Award pre- and post-judgment interest;
10
d. Grant an award of the fees and costs incurred in filing this suit;
e. Grant such further relief as the court deems just and proper.
Dated: April 14, 2026
Palmer, Ridgeway Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nicklaus_s
Nicklaus_s (Rid. Bar No. 10241)
NICKLAUS & ASSOCIATES LLP
1 Jackson Road
Palmer, Ridgeway 90025
(123) 456-7890
[email protected]
Attorney for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
11
