|
AMD Telemedicine Complaints
VRI vs AMD Telemedicine
|
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
WARREN COUNTY, OHIO
|
VALUED RELATIONSHIPS, INC.
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMD TELEMEDICINE, INC.
Defendant.
|
Case No. 05 CV 64895
Judge Bronson
Magistrate Hasselbach
AGREED JUDGMENT ENTRY
|
| By agreement of the parties, Valued Relationships, Inc. is hereby granted judgment against the Defendant, AMD Telemedicine, Inc., in the amount of $27,823.51, plus interest, and court costs. Defendant, AMD Telemedicine, Inc., dismisses its counterclaims with prejudice. |
|
___________________________________
Judge Bronson
Magistrate Hasselbach
|
___________________________________
Jesse R. Lipcius [0078274]
Attorney for Plaintiff
CORS & BASSETT, LLC
537 East Pete Rose Way, Suite 400
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3578
Phone: (513) 852-8232
Fax: (513) 852-8222
__________________________________
Dwight Packard, Esq.
Sams, Fischer, Packard & Schuessler
209 Reading Road
Mason, Ohio 45040
|
|
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
WARREN COUNTY, OHIO
|
VALUED RELATIONSHIPS, INC. :: Case No.
355 N. Main Street ::
Springboro, Ohio 45066 ::
:: (Judge )
Plaintiff, ::
v.
|
AMD TELEMEDICINE, INC. :: COMPLAINT
650 Suffolk Street ::
Lowell, MA 01854 ::
::
Serve also: ::
Mark K. Vanderwerf ::
Statutory Agent ::
13 Vose Hill Road ::
Westford, MA 01886 ::
Defendant. ::
|
Plaintiff Valued Relationships, Inc. (“VRI” or “Plaintiff”) hereby states as follows for its Complaint:
PARTIES AND VENUE
1. VRI is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio, and has its principal place of business in Warren County, Ohio.
2. Defendant AMD Telemedicine, Inc. (“AMD” or “Defendant”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to Ohio’s long-arm statute, R.C. § 2307.382.
4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 3(B)(3), (6), and (7).
COUNT ONE
(Breach of Contract)
5. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 of its Complaint.
6. Plaintiff provides electronic monitoring to elderly and/or disabled individuals. electronic monitoring allows Plaintiff to remotely monitor elderly and/or disabled individuals’ for assistance, medication compliance, and other vital information, and allow elderly and/or disabled individuals – by simply pushing a button from the convenience of their home – to quickly contact a VRI dispatcher in the event of an emergency.
7. Defendant is a manufacturer and supplier of telemedicine equipment and software.
8. In or about September 2003, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement pursuant to which Defendant agreed to provide Plaintiff with telemedicine equipment and software.
9. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, in or about October 2003, Defendant provided Plaintiff with telemedicine equipment and software, in exchange for which Plaintiff paid Defendant the sum of $43,624.51.
10. Plaintiff began experiencing problems with the telemedicine equipment and software almost immediately upon its receipt, and promptly notified Defendant of such problems.
11. Defendant unsuccessfully attempted to correct the problems with the telemedicine equipment and software.
12. Defendant has repeatedly acknowledged, through e-mail communications with Plaintiff, that the telemedicine equipment and software is not working properly.
13. Plaintiff has requested that Defendant simply accept the return of the telemedicine equipment and software, and reimburse Plaintiff in the amount of $43,624.51. Defendant has ignored these requests.
14. Plaintiff has performed its part of the agreement by making all agreed upon payments to Defendant.
15. Defendant has materially breached the agreement by providing Plaintiff with defective, non-conforming telemedicine equipment and software.
16. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s material breach of the parties’ agreement, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of at least $43,624.51, the precise amount of which will be determined at trial.
COUNT TWO
(Breach of Express Warranty – R.C. § 1302.26)
17. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16 of its Complaint.
18. Defendant expressly warranted, within the meaning of R.C. § 1302.26, that the telemedicine equipment and software would conform to Defendant’s affirmations, promises, descriptions of such goods, and/or the samples or models of such goods.
19. Defendant has breached its express warranty by providing Plaintiff with non-conforming goods.
20. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of at least $43,624.51, the precise amount of which will be determined at trial.
COUNT THREE
(Breach of the Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose – R.C. § 1302.28)
21. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 20 of its Complaint.
22. At the time of entering into the agreement with Plaintiff and subsequently providing Plaintiff with the telemedicine equipment and software, Defendant knew, or had reason to know, of the particular purposes for which the telemedicine equipment and software were required.
23. At the time of entering into the agreement with Plaintiff and subsequently providing Plaintiff with the telemedicine equipment and software, Defendant knew, or had reason to know, that Plaintiff was relying upon Defendant’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods.
24. Defendant impliedly warranted, within the meaning of R.C. § 1302.28, that the telemedicine equipment and software was fit for a particular purpose.
25. Defendant breached its implied warranty by providing Plaintiff with non-conforming goods.
26. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of its implied warranty, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of at least $43,624.51, the precise amount of which will be determined at trial.
COUNT FOUR
(Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability – R.C. § 1302.27)
27. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 26 of its Complaint.
28. Defendant is a merchant with respect to the type of goods sold to Plaintiff.
29. With respect to the telemedicine equipment and software sold to Plaintiff, an implied warranty exists within the meaning of R.C. § 1302.27.
30. Defendant breached its implied warranty under R.C. § 1302.27 by providing Plaintiff with non-conforming goods, as such goods were not of an acceptable quality when compared to that generally accepted in the trade for goods of that kind.
31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of its implied warranty, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of at least $43,624.51, the precise amount of which will be determined at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment against Defendant as follows:
A. Judgment against Defendant on each of the Counts set forth herein, in an amount to be determined at trial.
B. Incidental and consequential damages pursuant to R.C. §§ 1302.88 and 1302.89.
C. Plaintiff’s costs and expenses, including its reasonable attorneys’ fees.
D. Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled as law or in equity.
Respectfully submitted,
|
OF COUNSEL:
CORS & BASSETT, LLC
537 E. Pete Rose Way
Suite 400
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 852-8200
|
Counsel for Plaintiff
Joseph S. Burns (0075154)
Kevin R. Feazell (0059634)
537 E. Pete Rose Way
Suite 400
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 852-8200 – telephone
(513) 852-8222 – facsimile
|
| 267545.1 |
|
|
