Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 12 PageID 38

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL RIDDLE §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-cv-00546-L
§
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL INC., §
MARK RAY, AIMAN K. ZUREIKAT §
AND RICHARD C. CASHON §
§
Defendants. §

DEFENDANTS' ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Defendants DynCorp International Inc. ("DynCorp"), Aiman K. Zureikat ("Zureikat")

and Richard C. Cashon ("Cashon") (collectively, "Defendants"), through their counsel, Robert E.

Sheeder, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3800, Dallas, Texas 75202,

answer Plaintiff's Original Complaint ("Complaint") as follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

The Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

In response to each of the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants

make the following responses in correspondingly numbered paragraphs:

I. NATURE OF LAWSUIT

1. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a

belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and,

accordingly, they are denied.

Defendants' Original Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint - Page 1 of 12

DALLAS\414945.2
 Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 12 PageID 39

2. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a

belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and,

accordingly, they are denied.

3. Defendants deny each and every allegation in Paragraph 3 of the

Complaint.

II. JURISDICTION

4. Defendants admit only that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter, but

deny that there is any legal or factual basis to Plaintiff's claims or that Plaintiff is entitled

to the relief sought. Venue is inappropriate in the Dallas Division of the Northern

District of Texas. Alternatively, the Fort Worth Division is the more appropriate forum.

Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 4 of the

Complaint.

III. PARTIES

5. Defendants admit, based on personnel records, that Plaintiff is an

individual residing in the Northern District of Texas.

6. Defendants admit only that DynCorp International Inc. is a Delaware

corporation and CT Corporation System is its designated agent for service of process in

the State of Texas. Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in

Paragraph 6 of the Complaint.

Defendants' Original Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint - Page 2 of 12

DALLAS\414945.2
 Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 12 PageID 40

7. Defendants admit only that Ray resides in the Northern District of Texas.

Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 7 of the

Complaint.

8. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 8 of the

Complaint.

9. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

10. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

11. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 11 of

the Complaint.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. Defendants deny the allegation in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint that

DynCorp International Inc. hired or employed Plaintiff, but admit the remaining

allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

13. Defendants admit only that a contract between the State Department and

DynCorp International LLC included language referencing a database that was referred to

as CADRE. Defendants deny each and every other allegation in Paragraph 13 of the

Complaint.

14. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a

belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, and,

accordingly, they are denied.

15. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 15 of

the Complaint.

16. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 16 of

the Complaint.
Defendants' Original Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint - Page 3 of 12
DALLAS\414945.2
 Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 4 of 12 PageID 41

17. Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 17 of the

Complaint.

18. Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 18 of the

Complaint.

19. Defendants deny that any database created by Plaintiff in the course and

scope of his employment with DynCorp International LLC was his personal database.

Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the

truthfulness of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, and,

accordingly, they are denied.

20. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a

belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and,

accordingly, they are denied.

21. Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 21 of the

Complaint, including the footnote thereto.

22. Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 22 of the

Complaint.

23. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a

belief as to the truthfulness of what Plaintiff believed and, accordingly, deny the

allegations made in the first sentence of Paragraph 23 of the Complaint. Defendants deny

each and every other remaining allegation contained in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.

24. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a

belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations in Paragraph 24 and, accordingly, they are

denied.

Defendants' Original Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint - Page 4 of 12

DALLAS\414945.2
 Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 5 of 12 PageID 42

25. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 25 of

the Complaint.

26. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 26 of

the Complaint.

27. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 27 of

the Complaint.

28. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 28 of

the Complaint.

29. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 29 of

the Complaint.

30. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 30 of

the Complaint.

31. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 31 of

the Complaint.

32. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a

belief as to the truthfulness of what Plaintiff believed and, accordingly, the allegations

contained in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint are denied.

33. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 33 of

the Complaint.

34. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 34 of

the Complaint.

35. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 35 of

the Complaint.

Defendants' Original Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint - Page 5 of 12

DALLAS\414945.2
 Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 6 of 12 PageID 43

36. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 36 of

the Complaint.

37. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 37 of

the Complaint.

38. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 38 of

the Complaint.

39. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of the

Complaint.

40. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a

belief as to the truthfulness of what Plaintiff thought or believed and, accordingly, the

allegations contained in sentences three and four of Paragraph 40 of the Complaint are

denied. Defendants deny each and every other remaining allegation contained in

Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.

41. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 41 of

the Complaint.

42. Defendants admit only that the CIVPOL Recruiting Unit was consolidated

under the joint recruiting umbrella of Worldwide Recruiting and Staffing Services, a

wholly owned subsidiary of DynCorp International LLC, managed by Mike Sovacool.

Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 42 of the

Complaint.

43. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 43 of

the Complaint.

44. Defendants admit only that Holland had a 3-month assignment at

Defendants' Original Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint - Page 6 of 12

DALLAS\414945.2
 Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 7 of 12 PageID 44

corporate headquarters. Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in

Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.

45. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 45 of

the Complaint.

46. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 46 of

the Complaint.

47. Defendants admit only that Holland was laid off in a reduction in force in

May 2009. Defendants deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 47

of the Complaint.

48. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 48 of

the Complaint.

49. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 49 of

the Complaint.

50. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 50 of

the Complaint.

51. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 51 of

the Complaint.

52. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 52 of

the Complaint.

53. Defendants admit only that Plaintiff met with Dean Crawford and Mark

Ray in Mr. Crawford's office on September 11, 2009, and was told his employment was

terminated immediately as a result of ongoing performance deficiencies. Defendants

deny each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint.

Defendants' Original Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint - Page 7 of 12

DALLAS\414945.2
 Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 8 of 12 PageID 45

54. Defendants admit only that Plaintiff's performance deficiencies were

communicated to him prior to his termination. Defendants deny each and every other

allegation contained in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint.

55. Defendants admit only that Plaintiff asserts the allegations in Paragraph 55

but denies that there is any factual or legal basis for the allegations contained in

Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.

56. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 56 of

the Complaint.

57. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 57 of

the Complaint.

58. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 58 of

the Complaint.

VI. [sic] CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

59. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 59 of

the Complaint because Plaintiff did not engage in protected activity for which a claim can

be brought.

VII. [sic] JURY DEMAND

60. Defendants state that no response is required to Plaintiff's demand for trial

by jury. To the extent a responsive pleading is required to Plaintiff's demand for trial by

jury, Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to trial by jury.

VIII. [sic] CLAIM

61. Defendants re-allege and incorporate by reference their responses to

Paragraphs 1 through 60 in response to Paragraph 61 of the Complaint.

62. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 62 of

Defendants' Original Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint - Page 8 of 12
DALLAS\414945.2
 Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 9 of 12 PageID 46

the Complaint.

63. Defendants state that no response is required to Paragraph 63 of the

Complaint on the grounds it calls for a pure legal conclusion. To the extent a responsive

pleading is required to Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, Defendants deny each and every

fact allegation therein.

64. Defendants state that no response is required to Paragraph 64 of the

Complaint on the grounds it calls for a pure legal conclusion. To the extent a Response is

required, Defendants deny each and every fact allegation therein.

65. Defendants state that no response is required to Paragraph 65 of the

Complaint on the grounds it calls for a pure legal conclusion. To the extent a Response is

required, Defendants deny each and every fact allegation therein.

66. Defendants state that no response is required to Paragraph 66 of the

Complaint on the grounds it calls for a pure legal conclusion. To the extent a Response is

required, Defendants deny each and every fact allegation therein.

67. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 67 of

the Complaint.

VII. [sic] PRAYER

With respect to the Prayer that follows Paragraph 67 of the Complaint, Defendants deny

each and every allegation and further deny that the damages or relief requested in the Prayer are

authorized by law or are appropriate for the claims alleged.

Each and every allegation set forth in the Complaint that is not expressly admitted herein

is denied.

Defendants' Original Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint - Page 9 of 12

DALLAS\414945.2
 Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 10 of 12 PageID 47

THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by doctrines of equity, including, but not

limited to, estoppel and/or unclean hands.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent they are subject to statutory

and constitutional caps or other limitations on recoverable damages, if any.

FIFTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part by set off and, to the extent Plaintiff has

failed to mitigate his alleged damages, if any, or to otherwise avoid the alleged harm.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that Defendant DynCorp

International Inc. is not liable in the capacity in which it is sued.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that Defendant Aiman

Zureikat is not liable in the capacity in which he is sued.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that Defendant Richard

Cashon is not liable in the capacity in which he is sued.

NINTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff's claims are barred because, at all times, Defendants acted in good faith and

made good-faith efforts to comply with applicable laws.

TENTH DEFENSE

With respect to any employment actions taken by Defendants that are challenged by

Defendants' Original Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint - Page 10 of 12

DALLAS\414945.2
 Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 11 of 12 PageID 48

Plaintiff, Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because all employment actions taken

by Defendants were for legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reasons.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of after-acquired

evidence.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendants would have taken

the same action in the absence of any alleged impermissible motivating factor(s).

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS DynCorp International Inc.,

Aiman Zureikat, and Richard Cashon request that Plaintiff take nothing by way of his actions,

that such actions by Plaintiff be dismissed with prejudice, that DEFENDANTS recover all damages,

costs of litigation, including attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment

interest, and such other and further relief to which DEFENDANTS may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Robert E. Sheeder_____

Robert E. Sheeder
State Bar No. 18174300

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3800
Dallas, Texas 75202-2711
Telephone: (214) 468-3800
Telecopy: (214) 468-3888

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

Defendants' Original Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint - Page 11 of 12

DALLAS\414945.2
 Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 12 of 12 PageID 49

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 27, 2010, a copy of the foregoing document was
electronically filed. Notice of this filing will be sent to counsel of record for all parties by
operation of the Court’s Electronic Filing System.

/s/ Robert E. Sheeder

Defendants' Original Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint - Page 12 of 12

DALLAS\414945.2