Mickey Chandler's SpamSuite

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

Mark Ferguson, a married individual, d/b/a
WHEW.COM,
Plaintiff,

v.

ACTIVE RESPONSE GROUP, a New York
company; THE BRADFORD EXCHANGE,
LTD., an Illinois corporation; QUINSTREET,
INC., a California corporation; VISION CARE
HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, NAUTILUS, INC., a Washington
corporation; and JOHN DOES, 1-CC,
Defendants.

DEFENDANT ACTIVE RESPONSE GROUP, INC.'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT
Active Response Group, Inc. ( ARG ), through counsel, for its Answer to the Complaint in this action, responds as follows:

1. ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 1 and therefore denies the allegations.

2. ARG admits it is a corporation with its principal places of business in New York state, that it previously used Oridian, Inc. under a license agreement, and that it owns
-2-
rewardsparade.com and householdsavingsclub.com. ARG denies the remaining allegations stated in paragraph 2.

3. ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 3 and therefore denies the allegations.

4. ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 4 and therefore denies the allegations.

5. ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 5 and therefore denies the allegations.

6. ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 6 and therefore denies the allegations.

7. Paragraph 7 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Insofar as the allegations stated in paragraph 7 are factual, ARG denies the allegations.

8. Paragraph 8 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Insofar as the allegations stated in paragraph 8 are factual, ARG denies the allegations.

9. Paragraph 9 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Insofar as the allegations stated in paragraph 9 are factual, ARG denies the allegations.

10. ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 10 and therefore denies the allegations.

11. Paragraph 11 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Insofar as the allegations stated in paragraph 11 are factual, ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.

-3-
12. ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 12 and therefore denies the allegations.

13. ARG admits that the WhoIs database lists the registrant of whew.com as an individual named Mark Ferguson, with an address listed in Washington State. ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations stated in paragraph 13 and therefore denies the allegations.

14. ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 14 and therefore denies the allegations.

15. ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 15 and therefore denies the allegations.

16. ARG denies that it received notice to cease and desist sending allegedly unsolicited, unwanted, unlawful, and harassing email. ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations stated in paragraph 16 and therefore denies the allegations.

17. ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 17 and therefore denies the allegations.

18. ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 18 against defendants other than ARG and therefore denies the allegations. ARG denies the remaining allegations stated in paragraph 18.

19. Paragraph 19 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Insofar as the allegations stated in paragraph 19 are factual, ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to defendants
-4-
other than ARG and therefore denies the allegations. ARG denies the remaining allegations stated in paragraph 19.

20. Paragraph 20 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Insofar as the allegations stated in paragraph 20 are factual, ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as they relate to defendants other than ARG and therefore denies the allegations. ARG denies the remaining allegations stated in paragraph 20.

21. Paragraph 21 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Insofar as the allegations stated in paragraph 21 are factual, ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.

22. Paragraph 22 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Insofar as the allegations stated in paragraph 22 are factual, ARG lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.

23. The remaining section of the Complaint, Request for Relief, states requests for relief, not factual allegations, and therefore does not require a response. Insofar as this section makes factual allegations, ARG denies the allegations.

-5-
DEFENSES

24. Failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

25. Acts of third parties. Plaintiff's damages, if any, were caused in whole or in part by the conduct of third parties, for which ARG bears no responsibility.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, ARG asks that the Court:

26. Dismiss all claims against ARG stated in the Complaint with prejudice;

27. Award ARG its reasonable costs, including attorneys fees, incurred in defending against the allegations in the Complaint; and

28. Award such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable under the circumstances.

DATED this 28th day of September, 2007.

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Attorneys for Active Response Group, Inc.

By s/ Ambika K. Doran
Ambika K. Doran
WSBA # 38237
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, Washington 98101-3045
Telephone: (206) 757-8030
Fax: (206) 757-7030

Thomas R. Burke (admitted pro hac vice)
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 276-6500
Fax: (415) 276-6599

Attachment	Date	Size
AnswerARG.pdf	06/28/09 1:05 pm	23.12 KB