This document is the Defendants' answer and affirmative defenses to the Plaintiff's second amended complaint in a case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Defendants deny most of the Plaintiff's allegations and assert 14 affirmative defenses, including failure to state a claim, res judicata, and lack of duty.

1. !"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%&,+%%%645$7$8%14%9:/0%01);$5%,<=,>=+,&+%%%?"@$%&%1A%B
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DISMAS CHARITIES, INC., ANA GISPERT,
DEREK THOMAS and ADAMS LESHOTA
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO
THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Lashanda Adams,
(collectively “Defendants”) by and through their undersigned counsel, file their Answer and
Affirmative Defenses of Traian Bujduveanu (“Plaintiff”) as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Denied.
PARTIES
2. Upon information and belief, admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted that Dismas is a not for profit corporation operating community
correction facilities, including one in Dania Beach, Florida, the remaining allegations are
otherwise denied.

2. !"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%&,+%%%645$7$8%14%9:/0%01);$5%,<=,>=+,&+%%%?"@$%+%1A%B
5. Admitted that Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Lashanda Adams are employees of
Dismas’s Dania Beach Residential Reentry Center, the remaining allegations are otherwise
denied.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
6. Admitted that the Plaintiff was transferred from prison to Dismas’s Residential
Reentry Center, the remaining allegations are otherwise denied.
7. Admitted that at the time of the events described, Ana Gispert was the Director of
the Dania Facility and Mr. Thomas and Ms. Adams were employees, the remaining allegations
are otherwise denied.
8. Denied.
9. Denied.
10. Denied.
11. Denied.
12. Denied.
13. Admitted that Plaintiff was placed on home confinement with conditions, the
remaining allegations are otherwise denied.
14. Admitted that Plaintiff on October 13, 2010, violated the conditions of his
placement at Dismas, the remaining allegations are otherwise denied.
15. Denied.
16. Denied.
COUNT I-VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
17. Defendants incorporate by reference and restate their prior responses.
2

3. !"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%&,+%%%645$7$8%14%9:/0%01);$5%,<=,>=+,&+%%%?"@$%>%1A%B
18. Admitted that any improper requests were properly denied.
19. Denied.
20. Denied.
COUNT II-VIOLATIONS OF FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
21. Defendants incorporate by reference and restate their prior responses.
22. Denied.
23. Denied.
24. Denied.
COUNT III-VIOLATIONS OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
25. Defendants incorporate by reference and restate their prior responses.
26. Denied.
27. Denied.
28. Denied.
COUNT IV-NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE
29. Defendants incorporate by reference and restate their prior responses.
30. Denied.
31. Denied.
32. Denied.
33. Denied.
COUNT V-ABUSE OF PROCESS
34. Defendants incorporate by reference and restate their prior responses.
35. Denied.
36. Denied.
3

4. !"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%&,+%%%645$7$8%14%9:/0%01);$5%,<=,>=+,&+%%%?"@$%<%1A%B
COUNT VI-MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
37. Defendants incorporate by reference and restate their prior responses.
38. Denied.
39. Denied.
40. Denied.
41. Defendants deny any all allegations of liability, causation and damages.
42. Defendants deny any and all allegations not specifically admitted above.
43. Defendants demand trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right by
jury.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action against against any
Defendant as the lawsuit is vague, fails to provide specific facts, dates and who was involved in
what alleged action.
2. The Amended Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, pursuant to this Court’s
Order issued on February 17, 2012, and March 15, 2012 (DE# 94 and 98).
3. The Amended Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, pursuant to the doctrines
of res judicata, waiver, or estoppel.
4. In response to the Complaint, Defendants adopt their previously filed Motions for
Summary Judgment.
5. As was set forth in the Court’s Orders of February 17, 2012 and March 15, 2012
(Docket numbers 94 and 98), all constitutional claims against Dismas have been dismissed with
4

5. !"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%&,+%%%645$7$8%14%9:/0%01);$5%,<=,>=+,&+%%%?"@$%C%1A%B
prejudice. Accordingly, any claims against Dismas are barred by res judicata and collateral
estoppel.
6. The Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action against any Defendant as
the lawsuit is vague, fails to provide specific facts, dates and who was involved in what alleged
action.
7. The Plaintiff cannot maintain a Bivens action against the individual Defendants
Gispert, Adams and Thomas.
8. The Plaintiff cannot maintain a Fourteenth Amendment action against the
individual Defendants Gispert, Adams and Thomas as they are not state actors.
9. In response to the Complaint, Defendants adopt their previously filed Motions for
Summary Judgment as though they are fully set forth herein.
10. The Amended Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action for abuse of process
as the Complaint does not describe any process that was abused.
11. The Amended Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action for malicious
prosecution as the Complaint does not set forth any judicial proceeding that ended in the
Plaintiff’s favor and fails to set forth the absence of probable cause as the Plaintiff was properly
violated for driving without authorization.
12. The Amended Complaint fails to set forth the necessary proffer for a cause of
action for punitive damages pursuant to Florida Statute 768.72 and this count needs to be
dismissed.
13. The Amended Complaint fails to allege any duty owed to the Plaintiff to support a
negligence or gross negligence count.
5

6. !"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%&,+%%%645$7$8%14%9:/0%01);$5%,<=,>=+,&+%%%?"@$%D%1A%B
14. The Amended Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action for any constitutional
violations.
Respectfully submitted,
EISINGER, BROWN, LEWIS, FRANKEL,
& CHAIET, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendants
4000 Hollywood Boulevard
Suite 265-South
Hollywood, FL 33021
(954) 894-8000
(954) 894-8015 Fax
BY: /S/ David S. Chaiet____________
DAVID S. CHAIET, ESQUIRE
FBN: 963798
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 3rd day of April, 2012, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the
attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic
Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties
who are authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
__/s/ David S. Chaiet_______________
DAVID S. CHAIET, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 963798
6

7. !"#$%&'&&()*(+,&+,(-./%%%01)23$45%&,+%%%645$7$8%14%9:/0%01);$5%,<=,>=+,&+%%%?"@$%B%1A%B
SERVICE LIST
Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities, Inc., et al.
Case No..: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Traian Bujduveanu
Pro Se Plaintiff
5601 W. Broward Blvd.
Plantation, FL 33317
Tel: (954) 316-3828
Email: orionav@msn.com
7