Filing # 187645260 E-Filed 12/08/2023 11:21:41 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 2022 CA 1128 SC

JOSEPH PETITO and NICHOLE

SCHMIDT,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE, ROBERTA

LAUNDRIE, and STEVEN BERTOLINO,

Defendants.
/

DEFENDANT STEVEN BERTOLINO’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, this Defendant, STEVEN BERTOLINO (“Mr. Bertolino”), through his

counsel, pursuant to this Court’s November 29, 2023 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave

to File Third Amended Complaint and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and hereby files his

Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, filed on November

30, 2023, and states as follows:

ANSWER

1. This Defendant admits Plaintiffs have brought the instant action and alleged that

Plaintiffs’ damages exceed $30,000.00 for jurisdictional purposes only. The remainder of

paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint is denied.

2. This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint.

3. This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint for jurisdictional purposes only.

Page 1 of 12

Filed 12/08/2023 11:44 AM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL
 4. Upon information and belief, this Defendant admits the allegations contained in

paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint.

5. Upon information and belief, this Defendant admits Plaintiff NICHOLE

SCHMIDT is the mother of Gabrielle Petito, deceased. This Defendant is without knowledge as

to the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended

Complaint and, therefore, denies same.

6. This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint.

7. This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint.

8. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant admits he acted as an attorney and, therefore, agent for

Defendants CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE and ROBERTA LAUNDRIE when the statements

described in the Third Amended Complaint were issued on their behalf.

9. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, upon information and belief, this Defendant admits that Brian Laundrie and

Gabrielle Petito became engaged.

10. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, upon information and belief, this Defendant admits Brian Laundrie and

Gabrielle Petito set out on a trip together in the summer of 2021.

11. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, upon information and belief, this Defendant admits that prior to the trip taken

by Gabrielle Petito and Brian Laundrie in the summer of 2021, Nichole Schmidt had briefly met

Christopher Laundrie and Roberta Laundrie on a singular occasion in front of Ms. Schmidt’s home

Page 2 of 12
in New York. This Defendant is without knowledge as to the remainder of the allegations

contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies same.

12. This Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in paragraph

12 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies same.

13. This Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in paragraph

13 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies same.

14. This Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in paragraph

14 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies same.

15. This Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in paragraph

15 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies same.

16. This Defendant is either without knowledge and/or is unable to admit or deny

knowledge as to the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint

as to do so would violate the attorney-client privilege between this Defendant and by Brian

Laundrie (which Brian Laundrie has not waived) and, therefore, this Defendant denies same.

17. Upon information and belief, this Defendant admits the allegations contained in

paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint.

18. This Defendant is either without knowledge and/or is unable to admit or deny

knowledge as to the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint

as to do so would violate the attorney-client privilege between this Defendant and by Brian

Laundrie (which Brian Laundrie has not waived) and, therefore, this Defendant denies same.

19. This Defendant is either without knowledge and/or is unable to admit or deny

knowledge as to the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint

as to do so would violate the attorney-client privilege between this Defendant and by Brian

Laundrie (which Brian Laundrie has not waived) and, therefore, this Defendant denies same.

Page 3 of 12
 20. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant admits Defendants CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE and

ROBERTA LAUNDRIE contacted him on or about August 29, 2021 for purposes of obtaining

legal advice and counsel with respect to their son, Brian Laundrie.

21. This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint.

22. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant admits he contacted other attorneys in Wyoming to represent

Brian Laundrie prior to the time Fleener Peterson LLC was retained.

23. This Defendant is either without knowledge and/or is unable to admit or deny

knowledge as to the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint

as to do so would violate the attorney-client privilege between this Defendant and by Brian

Laundrie (which Brian Laundrie has not waived) and, therefore, this Defendant denies same.

24. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant admits Brian Laundrie returned to the home of his parents on

or about September 1, 2021. This Defendant is without knowledge, and/or is unable to admit or

deny knowledge as to the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’

Third Amended Complaint as to do so would violate the attorney-client privilege between this

Defendant and by Brian Laundrie (which Brian Laundrie has not waived) and, therefore, this

Defendant denies same.

25. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant admits that, upon information and belief, there was no contact

between Plaintiffs on the one hand and Defendants CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE and ROBERTA

Page 4 of 12
LAUNDRIE on the other at any point in time other than a singular meeting in NICHOLE

SCHMIDT’S driveway, which occurred before July 2021.

26. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant admits he became aware Plaintiffs were searching for

Gabrielle Petito on or about September 11, 2021.

27. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, upon information and belief, this Defendant admits Defendants

CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE and ROBERTA LAUNDRIE went to Fort DeSoto Park with Brian

Laundrie from September 6, 2021 to September 7, 2021.

28. This Defendant is without knowledge as to the allegations contained in paragraph

28 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies same.

29. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant admits he described Brian Laundrie as “grieving” during a

televised interview that occurred in October 2021.

30. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant admits he released a statement on behalf of his clients,

Defendants CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE and ROBERTA LAUNDRIE, on September 14, 2021,

which is cited in paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. The statement was made

following urging and demands – some life threatening – for information and comment from

Plaintiffs, law enforcement, the press, and the public. This Defendant denies that Defendants

CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE and ROBERTA LAUNDRIE had “full knowledge” that Gabrielle

Petito had been murdered by Brian Laundrie at that time and further denies that Defendants

CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE and ROBERTA LAUNDRIE knew the whereabouts of her body.

Page 5 of 12
 31. This Defendant denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, as phrased.

32. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, upon information and belief, this Defendant admits that as of September 14,

2021, Plaintiff JOSEPH PETITO resided in Florida. The September 14, 2021 statement was not

“intended to reach Joseph Petito.” Rather, the purpose of the statement was to provide a public

response to escalating pressure from Plaintiffs, law enforcement, the press, and the public who

were all demanding that Defendants CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE and ROBERTA LAUNDRIE

provide information, comment or other type of response to the events being reported worldwide

and incessantly throughout each day during that time. As such, this Defendant denies the

remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint.

33. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant had no particular intent to disseminate the September 14,

2021 statement to any particular geographic location. The statement was intended for general

public consumption in response to escalating pressure and demands – some life threatening – from

Plaintiffs, law enforcement, the press, and the public for Defendants CHRISTOPHER

LAUNDRIE and ROBERTA LAUNDRIE to comment or provide some type of response to the

events being reported worldwide and incessantly throughout each day during that time.

34. To the best of this Defendant’s recollection, the October 23, 2021 interview was

not conducted by a reporter with WABC Channel 7 in Sarasota and, as such, paragraph 34 is

denied.

35. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant does not contest personal jurisdiction. Mr. Bertolino admits

he was acting as an attorney and, therefore, an agent for Defendants CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE

Page 6 of 12
and ROBERTA LAUNDRIE who were residents of the State of Florida when the statements

described in the Third Amended Complaint were issued on their behalf. Mr. Bertolino also admits

he made statements on behalf of Defendants CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE and ROBERTA

LAUNDRIE following urging and demands – some life threatening – from Plaintiffs, law

enforcement, the press, and the public. Mr. Bertolino denies the remainder of paragraph 35.

36. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant does not contest personal jurisdiction. This Defendant denies

the remainder of paragraph 36.

37. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant admits Plaintiffs issued a statement through their attorney,

Richard Stafford, on September 16, 2021, and that the statement, as set forth in the Third Amended

Complaint, appears to be the statement issued by Richard Stafford. This Defendant denies that

Mr. Stafford delivered the statement to the Laundrie family, either directly or through Mr.

Bertolino.

38. This Defendant denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, as phrased.

39. This Defendant denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint.

40. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant admits that Gabrielle Petito’s remains were discovered on

September 19, 2021 in Bridgerton Teton National Forest in Wyoming. This Defendant also admits

that, on that same day, he issued a statement on behalf of his clients, Defendants CHRISTOPHER

LAUNDRIE and ROBERTA LAUNDRIE, and that the statement, as set forth in the Third

Page 7 of 12
Amended Complaint, is the statement so issued by Mr. Bertolino. The statement was made

following urging and demands – some life threatening – from Plaintiffs, the press, and the public.

41. This Defendant denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint.

42. This Defendant denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 42 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint.

43. This Defendant denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint.

COUNT I
JOSEPH PETITO v. CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE
44. Count I, paragraphs 44 through 45 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, does

not pertain directly to this Defendant and, therefore, he is without knowledge as to the allegations

contained therein. To the extent the allegations contained therein may apply to this Defendant in

any respect, the allegations in paragraphs 44 through 45 are specifically denied in their entirety.

45. Count I, paragraphs 44 through 45 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, does

not pertain directly to this Defendant and, therefore, he is without knowledge as to the allegations

contained therein. To the extent the allegations contained therein may apply to this Defendant in

any respect, the allegations in paragraphs 44 through 45 are specifically denied in their entirety.

COUNT II
JOSEPH PETITO v. ROBERTA LAUNDRIE

46. Count II, paragraphs 46 through 47 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, does

not pertain directly to this Defendant and, therefore, he is without knowledge as to the allegations

contained therein. To the extent the allegations contained therein may apply to this Defendant in

any respect, the allegations in paragraphs 46 through 47 are specifically denied in their entirety.

Page 8 of 12
 47. Count II, paragraphs 46 through 47 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, does

not pertain directly to this Defendant and, therefore, he is without knowledge as to the allegations

contained therein. To the extent the allegations contained therein may apply to this Defendant in

any respect, the allegations in paragraphs 46 through 47 are specifically denied in their entirety.

COUNT III
JOSEPH PETITO v. STEVEN BERTOLINO
48. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant hereby restates and realleges his responses to paragraphs 1

through 40 above as though fully set forth herein.

49. This Defendant denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint.
COUNT IV
NICHOLE SCHMIDT v. CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE
50. Count IV, paragraphs 50 through 51 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, does

not pertain directly to this Defendant and, therefore, he is without knowledge as to the allegations

contained therein. To the extent the allegations contained therein may apply to this Defendant in

any respect, the allegations in paragraphs 50 through 51 are specifically denied in their entirety.

51. Count IV, paragraphs 50 through 51 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, does

not pertain directly to this Defendant and, therefore, he is without knowledge as to the allegations

contained therein. To the extent the allegations contained therein may apply to this Defendant in

any respect, the allegations in paragraphs 50 through 51 are specifically denied in their entirety.

COUNT V
NICHOLE SCHMIDT v. ROBERTA LAUNDRIE
52. Count V, paragraphs 52 through 53 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, does

not pertain directly to this Defendant and, therefore, he is without knowledge as to the allegations

Page 9 of 12
contained therein. To the extent the allegations contained therein may apply to this Defendant in

any respect, the allegations in paragraphs 52 through 53 are specifically denied in their entirety.

53. Count V, paragraphs 52 through 53 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, does

not pertain directly to this Defendant and, therefore, he is without knowledge as to the allegations

contained therein. To the extent the allegations contained therein may apply to this Defendant in

any respect, the allegations in paragraphs 52 through 53 are specifically denied in their entirety.

COUNT VI
NICHOLE SCHMIDT v. STEVEN BERTOLINO
54. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint, this Defendant hereby restates and realleges his responses to paragraphs 1

through 40 above as though fully set forth herein.

55. This Defendant denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 55 of Plaintiffs’ Third

Amended Complaint.

56. This Defendant denies each and every other allegation of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended

Complaint not specifically admitted herein and demands strict proof thereof.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

57. This Defendant demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as right by jury.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. The damages set forth in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint were caused by or

contributed to by individuals or entities over whom this Defendant has no control. As such, this

Defendant is not liable, or alternatively, only liable for his pro rata share of damages.

2. Plaintiffs have failed to set forth a cause of action recognizable under Florida law.

The deficiencies with Plaintiffs’ cause of action include, but are not limited to:

a. Plaintiffs’ severe emotional distress was preexisting prior to the alleged

conduct of this Defendant and, as such, is not actionable.

Page 10 of 12
 b. Plaintiffs’ claims that this Defendant failed to lessen or reduce their

preexisting emotional distress are not actionable.

c. Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts demonstrating intentional or reckless

conduct by this Defendant.

d. Plaintiffs have failed to identify how the alleged outrageous conduct by this

Defendant is a legal cause of their damages.

e. This Defendant did not make the alleged outrageous statements directly to

Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs were not the targeted recipients of the statements.

3. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because they are based upon statements that are

protected by the litigation immunity privilege. See Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes

& Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994); see also Echevarria,

McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007); Fridovich v.

Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65, 68 (Fla. 1992); DelMonico v. Traynor, 116 So. 3d 1205, 1218 (Fla.

2013).

4. Plaintiffs’ claims against this Defendant are barred based upon Plaintiffs’ failure

and inability to establish conduct on the part of this Defendant that is outrageous enough, as a

matter of law, to support such a claim. See Gandy v. Trans World Computer Tech. Group, 787

So. 2d 116, 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (citation omitted) (“[w]hether alleged conduct is outrageous

enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a matter of law, not a

question of fact”); see also Clemente v. Horne, 707 So. 2d 865, 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

5. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because they are based upon the Defendants’ assertion

of their legal rights in a legally permissible way. See Canto v. J.B. Ivey and Company, 595 So. 2d

1025, 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277,

279 (Fla. 1985).

Page 11 of 12
 6. Plaintiffs’ claims against this Defendant fail on the basis that this Defendant was

acting within the course and scope of his agency relationship with his clients and the alleged

wrongful statements were issued on behalf of this Defendant’s clients.

7. Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficient statutory or contractual basis for recovery

of attorneys’ fees claimed in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint and, therefore, all such requests

must be denied. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830, 832 (Fla. 1993) (Florida

courts follow “the ‘American Rule’ that attorneys’ fees may be awarded by a court only when

authorized by statute or by agreement of the parties”).

8. This Defendant adopts any and all affirmative defenses raised by any Co-Defendant

in this matter, whether expressly mentioned herein or not, to the extent that they are applicable and

consistent with Mr. Bertolino’s interests.

9. This Defendant reserves the right to amend his affirmative defenses and allege

additional affirmative defenses.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 8, 2023, the foregoing was electronically filed
with the Court, which will give electronic notice to: Patrick J. Reilly, Esquire at e-
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] [counsel for
Plaintiffs]; and Ryan L. Gilbert, Esquire at [email protected], [email protected]
[counsel for Christopher and Roberta Laundrie].

/s/ Charles J. Meltz

CHARLES J. MELTZ, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 985491
LAURA M. KELLY, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 106436
TELAN, MELTZ, WALLACE & EIDE, P.A.
901 N. Lake Destiny Road, Ste 450, Maitland, FL 32751
Phone: (407) 423-9545 | Fax: (407) 425-7104
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendant Steven Bertolino
14606:2309

Page 12 of 12