Answer To First Amended Complaint

Response

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 29, 2016

N O 0 a N R W = I D N N N N N N m e - Randolph S. Hicks, Esq. - SBN 83627 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH A Professional Corporation, Lawyers 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 Tel.: 650.592.5400 Fax: 650.592.5027 ATTORNEYS FOR Defendants Ravinderpal Singh, Saini Bros Trucking, Inc. and Surinder Banwait IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA LUCIA ARREDONDO; EVANGELINE ARREDONDO, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, LUCIA ARREDONDO; andJOSEPHINE ARREDONDQO,a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, LUCIA ARRENDONDO, Plaintiffs, VS. RAVINDERPAL SINGH,an individual; SURINDER BANWAIT, an individual; PARMINDER TAMBAR, an individual; SAINI BROS TRUCKING, INC. a California corporation; DON CHAPIN CO., INC, a California corporation; ASSURED AGGREGATES COMPANY, INC., a California corporation; CHARLES F. GAGLIASSO TRUCKING, INC. a California corporation; SAINI TRUCKING, a California corporation; and DOES 2 through 150, inclusive, Defendants. AND RELATED ACTIONS. Answer to First Amended ComplaintCase No: 16CV292098 Case No. 16CV292098 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 483784 O o 0 0 3 N n B s W D = D O R N N N N N R R N = © N A U E D N = SS 0 ® A h E » ~~ 3 COME NOW defendants SAINI BROS. TRUCKING, INC., RAVINDERPAL SINGH and SURINDER BANWAIT, and in response to the unverified first amended complaint of plaintiffs on file herein, herewith deny each and every, all and singular, the allegations therein contained, and in this connection, defendants deny that plaintiffs have been injured or damaged in any of the sums mentioned in the complaint, or in any sum whatsoever or at all, as a result of any act or omission of these answering defendants. AS A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN,these answering defendants allege that said complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these defendants. AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, these answering defendants allege that plaintiff Lucia Arredondo was herself careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the complaint; that said carelessness and negligence on said plaintiff’s own part proximately contributed to the happening ofthe incident and to the injuries, loss and damage complained of, if any there were; that should plaintiff recover damages, defendants are entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced or eliminated to the extent that plaintiffs negligence caused or contributed to her injuries, if any. AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, these answering defendants allege that named and/or unnamed third parties were careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the complaint; that said carelessness and negligence of said named and/or unnamed third parties proximately contributed to the happening of the incident and to the injuries, loss and damage complained of by plaintiffs, if any there were; that should plaintiffs recover damages, these answering defendantsare entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced or eliminated to the extent that said named and/or unnamed third patties’ negligence caused or contributed to plaintiffs’ injuries,if any. Answer to First Amended Complaint Case No: 16CV292098 483784 N O 0 0 3 O N B R W N - M D R N N N - e m e m e m e a e s p m e a Ww W N = O O 0 O N RA R W N m o 24 AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN,these answering defendants allege that plaintiffs failed subsequent to the occurrence described in the complaint propertly to mitigate their damages and thereby are precluded from recovering those damages which could have reasonably been avoided by the exercise of due care on the part of plaintiffs. AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN,these answering defendants allege that plaintiffs” complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by the applicable period of limitations including, but not limited to, limitations codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 335. AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, these answering defendants allege that plaintiffs assumed the risk of injury and that defendants are not responsible in law or fact for plaintiffs’ injuries, if any. WHEREFORE, defendants pray that plaintiffs take nothing against said defendants by their said complaint; that defendants have judgment for their costs of suit herein incurred, together with such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 1 Dated: May 16, 2018 CO NGTON, ’ Randolph S. Hicks’ Attorneys for Defendants Ravinderpal Singh, Saini Bros Trucking, Inc. and Surinder Banwait & DANFORTH B Answer to First Amended Complaint Case No: 16CV292098 483784 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1011, 1013, 1013a, 2015.5 California Rule of Court rule 2.251 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 5(b) I, the undersigned, declare that I am employed in the County of San Mateo, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300, Redwood City, California 94065. My electronic mail address 1s hporter@chdlawyers.com. I am readily familiar with my employer’s business practice for collection and processing of correspondence and documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service, mailing via overnight delivery, transmission by facsimile machine, and delivery by hand. On May 16, 2018, I served a copy of each of the documentslisted below by placing said copies for processing as indicated herein. ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT XX United States Mail: The correspondence or documents were placed in sealed, labeled envelopes with postage thereon fully prepaid on the above date placed for collection and mailing at my place of business to be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Redwood City, California on this same date in the ordinary course of business. Overnight Delivery: The correspondence or documents were placed in sealed, labeled packaging for overnight delivery, with Federal Express, with all charges to be paid by my employer on the above date for collection at my place of business to be deposited in a facility regularly maintained by the overnight delivery carrier, or delivered to a courier or driver authorized by the overnight delivery cartier to receive such packages, on this date in the ordinary course of business. Hand Delivery: The correspondence or documents were placed in sealed, labeled envelopes and served by personal delivery to the party or attorney indicated herein, or if upon attorney, by leaving the labeled envelopes with a receptionist or other person having charge of the attorney’s office. Facsimile Transmission: The correspondence or documents were placed for transmussion from (650) 592-5027 at Redwood City, California, and were transmitted to a facsimile machine maintained by the party ot attorney to be served at the facsimile machine telephone number provided by said party or attorney, on this same date in the ordinary course of Business. The transmission was reported as complete and without error, and a record of the transmission was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Electronic Transmission: The correspondence or documents were transmitted electronicallyat on May 16, 2018. State. The recipient has filed and served notice that he or she accepts electronic service; the recipient has electronically filed a document with the coutt; and/or the recipient has electronically filed a document with the court. The printed form of this document bearing the original signature is on file and available for inspection at the request of the court or any party to the action or proceeding in which it is filed, in the manner provided in California Rule of Coutt Rule 2.257(a). Federal. The recipient of this electronic service has consented to this method ofservice in writing, a copy of which is on file and available for inspection in my employer’s office. I have received no indication the electronic transmission did not reach the recipient. PERSONS OR PARTIES SERVED: Attorneys for Arredondo Plaintiffs J. Michael Fitzsimmons, Esq. Campbell Warburton,et al. 64 West Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 295-7701 Facsimile: (408) 295-1423 ifitzsimmons(@cw-lawfirm.com Attorneys for Defendant Charles F. Gagliasso Trucking, Inc. Kevin J. Gray, Esq. Gregory Sowder, Esq. Jin Im, Esq. Harrington, Foxx, Dubrow & Canter, LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 288-6600 Facsimile: (415) 288-6618 kgray( @hfdclaw.com gsowdet@hfdclaw.com [im@hfdclaw.com Attorneys for DefendantAssured Aggregates Company, Inc. Richard M. Jacobson, Esq. Joseph T. Urbanic, Esq. Jacobson Markham, LLLP 8950 Cal Center Drive, Suite 210 Sacramento, CA 95826 Telephone: (916) 854-5969 Facsimile: (916) 854-5965 rmjacobson(@jacobsonmarkham.com jurbanic@jacobsonmarkham.com Assistant: Sandy Gagnon sgagnon(@jacobsonmarkham.com Attorneys for DefendantAssured Aggregates Company, Inc. Richard S. Linkert, Esq. Matthew C. Jaime, Esq. Jack A. Klauschie, Jr., Esq. Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime LLP 3638 American River Drive Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 978-3434 Facsimile: (916) 978-3430 tlinkert@mathenysears.com i mathenvyseatrs.com iklauschie@mathenvsears.com Assistant: Bonnie Esperanca besperanca@mathenysears.com Assistant: Barbara Payne bpayne@methenysears.com 10 11 Attorneys for Defendants Saini Trucking, Inc. and Parminder Tambar Eric R. Brenneman, Esq. Farmer Smith & Lane, LLP 3620 American River Drive, Suite 218 Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 679-6565 Facsimile: (916) 679-6575 ebrenneman(@farmersmithlaw.com Assistant: susieh{@farmersmithlaw.com I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this d LAN HelenPorter+ Court: Superior Court ofCalfornia, Santa Clara County Case Name: Lucia Arredondo, et al. v. Saini Bros Trucking, Inc., et al. Case No.: 16C1292098