To Complaint Atty KlausResponseCal. Super. - 6th Dist.October 6, 2017w s W N CN NO 00 17CV316916 Santa Clara - Civil A.H Electronically Filed H. Gregory Nelch, Esq. - SBN 118258 by Superior Court of CA, Kathryn C. Klaus, Esq. - SBN 205923 County of Santa Clara, CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH on 6/8/2018 2:32 PM A Professional Corporation, Lawyers Reviewed By: A. Hwang 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 Case #17CV316916 Tel: 650.592.5400 Fax: 650.592.5027 ATTORNEYS FOR Defendants Amy Chan and Mark Abbott IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MARTHA ALVAREZ, Case No. 17CV316916 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT VS. AMY CHAN, MARK ABBOTT, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. COME NOW defendants AMY CHAN and MARK ABBOTT and in response to the unverified complaint of plaintff MARTHA ALVAREZ on file herein, herewith deny each and every, all and singular, the allegations therein contained, and in this connection, defendants deny that plaintiff has 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 FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 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. Answer to Complaint Case No: 17CV316916 488787 wang wv Bs W N CN \O o o J 10 11 12 13 14 - Wn P d (@ )) AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, these answering defendants allege that plaintiff 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 of the 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 plaintiff's negligence caused or contributed to her injuries, if any. AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 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 plaintiff, if any there were; that should plaintiff recover damages, this answering defendants are entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced or eliminated to the extent that said named and/or unnamed third parties’ negligence caused or contributed to plaintiff's injuries, if any. AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, these answering defendants allege that plaintiff failed subsequent to the occurrence described in the complaint propetly to mitigate her damages and thereby is precluded from recovering those damages which could have reasonably been avoided by the exercise of due care on the part of plaintiff. AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, these answering defendants allege that plaintiff’s 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 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN], these answering defendants allege plaintiff knew about 2 Answer to Complaint Case No: 17CV316916 488787 wn J wo No AN \O o 0 ~ 10 11 12 13 14 13 i6 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the risk, and voluntarily undertook the tisk that led to the accident or injuries complained of in this case. AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, these answering defendants alleges plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the doctrine of estoppel. AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, these answeting defendants allege defendants are entitled to an offset for all monies received by plaintiff from payments received from any source. AS A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, these answering defendants have insufficient knowledge ot information on which to form a belief as to whether additional affirmative defenses are available. Defendants reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as appropriate. WHEREFORE, defendants pray that plaintiff take nothing against said defendants by her 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. Dated: June 8, 2018 coPPIETON HICKS & DANFORTH / “Kathryn C. Klaus Attorneys for Defendants Amy Chan and Mark Abbott Answer to Complaint Case No: 17CV316916 488787 10 11 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 92 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 is Eva@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 June 8, 2018, I served a copy of each of the documents listed below by placing said copies for processing as indicated herein. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT X 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 Ee So 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 overni fe delivery carrier, or delivered to a courier or driver authorized by the overnight delivery carrier 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 chatge of the attorney’s office. Facsimile Transmission: The correspondence or documents were placed for transmission from (650) 592-5027 at Redwood City, California, and were transmitted to a facsimile machine maintained by the party or 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 Fimsiness, The transmission was reported as complete and without error, and a record of the transmission was propertly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. Electronic Transmission: The correspondence or documents were transmitted electronically to the electronic address set forth below. o o ~ J AN Wn Oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 or 28 State. The recipient has filed and served notice that he or she accepts electronic service; the recipient has electronically filed a document with the court; and/or the Court has mandated that the parties serve documents through its Court approved vendor. 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 ot proceeding in which it is filed, in the manner provided in California Rule of Court Rule 2.257 (a). Federal. The recipient of this electronic service has consented to this method of setvice in wtiting, a copy of which is on file and available for inspection in my employet’s office. I have received no indication the electronic transmission did not reach the recipient. PERSONS OR PARTIES SERVED: Andrew L. Johnson, Esq. Bennett & Johnson, LLP 1901 Harrison Street Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 444-5020 Facsimile: (510) 835-4260 E-mail: andrew(@bennettjohnsonlaw.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 declaration was executed on June 8, 2018. i Loi Eva Oliveira Court: Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County Action No: 77CV7316916 Case Name: _Abarez, Martha v. Chan