Answer To Complaint Atty KlausResponseCal. Super. - 6th Dist.August 30, 2017C d ~~ MN Wh I 17CV316966 Santa Clara - Civil Electronically Filed Kathryn C. Klaus, Esq. - SBN 205923 by Superior Court of CA, Rebecca D. Martino, Esq. - SBN 236094 County of Santa Clara, CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH on 11/6/2018 10:17 AM A Professional Corporation, Lawyers : . 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 Reviewed By: E. Fang Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 Case #17CV316966 Tel: 650.592.5400 Envelope: 2140759 Fax: 650.592.5027 ATTORNEYS FOR Defendants Khanh Quoc Bui IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DMITRY MAIZEL, Case No. 17CV316966 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT VS. CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE; KHANH QUOC BUI and DOES 1 - 10, Defendants. COME NOW defendant, Khanh Quoc Bui, and in response to the unverified complaint of plaintiff, Dmitry Maizel, on file herein, herewith denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations therein contained, and in this connection, defendant denies that plaintiff has been injuted ot damaged in any of the sums mentioned in the complaint, or in any sum whatsoever ot at all, as a result of any act or omission of this answering defendant. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that said complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant. /1/ /1/ /1/ Answer to Complaint Case No: 17CV316966 537458 Fang C J NO 0 0 9 O Y Wn AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff was himself careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the complaint; that said carelessness and negligence on plaintiffs 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, defendant is entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced or eliminated to the extent that plaintiffs negligence caused or contributed to his injuries, if any. AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff acted with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding his injuries and assumed the risk of the matters causing his injuries, and that said matters of which plaintiff assumed the risk proximately contributed to the happening of the incident at bar and proximately caused his injuries, if any. AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that named 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 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 defendant is entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced ot eliminated to the extent that said named or unnamed third parties’ negligence caused or contributed to plaintiff's injuries, if any. = AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff failed subsequent to the occurrence described in the complaint properly to mitigate his damages and theteby is precluded from recovering those damages which could have reasonably been avoided by the exercise of due care on the part of plaintiff. /17 /17 Answer to Complaint Case No: 17CV316966 537458 Ww Oo o o ~ [@ )) Wh + AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges 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 California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 and California Code of Civil Procedure § 338. AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that at the time of the injuties alleged in the complaint, plaindff was employed and was entitled to, and did receive, wotkets” compensation benefits. Defendant is informed and thereon believes that if the conditions as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint are found to exist, plaintiff's employer was negligent and careless in and about the matters referred to in said complaint and that said negligence on the patt of the employer proximately caused or contributed to the injuries and damages, if any, complained of by plaintiff and by that reason thereof, defendant is entitled to set-off any compensation benefits teceived or to be received by plaintiff against any judgment which may be rendered in favor of plaintiff herein. AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that said complaint is batted by the doctrine of unclean hands. me NTs rw we A et Fr eT AS A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFTI ATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering detendant alleges that said complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches. AS A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that said complaint is AS AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that she is entitled to an offset for all monies received by plaintiff from payments received from any source. /// Answer to Complaint Case No: 17CV316966 537458 W D Oo 0 3 O N wn A AS A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges the damages that the plaintiff claims to have suffered were caused or made worse by an intervening or superseding cause of circumstances. AS A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff has failed to propetly name ot join an indispensable or necessary party or parties to the present action; as a result of such failure to join, complete relief cannot be accorded to those already parties to the action and result in prejudice to the defendant, in any possible future litigation. AS A FOURTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs claims are batted, in whole or in patt, because some or all of the parties have been improperly joined in this action. AS A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges on information and belief that plaintiff failed to carry health insurance on the day of the incident alleged in the complaint, or aftet the incident, and therefore failed to properly mitigate his 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 SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant is entitled to, and claims the benefit of, all defenses and presumptions set forth in or atising from any rule of law or statute in this state. AS A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARAT COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that if plaintiff recovers damages from this answering defendant, this answering defendant is entitled to indemnification, either in whole or in part, from all persons or entities whose negligence, fault, or conduct proximately caused or contributed to the damages allegedly incurred by plaintiff. 4 Answer to Complaint Case No: 17CV316966 537458 C a N N n o oo AS AN EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that if this answering defendant is found to be liable for any of plaintiffs losses and damages, which defendant denies any and all liability, plaintiff should be limited to seek and recover from this answering defendant only that proportion of alleged damages and losses for which this answering defendant is liable and responsible under any applicable theory. AS ANINETEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant acknowledges that she may have insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to whether additional affirmative defenses are available; therefore, this answering defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as appropriate. WHEREFORE, defendant prays that plaintiff takes nothing against said defendant by his said complaint, and that defendant has judgment for his costs of suit herein incurred, together with such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Dated: November 5, 2018 Attorneys for Defendants Khanh Quoc Bui Answer to Complaint Case No: 17CV316966 537458 AN Pe Ww ro NO o e 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 ’ > y 3 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 I am readily familiar with my employet’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 November 5, 2018, I setved 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 Cormespontience 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 ft delivery carrier, or delivered to a coutier ot driver authorized by the overnight delivery carrier to receive such packages, on this date in the ordinary course of business. Hand Delivery: The cottespondence or documents were placed in sealed, labeled envelopes and served by personal delivery to the party or attorney indicated herein, ot 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 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 business. The transmission was reported as complete and without ertot, and a record of the transmission was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. Electronic Transmission: The correspondence or documents were transmitted electronically to the electronic address set forth below. wv ke W N aN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 State. The recipient has filed and served notice that he or she accepts electronic service; the recipient has electronically filed 2 document with the court; and/or the Court has mandated that the parties serve documents through its Court approved vendot. The printed form of this document bearing the original signature is on file and available bor 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 Calitornia Rule of Court Rule 2.257(a). Federal. The recipient of this electronic service has consented to this method of service 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: In Pro Per Dmitry Maizel 280 Los Palmos Way San Jose, CA 95119 Telephone: (415) 203-6210 Facsimile: E-mail: I certify (or declare) under penalty of petjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 5, 2018. Kim Ratto Court: Superior Court of California,S anta Clara County Action No: 17CV7316966 Case Name: Maize! v. Bui