Answer To Complaint Atty Klaus

Response

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 6, 2017

w a wn \ O o o J oN 17CV318699 Santa Clara - Civil Electronically Filed Kathryn C. Klaus, Esq. - SBN 205923 by Superior Court of CA, HL. Gregory Nelch, Esq. - SBN 118258 County of Santa Clara, A Professional Corporation, Lawyers la SE Reviewed By: V. Taylor 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 Case #17CV318699 Tel.: 650.592.5400 Envelope: 1931454 Fax: 650.592.5027 ATTORNEYS FOR Defendant Olav Barry Sadoo IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AUGUSTIN ZARATE; MARTHA IMELDA | Case No. 17CV318699 ZARATE; EMMANUEL ZARATE, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, MARLYN ZARATE, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, VS. OLAV BARRY SADOO and Does 1 through 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. COMES NOW defendant OLAV BARRY SADOO and in response to the unverified complaint of plaintiffs AUGUSTIN ZARATE; MARTHA IMELDA ZARATE; EMMANUEL ZARATE, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, MARLYN ZARATE, on file herein, herewith denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations therein contained, and in this connection, defendant denies 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 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 defendant. Answer to Complaint Case No: 17CV318699 521336 . Taylor AN w n =. wo Do ~~ 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs were themselves careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the complaint; that said carelessness and negligence on said plaintiffs’ own part proximately contributed to the happening of the incident and to the injuries, loss and damage complained of, if any thete | were; that should plaintiffs recover damages, defendant is entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced or eliminated to the extent that plaintiffs’ negligence caused or contributed to their injuries, if any. AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges 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, this answering defendant is entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced or eliminated to plaintiffs’ injuries, if any. AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs failed subsequent to the occurrence described in the complaint properly 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 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges 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 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges plaintiffs knew about e Answer to Complaint Case No: 17CV318699 521336 O e = O N nn Re L N = - p t p d f d p d p t e d e d p d c o ~~ NN wn RE W N e m OO the risk, and voluntarily undertook the risk 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, this answering defendant alleges plaintiffs’ complaint is barred by the doctrine of estoppel. AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges defendant is entitled to an offset for all monies received by plaintiffs from payments received from any source. AS A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to whether additional affirmative defenses are available. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as appropriate. WHEREFORE, defendant prays that plaintiffs take nothing against said defendant by their said complaint; that defendant have judgment for his costs of suit herein incurred, together with such other and further relief as may be just and propet. / Dated: September 11, 2018 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH \ { By: Kathryn C. Klaus Attorneys for Defendant Olav Barry Sadoo Answer to Complaint Case No: 17CV318699 521336 PROOF OF SERVICE California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1011, 1013, 10132, 2015.5 California Rule of Court rule 2.251 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 5(b) sal L 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 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 September 11, 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 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 overni he delivery carrier, or delivered to a courier or dtiver 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, 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 cotrespondence or documents were placed for transmission from (650) 592-5027 at Reawood 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 oy 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. N wn B Ww ) ~J 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 37 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 coutt; 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 patty to the action or 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 service in writing, 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: Anthony R. Lopez, Esq. Southwest Legal Group 22440 Clarendon Street Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 591-4300 Facsimile: (818) 591-4315 E-mail: tolopez@aol.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 September 11, 2018. Eva Oliveira Court: Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County Action No: 77C1318699 Case Name: Zarate v. Sadoo