Answer To Complaint

Response

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.December 11, 2017

N O 0 d N R A W N - I D I D B N N N D Y N N Y - - Kathryn C. Klaus, Esq. - SBN 205923 Sara B. Kohgadai, Esq. - SBN 319392 H. Gregory Nelch, Esq. - SBN 118258 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 Defendant Alina Predescu IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DAMIAN TESO, Case No. 17CV320260 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Vs. ALINA PREDESCU, and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants. COMES NOWS defendant Alina Predescu, and in response to the unverified complaint of plaintiff Damian Teso on file herein herewith generally denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations therein contained, and in this connection, defendant denies that plaintiff has been injured or damaged in any of the sums mentioned in the complaint, ot in any sum whatsoever or at all, as a result of any act or omission of defendant. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN,defendantalleges that the complaint and each cause of action thereof,fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant. AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, defendant alleges that plaintiff was himself careless and 1 Answer to Complaint Case No: 17CV320260 482529 N O 0 0 O N B R W N - 0 2 N D N N N N N N Y = © N x h E L R N = 3S 0 % » a o a E D D E negligent in and about the matters alleged in the complaint;that the carelessness and negligence on plaintiff's own part proximately conttibuted to the happening of the incident and to the injuries, loss and damage complained of,if any thete were; that should plaintiff recover damages, defendantis entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced or eliminated to the extent that plaintiff's negligence caused or contributed to his injuries,if any. AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HERFEIN, defendant alleges that plaintiff acted with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding his injury and assumed the tisk of the matters causing his injury, and that such matters of which plaintiff assumed the risk proximately contributed to the happening ofthe incident at bar and proximately caused his injury,if any. AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, defendantalleges that named and/or unnamed third parties were careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the complaint; that the carelessness and negligence of these 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, defendantis entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced or eliminated to the extent that the named and/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, defendant alleges that plaintiff failed subsequentto the occurrence described in the complaint properly to mitigate his damages and therebyis precluded from recovering those damages which could have reasonably been avoided by the exercise of due care on the part of plaintiff. AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN,defendant alleges that plaintiffs complaint and each cause of action thereof,is barred by the applicable period oflimitations including, but not limited to, limitations codified in Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1. Answer to Complaint Case No: 17CV320260 482529 N O 0 0 0 O N B R W N - B D N D = = a N D = O 0 0 N L R A W = o o AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN,defendantalleges thatthe injuries and damages plaintiff alleges he sustained were dueto the negligence or other wrongful acts or omissions of persons or entities other than defendant; however, in the event a finding is made that acts or omissions on the part of defendant proximately contributed to the damagesalleged in the complaint, defendant’s liability should be reduced in accordance with applicable law. AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN,defendant alleges said complaint is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. WHEREFORE, defendant prays that plaintiff take nothing against her by his complaint; and that defendant have judgment for her costs of suit herein incurred, together with such other and furtherrelief as may be just and proper. Dated: May 18, 2018 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH By: Kathiyf C. Klaus Sara B. Kohgadai H. Gregory Nelch Attorneys for Defendant Alina Predescu Answer to Complaint Case No: 17CV320260 482529 10 1 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 is hporter@chdlawyers.com. Lam readily familiar with my employers 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 18, 2018, I served a copy ofeach of the documents listed below by placing said copies for processing as indicated herein. ANSWER TO 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 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 charge ofthe attotney’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 withouterror, and a record ofthe 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. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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. Theprinted form of this document bearing the original signature is on file and available for inspection at the request of the coutt or any party 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 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 Plaintiff Ronald Z. Berki, Esq. Law Offices of Ronald Z. Berki 2021 The Alameda, Suite 310 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 971-1160 Facsimile: (408) 983-1009 berkilaw(@yvahoo.com 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 May 18, 2018. Helen Porter Court: Superior Court ofCalifornia, Santa Clara County Action No: 17C17320260 Case Name: Teso v. Predescu, ef al.