Defendant Chris Garcias Answer To Complaint

Response

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 21, 2018

NO 0 N N n h Rs W N p k p m f d p e d f d e d AN n n Re W N = O ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Cruz 9/5/2018 3:57 PM Alex Calvo, Clerk R. Wardell Loveland, Esq. - SBN 127736 By. ReclapSalsedo, Deputy Min K. Kang, Esq. - SBN 246904 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 Sharon L. Garcia, Mikol Garcia (sued herein as Doe 2) and Chris Garcia (sued herein as Doe 1) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ AMANDA SPEARS, Case No. 18CV00847 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CHRIS GARCIA’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT VS. SHARON L. GARCIA; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants. COMES NOW defendant Chris Gatcia (hereinafter “defendant”), sued herein as DOE 1, and in response to the unvetified complaint of plaintiff Amanda Spears 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 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 otnission of this answering defendant. AS A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this defendant. //7 Defendant Chris Garcia’s Answer to Complaint Case No: 18CV00847 517128 SN w n = Ww Oo ce AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff was herself careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the complaint; that the carelessness and negligence on 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, defendant is entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced ox 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, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff acted with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding her injury and assumed the risk of the matters causing her injury, and that those matters of which plaintiff assumed the risk proximately contributed to the happening of the incident at bar and proximately caused her injury, if any. AS A FOURTH, 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 the carelessness and negligence of these named and/or unnamed third partes 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 or eliminated to the extent that the named and/or unnamed third parties” negligence caused or contributed to plaintiffs 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 her damages and thereby is precluded from recovering those damages which could have reasonably been avoided by the exercise of due care on his part. Defendant Chris Garcia’s Answer to Complaint Case No: 18CV00847 517128 oN wn ES N ww © o o 10 11 12 13 14 13 1 1 AS A SIXTH, 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 sections 335.1, 338, 340, 357 and 358. AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches. AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that the injuries and damages alleged by plaintiff were caused by acts or omissions of a third party or parties, and not by acts or omissions of defendant. AS A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff has failed to propetly name or 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 TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that the damages the plaintiff claims to have suffered were caused or made worse by an intervening or superseding cause of circumstances. AS AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that if at the time of trial, the court of juty determines that there was some degree of responsibility on the part of this answering defendant and that defendant’s conduct was a proximate cause of plaintiff's alleged damages, this answering defendant alleges and contends that such injuries and damages, if any, were proximately caused by the concutrent negligence of plaintiff and/or other as yet unknown Defendant Chris Garcia’s Answer to Complaint Case No: 18CV00847 517128 Ww Oo o e N N N Wn A 10 11 12 13 Y- Wn - AN petson ot entities, and that this answering defendant’s liability, if any, is limited to the extent of this answering defendant’s proportionate responsibility. 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 and any other state whose law is deemed to apply in this case. This answering defendant reserves the right to assert any additional defenses which may be disclosed during the course of additional investigation and discovery. WHEREFORE, defendant prays that plaintiff take nothing against said defendant by het operative complaint; that defendant have judgment for costs of suit herein incurred, together with such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Dated: September 5, 2018 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH By: Min K. Kang Attorneys for Defendants Sharon I.. Garcia, Mikol Garcia and Chris Garcia Defendant Chris Garcia's Answer to Complaint Case No: 18CV00847 517128 to 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, declate 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 September 5, 2018, I served a copy of each of the documents listed below by placing said copies for processing as indicated herein. DEFENDANT CHRIS GARCIA’S 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 COEDS, 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 courtier 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 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 error, and a record of the transmission was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. /// /1/ Electronic Transmission: The correspondence or documents were transmitted electronically to the electronic address set forth below. 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 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 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: Tab Mitchell, Esq. Mitchell Law Firm 390 Fifth Street Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 636-6100 Facsimile: (855) 345-4529 E-mail: info@mitchelllaw.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 5, 2018. Eva Oliveira Court: Superior Court of California, Santa Crug, Connty Action No: 18C100847 Case Name: Spears v. Garcia