Answerresponsedenialdemurrer First Appearance

Response

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.May 14, 2018

R o p e r s M a j e s k i K o h n & B e n t l e y A Pr of es si on al C o r p o r a t i o n Sa n Jo se H W © N N N Wn Oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Cruz 11/13/2018 8:56 AM KEVIN P. CODY (SBN 96355) Alex Calvo. Clerk ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY Bp Recla pS alsedo Deputy 50 West San Fernando Street, Suite 1400 , ' San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 287-6262 Facsimile: (408) 918-4501 Email: kevin.cody@rmkb.com Attorneys for Cross-Defendant WINGIT INNOVATIONS, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ ROBERT RUDAS and CONSUELA CASE NO. 18CV01401 RUDAS, WINGIT INNOVATIONS, LLC’S Plaintiffs, ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF MOLINE CONSTRUCTION v. MANAGEMENT, INC. HILTON SANTA CRUZ, SCOTTS Dept: 5 VALLEY, MOLINE CONSTRUCTION Judge: Hon. Paul P. Burdick MANAGEMENT, INC., and JUVENTINO Action Filed: 5/14/2018 RAZO, and DOES 1 to 20,, Trial Date: TBD Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. COMES NOW Cross-Defendant WINGIT INNOVATIONS, LLC herein and in answer to the unverified cross-complaint of MOLINE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. herewith denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations of said unverified cross-complaint, and in this connection Cross-Defendant denies that Cross-Complainant has been injured or damaged in any of the sums mentioned in said cross-complaint, or in any sum, or at all as the result of any act or omission of this answering Cross-Defendant. AS A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE CROSS- COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges that said cross-complaint fails 4811-8199-8970.1 = = WINGIT INNOVATIONS, LLC DBA WINGITS’ ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF MOLINE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. Ro pe rs Ma je sk i Ko hn & Be nt le y A Pr of es si on al Co rp or at io n Sa n Jo se wv A W N Oo 0 a to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering Cross-Defendant. AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges that said injuries sustained by Cross-Complainant were either wholly or in part negligently caused by Cross-Complainant, and said negligence comparatively reduces the percentage of negligence, if any, by this answering Cross-Defendant. AS A THIRD. SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges that said injuries sustained by Cross-Complainant were either wholly or in part negligently caused by Plaintiff, persons, firms, corporations or entities other than this answering Cross-Defendant, and said negligence comparatively reduces the percentage of negligence, if any, by this answering Cross-Defendant. AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the injuries, damages or losses, if any sustained by Plaintiff, were due to and proximately caused by the misuse, mishandling and misapplication of the product(s) described in the pleadings. AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges that if the product(s) referred to in the pleadings was/were in any way defective, such defect(s) was/were proximately caused by the alteration, modification, improper installation, improper maintenance, improper handling or improper use of the product(s) by Cross-Complainant, its agents, employees, subcontractors or others engaged by Cross-Complainant. AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID CROSS-COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges that in the event it is 4811-8199-8970.1 cD). WINGIT INNOVATIONS, LLC DBA WINGITS’ ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF MOLINE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. Ro pe rs Ma je sk i K o h n & Be nt le y A Pr of es si on al C o r p o r a t i o n Sa n Jo se wm Rh W N oo 0 NN 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 determined that the product(s) referenced in the pleadings was/were defective, then and in such event, each defect was discovered by Plaintiff, Defendants, Cross-Complainant and Cross- Defendants, or, in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered by Plaintiffs, Defendants, Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendants, who nevertheless allowed the defective product(s) to remain in place and continue to be unreasonably, improperly and negligently used, all of which operates to bar any recovery. WHEREFORE, this answering Cross-Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 1. That Cross-Complainant take nothing by its Cross-Complaint; 2 For reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and 3, For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. Dated: November 12, 2018 ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY by: eT Yl, KEVIN P. CODY Attorneys for Cross-Defendant WINGIT INNOVATIONS, LLC DBA WINGITS 4811-8199-8970.1 a WINGIT INNOVATIONS, LLC DBA WINGITS’ ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF MOLINE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC, R o p e r s M a j e s k i K o h n & B e n t l e y A Pr of es si on al C o r p o r a t i o n Sa n Jo se OO 0 NN O N wn Bs W N 0 9 A N Un B R A W N = C Y N N ND R W N N -= O CASE NAME: Rudas v Hilton Santa Cruz ACTION NO.: 18CV01401 PROOF OF SERVICE METHOD OF SERVICE [XI First Class Mail [J Facsimile a Messenger Service O Overnight Delivery J E-Mail/Electronic Delivery 1. At the time of service I was over 18 years of age, not a party to this action and a lawful resident of the United States. 2, My business address is 50 West San Fernando Street, Suite 1400, San Jose, CA 95113, County of Santa Clara. 3. On November 12, 2018 I served the following documents: WINGIT INNOVATIONS, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF MOLINE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. 4. I served the documents on the persons on the attached service list (along with their fax numbers and/or email addresses if service was by fax or email). 5 I served the documents by the following means: a. Bd By United States Mail: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses specified on the attached service list and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid at the address listed in paragraph 2, above. b. [J By Overnight Delivery: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses on the attached service list. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. c. OO By Messenger: I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in on the attached service list and providing them to a messenger for service. (Separate declaration of personal service to be provided by the messenger. ) d. O By Fax Transmission: Based on an agreement between the parties and in conformance with FRCP, rule 5, and/or as a courtesy, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed on the attached service list. (Separate Proof of Transmission by Fax to be provided.) e. OO By Fax Transmission: Based on an agreement between the parties and in conformance with Rule 2.306, and/or as a courtesy, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed on the attached service list. (Separate Proof of Transmission by Fax to be provided.) f. OO By Email or Electronic Transmission: Based on an agreement between the parties and/or as a courtesy, | sent the documents via my electronic service address to the persons at the email addresses listed in the attached service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 4837-6550-6938.1 PROOF OF SERVICE Ro pe rs Ma je sk i K o h n & Be nt le y A Pr of es si on al C o r p o r a t i o n Sa n Jo se = W N OO 0 3 O& O Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: November 12, 2018 {ule Tradols Kathy Mdtulewicz aS SERVICE LIST Rudas v. Hilton Santa Cruz, et al. Santa Cruz Superior Court Case No. 18CV01401 Arthur L. Morgan Morgan & Kelley 833 Mistletoe Lane, Suite 100 Redding, CA 96002 Mark J. D’Argenio Rachel L. Szela Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP 1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700 Concord, CA 94520 4837-6550-6938.1 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Robert Rudas and Consula Rudas T; (530) 221-8150 F: (530) 221-7963 E: art@reddinglaw.com Attorneys for Cross-Complainant Mole Construction Management, Inc. T: (925)222-3400 F: (925) 356-8250 E: SU PROOF OF SERVICE