To Complaint Atty Fadli

Response

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.January 19, 2018

OO 0 I O N un B W N = RN N N NY N R E e e E E e R e e ee e d e d 0 N N wn RE W N = O O N N YY N R W N = Oo 18CV322012 Santa Clara - Civil A. Hwang Electronically Filed Kathryn C. Klaus, Esq. - SBN 205923 by Superior Court of CA, Mahmoud A. Fadli, Esq. - SBN 280607 County of Santa Clara, CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH on 4/16/2018 1:05 PM A Professional Corporation, Lawyers Reviewed By: A. Hwang 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 Ee ers Tel: 650.592.5400 pe: Pax: 650.592.5027 ATTORNEYS FOR Defendants Victoria Esparza and Socorro Esparza IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AURELIO DIAZ GARCIA, an individual, Case No. 18CV322012 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT VS. VICTORIA ESPARAZA, an individual; SOCORRO ESPARAZA, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. COME NOW defendants VICTORIA ESPARZA (erroneously sued herein as Victoria Esparaza) and SOCORRO ESPARZA (erroneously sued herein as Socorto Espataza) (“Defendants”), and in response to the unverified complaint of plaintiff AURELIO DIAZ GARCIA on file herein, herewith denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations therein contained, and in this connection, Defendants deny 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 omission of Defendants. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these defendants. Answer to Complaint Case No: 18CV322012 472630 OO 0 3 O& O wn HB W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Defendants allege that Plaintiff was himself 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 there were; that should Plaintiff recover damages, Defendants ate 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, Defendants allege that Plaintiff acted with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding his injury and assumed the risk of the matters causing his injury, and that said matters of which Plaintiff assumed the risk proximately contributed to the happening of the incident at bat and proximately caused his injury, if any. AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Defendants allege 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 Plaintiff, if any there were; that should Plaintiff recover damages, these answering defendants ate entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced or eliminated to the extent that said 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, Defendants allege that Plaintiff failed subsequent to the occurrence described in the complaint properly to mitigate his damages and thereby is precluded from recovering those damages which could have reasonably been avoided by the exercise of due cate on the part of Plaintiff. AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs complaint, and each 2 Answer to Complaint Case No: 18CV322012 472630 OO 0 a9 O N nn Bs W N == N N ND ND N N N N N m e e e e m e m e d e m p e e d pe c o NN A N wn BR W N -~ DO Y V O N N E W N = o cause of action thereof, is barred by the applicable petiod 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, Defendants allege that said complaint is batred by the doctrine of unclean hands. AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Defendants allege that said complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches. AS A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Defendants allege that said complaint is barred by the doctrines of waiver and estoppel. AS A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Defendants allege that they ate entitled to an offset for all monies received by plaintiffs from payments received from any source. AS AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Defendants acknowledge that they may have insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to whether additional affirmative defenses are available; therefore, this answering defendant reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as appropriate. WHEREFORE, defendants pray that plaintiffs take nothing against said defendants by their said complaint; that defendants have judgment for their costs of suit herein incurred, together with such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Dated: April 16, 2018 CODDINGTON, HICKS FORTH ahm : Attorneys(for Defendafits Victoria Esparza and Soeofro Esparza Answer to Complaint Case No: 18CV322012 472630 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1011, 1013, 10134, 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 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 April 16, 2018, I served 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 A 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 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 isd by said party or attorney, on this same date in the ordinary course of on The transmission was reported as complete and without error, and a record of the transmission was propetly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. Electronic Transmission: The correspondence or documents were transmitted electronically to the electronic address set forth below. OO 0 N N Wn Bb 10 11 12 2 14 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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. 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 recetved no indication the electronic transmission did not reach the recipient. PERSONS OR PARTIES SERVED: David P. Kashani, Esq. Law Offices of David P. Kashani, APLC 6380 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1020 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (323) 782-9605 Facsimile: (323) 782-9619 E-mail: I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and cotrect and that this declaration was executed on April 16, 2018. Eva Oliveira Court: Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County Action No: 18C17322012 Case Name: Garvia, Aurelio v. Esparaza