Answer To ComplaintResponseCal. Super. - 6th Dist.January 22, 2018NO 0 0 N N O N RA W N - N O R ON O N D N N N ND m e © N A Uh RAE W O R N ~~ S © aU o r RB =D 53 Randolph S. Hicks, Esq. - SBN 83627 Gina J. Beltramo, Esq. - SBN 203809 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 Melody Egan E-FILED 3/13/2018 10:39 AM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 18CV322111 Reviewed By: J. Cao-Nguyen Envelope: 1304505 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA KEITH S. CROWTHER, KEITH D. CROWTHER, Plaintiffs, Vs. MELODY EGAN, and Does 1-20, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 18-CV322111 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT COMES NOW defendant Melody Egan and in response to the unverified complaint of plaintiffs on file herein, herewith deny 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 cach cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this defendant. /1/ Answer to Complaint Case No: 18-CV322111 470007 Oo 0 0 N N N n BR W N D N ND ND N N N N N =m - 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’ decedent’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 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 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 said named and/or unnamed third parties’ negligence caused ot contributed 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 sections 335.1 and 338. /1/ Answer to Complaint Case No: 18-CV322111 470007 NO 0 0 N N O N Wn BR W N D N D N N N N NN - ® 2 A L E O N =~ 3S 0 x 3 a a R 0 3 WHEREFORE, defendant prays that plaintiffs take nothing against said defendant by their said complaint; that defendant have judgment for her costs of suit herein incurred, together with such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Dated: March 13, 2018 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH . Jule ina J. Beltramo ttorneys for Defendant Melody Egan Answer to Complaint Case No: 18-CV322111 470007 oN NO 0 0 O N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 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. IT 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. I am readily familiar with my employer’s business practice for collection and processing of cotrespondence and documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service, mailing via overnight delivery, transmission by facsimile machine, and delivery by hand. On March 13, 2018, I served a copy of each of the documents listed below by placing said copies for processing as indicated herein. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 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 regulatly maintained by the overni fi delivery cartier, or delivered to a courier or driver authotized by the overnight delivery carrier to receive such packages, on this date in the ordinary course of business. Hand Delivery: The correspondence or documents wete placed in sealed, labeled envelopes and served by personal delivery to the patty 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 wete placed for transmission from (650) 592-5027 at Redwood City, California, and were transmitted to a facsimile machine maintained by the party or attotney to be served at the facsimile machine telephone number provided by said party or attorney, on this same date in the ordinary course of Reine 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. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I? 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. The pied 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 or proceeding in which it is filed, in the manner provided in California Rule of Court Pat 2.257(a). Federal. The recipient of this electronic setvice has consented to this method of service 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 Plaintiffs Ryan T. Dunn, Esq. Dunn & Panagotacos, LLP 369 Pine Street, Suite 506 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 982-2100 Facsimile: ~~ (415) 982-2119 Email: rdunn@dpllp.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 March 13, 2018. A Helen Porter Court: Superior Court of California, Santa Clara Connty Action No: 78-C17322111 Case Name: Crowther v. Egan, et al.
