Answer To Complaint Atty Balich 150 Jury Fee Deposited

Response

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 20, 2018

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18CV 326875 Santa Clara - Civil THOMAS J. MURRAY, ESQ. 154245 DANIEL G. BALICH, ESQ. 278105 Electronically Filed as Ses * MURRAY by Superior Court of CA, utter Street, Suite San Francisco, CA 94109 County of Santa Clara, ol on 7/31/2018 11:11 AM el: (415) 474-1900 ; Fax: (415) 474-0302 Reviewed By: E. Fang Case #18CV326875 Envelope: 1782434 Attorney for Defendant, VARAPRASAD VAJJHALA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA E. SANTA CLARA COUNTY UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ADRIANA MENDOZA, CASE NO.: 18CV326875 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT VS. VARAPRASAD VAJJHALA; GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; AND DOES 1-100, . Defendants. COMES NOW Defendant VARAPRASAD VAJJHALA (“Defendant”), for himself alone and no other Defendant in answer to the Plaintiff's Unverified Complaint, admit, deny and allege as follows: 1. Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, this answering Defendant denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, all the allegations of the Plaintiff's Complaint, and the whole thereof, and further deny that the Plaintiff was damaged in any sum or sums, or at all, as alleged herein. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. This answering Defendant states and alleges that the Plaintiff was negligent and careless in and about the matters complained of in the Complaint, and that Plaintiff's ANSWER TO COMPLAINT F ang 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 negligence and carelessness legally contributed to the damages complained of, if any there were. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. This answering Defendant alleges that the action complained of was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff, and the verdict of the jury in favor of the Plaintiff, if any, which may be rendered in the case, should be reduced by a percentage of the Plaintiff's negligence which contributed to the accident and damage complained of by Plaintiff. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. This answering Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the answering Defendant and is barred by Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. This answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff assumed the risk of harm or injury, if any there was, incurred by Plaintiff as alleged in the Complaint. Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the particular danger, Plaintiff knew and understood the degree of the risk involved, and Plaintiff voluntarily assumed such risk. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. This answering Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 This answering Defendant alleges that the damages complained of herein by Plaintiff, if any, were caused by acts and omissions of others than the answering Defendant. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. This answering Defendant states that Plaintiff was under a duty to minimize the damages and injuries complained of, if any there were; Plaintiff has failed, neglected, and refused to so minimize such damages and injuries, and by reason of such failure, neglect and refusal, has increased his damages and injuries, and is not entitled to recover therefore. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT «Fo EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. This answering Defendant states that the Plaintiff and he previously entered into a settlement concerning the subject matter of this lawsuit and as such an accord and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 satisfaction has been reached. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays judgment as follows: I, That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of her Complaint; 2. For Defendant’s cost of suit herein; and, 3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: 7/3 ( /1< KERN SEGAL & MURRAY By: [I~ 2 THOMAS J. MURRAY DANIEL G. BALICH Attorney for Defendant, VARAPRASAD VAJJHALA ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -3- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL Mendoza v. Vajjhala, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CV326875 I declare that: I'am employed in San Francisco County, California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within cause; my business address is 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, California 94109. On the date set forth below, I served a copy of the foregoing document by mail by placing the same in an envelope, sealing, fully preparing postage thereon, and depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail at San Francisco, California. Said envelope was addressed as follows: Mailed to: Rey Hassan, Esq. Hassan Law Firm 1801 Bush Street, Suite 213 San Francisco, CA 94109 Attorney for Plaintiff ADRIANA MENDOZA Tel: (415) 775-9700 Fax: (415) 775-2507 Email: rey@hassanlawfirm.com Documents mailed: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on July 31, 2018 at San Francisco, California. Signed: Cool (D>, ) CINDY VOONG/ ~— — ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -4-