Answer To Complaint

Response

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.May 30, 2018

wn W N ci n ~J 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 2] 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 18CV329081 Santa Clara - Civil Electronically Filed H. Gregory Nelch, Esq. - SBN 118258 by Superior Court of CA, Kathryn C. Klaus, Esq. - SBN 205923 County of Santa Clara, Ls CKS Ee on 9/21/2018 12:18 PM A Professional Corporation, Lawyers i : E. 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 Be Vaso, Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 Envel . 1976874 Tel: 650.592.5400 nvelope: 19768 Fax: 650.592.5027 ATTORNEYS FOR Defendant Arun Chand IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA LETICIA CHAVEZ MARQUEZ, Case No. 18CV329081 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT VS. ARUN M. CHAND, UAG STEVENS CREEK II, INC. dba AUDI OF STEVENS CREEK, PENSKE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 to 30, Inclusive, Defendants. COMES NOW defendant ARUN CHAND and in response to the unverified complaint of plaindff LETICIA CHAVEZ MARQUEZ 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 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 each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this defendant. Answer to Complaint Case No: 18CV329081 524316 | Fang on w n + Ww No \O co 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 oe) 23 24 25 26 9 oo 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 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, defendant is entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced ox eliminated to the extent that plaintiffs 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 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 plaintiff's injuries, if any. AS A FOURTH, 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 propetly 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 the part of plaintiff. AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by the applicable petiod of limitations including, but not limited to, limitations codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 335. AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges plaintiff knew about the Answer to Complaint Case No: 18CV329081 524316 ~J AN wn = Ww [3 S] NO oC risk, and voluntarily undertook the tisk that led to the accident or injuries complained of in this case. AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges plaintiff's complaint is barred by the doctrine of estoppel. AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TC THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges defendant is entitled to an offset for all monies received by plaintiff from payments received from any source. AS A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that to permit recovery in respect of the matters herein alleged would violate the provisions of California Const. Att. I, §§1,7,9,15 and 16. AS A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that to permit recovery in respect of the matters hetein alleged would violate the provisions of United States Const. Art. I, § 10. AS AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that to permit recovery in respect of the matters herein alleged would violate the provisions of United States Const ged would v 1 Lnitea State: 1st, Amend. V, VII, VIII and XIV. AS A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to whether additional affirmative defenses are available. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as appropriate. /1/ /// /1/ tif Answer to Complaint Case No: 18CV329081 524316 ~J AN w n = wa Oo oo 10 Ll 12 13 14 15 i6 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 24 28 WHEREFORE, defendant prays that plaintiff take nothing against said defendant by het said complaint; that defendant have judgment for his costs of suit herein incurred, together with such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Dated: September 21, 2018 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH 7 By: L ( - Pus" Kathryn C. Klaus Attorneys for Defendant Arun Chand Answer to Complaint Case No: 18CV329081 524316 wn EA N w o No ~~ ON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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. 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 employet’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 21, 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 regularly maintained by the esr delivery carrier, or delivered to a courier ot 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, ot 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 patty or attorney to be served at the facsimile machine telephone number provided by said patty 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. Electronic Transmission: The correspondence or documents were transmitted electronically to the electronic address set forth below. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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 party to the action ot proceeding in which it is filed, in the manner provided in Calitornia Rule of Court Rule 2.257 (a). Federal. The recipient of this electronic service has consented to this method of setvice in writing, a copy of which is on file and available for inspection in my employer’s office. I have recetved no indication the electronic transmission did Ei J - - . not reach the recipient. PERSONS OR PARTIES SERVED: Benjamin D. Swanson, Esq. The Swanson Law Group 31824 Village Center Road, G-Unit Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 852-7300 Facsimile: (818) 852-7298 E-mail: ben@theswansonlawgroup.com John D. Bronstein, Esq. Arent Fox LLP 555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065 Telephone: (213) 629-7400 Facsimile: (213) 629-7401 E-mail: john.bronstein@arentfox.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 21, 2018. Gallic Eva Oliveira Court: Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County Action No: 718C17329081 Case Name: Marquez v. Chand