Answer To First Amended Complaint

Response

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.May 31, 2018

o O 0 0 3 O N u n B R W O N ) I D N D N N N N N ) = e m e m Randolph S. Hicks, Esq. - SBN 83627 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 United Financial Casualty Company, Inc. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FINE STEEL PRODUCTS, INC. Case No. 18CV329155 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO FIRST vs. AMENDED COMPLAINT UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY, INC., and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants. COMES NOW defendant United Financial Casualty Company, Inc. (hereinafter “defendant”) and in response to the unverified first amended complaint of plaintiff on file herein, herewith deny 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 FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN,this answeting 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 First Amended Complaint Case No: 18CV329155 520148 N O 0 9 O Y n n B W N Y D o N N N N N N = m AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN,this answeting defendant alleges that said complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for punitive or exemplary damage. AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN,this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff failed subsequentto the occutrence described in the complaint propetly to mitigateits 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 FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED 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 sections 337, 338 and 339. AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED 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. Art. I, §§ 1, 7, 9, 15 and 16. AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN);this answering defendantalleges that to permit recovery in respect of the matters herein alleged would violate the provisions of United States Const. Art. I, § 10. AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED 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., Amend. V, VII, VIII and XIV. AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN,this answering defendant alleges that 2 Answer to First Amended Complaint Case No: 18CV329155 520148 © N O © N N N n D W N ) e m 2 N N N N D e m e m e m = W D = © 0 ® W o r B D Z = r o w n 27 28 plaintiff has failed to petform all conditions, covenants and promises required by it to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the written policy of insurance at issue. WHEREFORE, defendant prays that plaintiff takes nothing against said defendant by its said complaint; that defendant have judgment forits costs of suit herein incurred, together with such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Dated: September 13, 2018 CODDINGTON, HICKSi. : By: Wl Randolph S. HicksV Attorneys for Defendant United Financial Casualty Company, Inc. Answer to First Amended ComplaintCase No: 18CV329155 520148 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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. I am over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a patty 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 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 13, 2018, I served a copy of each of the documents listed below by placing said copies for processing as indicated herein. ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT XX 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 businéss to be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Redwood City, Cifornia 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 m place of business to be deposited in a facility regularly maintained by the overni ht delivery cartier, or delivered to a courier or driver authorized by the overnight delivery catrier 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 petson having charge of the attorney’s office. Facsimile Transmission: The correspondence or documents were placed for transmission from (650) 592-5027 at Rechwood City, California, and were transmitted to a facsimile machine maintained by the party or attorney to be served at the facsimile machine telephone number provi ed by said party or attorney, on this same date in the ordinary coutse of business. The transmission was reported as complete and without etror, and a record of the transmission was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. Electronic Transmission: The cortespondence or documents were transmitted electronically to the electronic address set forth below. ~ N O N w n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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 coutt; and/or the Court has mandated that the parties serve documents through its Court approved vendor. The printed form of this document bearing the originalsignature is on file and available bor inspection at the request of the court ot any party 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 employer’s office. I have received no indication the electronic transmission did not reach the recipient. PERSONS OR PARTIES SERVED: Attorneys for Plaintiff Joseph R. Kafka, Esq. Law Offices ofJoseph R. Kafka 1541 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 993-8441 Facsimile: (408) 279-0402 jr-kafka@sbeglobal.net 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 13, 2018. ] { i Helen Porter Court: Superior Court ofCalifornia, Santa Clara County Action No: 718C173297155 Case Name: Fine Stee! Products, Inc. v. UFCC