To Complaint Atty Grotch

Response

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.October 5, 2018

E E N VS E E oO 00 NN O N Wn Electronically Filed Richard G. Grotch, Esq. - SBN 127713 by Superior Court of CA, Mahmoud A. Fadli, Esq. - SBN 280607 County of Santa Clara, ed HICKS & DANFORTH on 11/13/2018 4:16 PM rofessional Corporation, Lawyers Revi By: R. Ti 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 Be Vas an Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 Telephone: 650.592.5400 Facsimile: 650.592.5027 Envelope: 2166617 ATTORNEYS FOR Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MARGORETH GALVEZ, an individual, Case No. 18CV336134 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT VS. CITY OF SAN JOSE; COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; SAN JOSE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT; SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.; and Does 1- 100, Inclusive, Defendants. COMES NOW defendant Southwest Aitlines Co. (“Southwest”) and in response to the unverified complaint of plaintiff Margoreth Galvez on file herein, herewith denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations therein contained, and in this connection, Southwest denies that plaintiff has been injured or damaged in any of the sums mentioned in the complaint, or in any sum whatsoever ot at all, as a result of any act or omission of Southwest. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Southwest alleges that plaintiff’s complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Southwest. /1/ Answer to Unverified Complaint Case No: 18CV336134 537473 Oo 0 NN Dh AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Southwest alleges that plaintiff was herself careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the complaint; that the carelessness and negligence on plaintiffs own part proximately contributed to the happening of the incident and to the injuries, loss and damage complained of, if any thete were; that should plaintiff recover damages, Southwest is entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced ort eliminated to the extent that plaintiff's negligence caused ot contributed to her injuries, if any. AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Southwest alleges that plaintiff acted with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding her injury and assumed the risk of the matters causing her injury, and that the matters of which plaintiff assumed the risk proximately contributed to the happening of the incident at bar and proximately caused het injuries, if any. AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Southwest alleges that named and/or unnamed third parties were careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the complaint; that the carelessness and negligence of such 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, Southwest is entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced or eliminated to the extent that the named and/or unnamed third parties’ negligence caused or contributed to plaintiffs injuries, if any. AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Southwest 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 plaintiffs part. /1/ /1/ //7/ Answer to Unverified Complaint Case No: 18CV336134 537473 A W D O 0 0 9 AN AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Southwest alleges that plaintiffs complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is batred by the applicable period of limitations including, but not limited to, limitations codified in Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1. AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Southwest alleges that plaintiff’s complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is preempted by federal law, including, but not limited to, the provisions of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b); the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.S.C. § 40101, et seq., and the related federal regulations. AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Southwest alleges that liability, if any, with respect to plaintiffs alleged damages may be further limited or excluded in accordance with their conditions of carriage, conditions of contract and tariffs. AS A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Southwest alleges that in accordance with the Fair Responsibility Act of 1986 (California Civil Code §§ 1431; 1431.1 through 1431.5), commonly known as “Proposition 51,” in the event a judgment is rendered against Southwest, and in favor of plaintiff, that Southwest can be held responsible, if at all, for only that proportion of “non- economic” damages for which Southwest is found liable by jury determination and that the rule of joint and several liability shall not apply under such circumstances. AS A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, Southwest alleges that the damages sought in the complaint, if any, were proximately caused by an unforeseeable independent, intervening and/or superseding event beyond the control of and unrelated to any actions or conduct of Southwest. Southwest’s actions and conduct, if any, wete superseded by the negligence and wrongful conduct of others. /1/ /1/ Answer to Unverified Complaint Case No: 18CV336134 537473 WHEREFORE, Southwest prays that plaintiff take nothing against Southwest by her complaint; that Southwest have judgment for its costs of suit herein incurred, together with such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Dated: November 13, 2018 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH - Neos X | Richard G. Grotch Attorneys for Defendant Southwest Aitlines Co. Answer to Unverified Complaint Case No: 18CV336134 537473 ON Oo 0 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 acon. My electronic mail address is kratto@chdlawyers.com. [ 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 November 13, 2018, I served a copy of each of the documents listed below by placing said copies for processing as indicated herein. ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED 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 nt at Redwood City, California on this same date in the ordinary course of usiness. 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 he delivery carrier, or delivered to a coutier or driver authorized by the overnight delivery carrier to receive such packages, on this date in the ordinaty 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 ot 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 provided by said party or attorney, on this same date in the ordinary course of business. The transmission was reported as complete and without etror, 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. MN = w [> ] Oo 00 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/ot 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 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: Raymond Ghermezian, Esq. Raymond Ghermezian A Professional Law Corporation 3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 900-5800 Facsimile: 323) 900-5801 E-mail: I certify (ot declate) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that November 13, 2018. the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was exec Kim’ Ratto Court: Superior Court of California, anta Clara County Action No: 78C17336134 Case Name: Galveg, Margoreth v. City of San Jose