Answer Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.August 1, 2019

Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 10/24/2019 3:28 PM Reviewed By: J. Duong Case #19CV352623 Envelope: 3563471 \DOOQQU‘I-PUJN 1o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LAW OFFICES OF MELANIE D. JOHNSON 1740 Technology Drive, Suite 250 San Jose, CA 951 10-1315 Telephone: (408)392-6966 By: DOMINIC POLITO State Bar No. 2 17974 Our File No. 0469593452.1- Attorneys for Defendant(s): WEIMIN HUANG SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION MARIA CIELO AGUILAR, CASE NO. 19CV352623 Plaintiff, ANSWER T0 COMPLAINT Judge: vs. Dept.: WEIMIN HUANG, and DOES 1 TO 20, I Defendants. Defendant(s), WEIMIN HUANG, allege(s) as follows: 1. The Defendant(s), WEIMIN HUANG, answering all the paragraphs in the unverified Complaint herein and by Virtue of the provisions 0f the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, now generally denies/deny each and every allegation therein contained and the whole thereof. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. That the cause of action stated in the Complaint herein is barred by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1, of the. For actions arising out of accidents occurring before January 1, 2003, former California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340 subdivision 3 applies. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. That the Complaint on file herein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause 1 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT \OOOQONUl-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tb-tv-‘HHHHHHp-A OOQO‘xUI-QWNHOOOOflmm-wat-‘O of action entitling each and every Plaintiff to prejudgment intarest. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. Each and every Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against any answering party herein. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. That the Complaint is barred by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 474 and case law interpreting said Code. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. That at the alleged time and place in question, each and every Plaintiff so negligently and carelessly acted as to proximately cause and contribute to the happening of the accident complained of, and to whatever injury or damage, if any, each and every Plaintiff claims t0 have sustained therefrom. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. That if any Plaintiff(s) received any injuries, and/or damages, if any, as a result of the accident complained of herein, then said Plaintiffls) proximately caused, aggravated and/or failed to take proper action to mitigate and/or reduce said inj uries if any, or damages, if any. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. Defendant(s) liability, if any, for each and every P1aintiff(s) non-economic damages, is limited t0 Defendant(s) proportionate share of fault in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1431.2. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. If it should be found that any answering party herein is in any manner legally responsible for injuries or damages, if any, sustained by any P1aintiff(s), which supposition is not admitted but merely stated for the purpose of this defense, that any such injuries 0r damages found to have been incurred or suffered by said Plaintiff(s) in this action was proximately contributed to or by other Defendant(s) or Cross-Defendant(s) in this case, whether served or not served and/or by other persons or companies, Whether made parties to this action or not, be determined and prorated, and that any judgment that might be rendered against any answering 2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT UI-bbJN \OOOQON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 party herein be reduced not only by that degree of contn'butory negligence and/or assumption of risk found to exist as to any P1aintiff(s), but also as to the total of that degree of negligence and/or fault found to exist as to said other persons or companies. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. At all times relevant on and before the date of the accident alleged herein, each and every Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the particular danger, if any there was, involved in the activities referred to in the Complaint, and knew and understood the degree of the risk involved, and is therefore barred from recovery of any damages as a matter of law. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11. Defendant(s) are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times Plaintiff is/are barred from recovering non-economic damages pursuant to the “Personal Responsibility Act of 1996,” amending the California Civil Code, adding Sections 3333.3 and 3333.4 and applicable California Vehicle Code Sections. Each and every Plaintiff, having the freedom to make a choice as to what action t0 take, voluntarily assumed said risks, if any there was, in the activities referred to in the Complaint. This affirmative defense is interposed t0 the Complaint of each and every Plaintiff in its entirety and separately as to each individual cause of action or count therein although not restated under separate headings as t0 each cause of action or count. WHEREFORE, Defendant(s) pray(s) that Plaintiff(s) take nothing by reason of the Complaint and that Defendant(s) be given judgment for costs of suit incurred herein and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: Octoberi, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF MELANIE D. JOHNSON MN By: \(x 8/ {DTDMI‘NIC POLITO ‘ Attorney for Defendant(s) WEIMIN HUANG 3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT \OOONQUIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL - OFFICE DEPOSIT [CCP 1013(a)(3)] STATE OF CA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of CA, I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the Within action; my business address is 1740 Technology Drive, Suite 250, San Jose, CA 95110-1315. I am readily familiar with my employer’s business practice for collection and processing of correspondence by mailing with the United States Postal Service. On October fl, 2019, following ordinary business practice, I served the within ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the party or parties named below, by placing the original or a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope, With postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing With the United States Postal Service where it would be deposited in the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business, addressed as follows: Omar 1. Habbas, Esq. Habbas, Nasseri & Associates 675 North First Street, Suite 1000 San Jose, CA 951 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of CA that the foregoing Proof of Service is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on October ‘30? , 2019, at San Jose, CA. By: EV”; ., “"" Tien Luongw ” 4 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT