Answer Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.October 30, 2020

9 10 SPINELLI, DONALD & NOTT A Professional Corporation J. SCOTT DONALD (SBN: 158338) THOMAS R. BOSWELL (SBN: 325656) 601 University Avenue, Suite 225 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 448-7888 Facsimile: (916) 448-6888 WILLOUGHBY, STUART, BENING & COOK ALEXANDER F. STUART (SBN: 96141) 50 W. San Fernando St., Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 289-1972 Facsimile: (408) 295-6375 Attorneys for Defendants Elliot French, Mariposa Peak, LLC (DOE 8) and M&J French Ranch, LLC, (DOE 9) 12 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 GIOVANNOTTO LAND AND CATTLE, LLC, A California Corporation; SALVATORE GIOVANNOTTO, an individual; MICHAEL GIOVANNOTTO, an individual, Plaintiffs, ELLIOT FRENCH, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive Defendants. Case No. 20CV372857 DEFENDANTS MARIPOSA PEAK, LLC AND M&J FRENCH RANCH, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Complaint Filed: October 30, 2020 Trial Date: Not set 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMES NOW, Defendants Mariposa Peak, LLC and M&J French Ranch, LLC, ("Defendants"), and in answer to the unverified Complaint of Giovannotto Land and Cattle, LLC, Salvatore Giovannotto and Michael Giovannotto ("Plaintiffs"), responds as follows: GENERAL DENIAL By virtue of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure tJ 431.30, Defendants, in answer to the Complaint, hereby generally deny each and every allegation contained herein, and each SPINELLI, DONALC & NOTT DEFENDANTS MARIPOSA PEAK, LLC AND M&I FRENCH RANCH, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 11/3/2021 2:38 PM Reviewed By: J. Ngo Case #20CV372857 Envelope: 7596578 20CV372857 Santa Clara - Civil J. Ngo purported cause of action contained therein, and further deny that Plaintiffs, or any of them, sustained damage in the sums alleged, or in any sum, or at all, by reason of any act, breach, omission, or other conduct on the part of Defendants or on the part of any agent, servant, representative, or employee of Defendants. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendants raise the following affirmative defenses to the Complaint: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State Claim for Relief) As a First, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of action 10 alleged herein, Defendants allege that the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against Defendants. 12 13 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 14 As a Second, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of action 15 alleged therein, Defendants allege on information and belief that the Complaint, and each cause of 16 action alleged therein, is barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 17 18 19 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fault of Others) As a Third, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of action 20 alleged therein, Defendants allege that if Plaintiffs, or any of them, have been damaged, said 21 22 damages, if any, were the direct and proximate result of the active and primary negligence of parties other than Defendants for which Defendants have no responsibility. 23 24 25 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Intervening/Superseding Cause) As a Fourth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of action 26 alleged therein. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs'lleged damages, if any, were the direct and 27 28 proximate result of intervening and superseding events over which Defendants had no authority or conn'ol, and for which Defendants are not responsible. SPINELLI, DONALD & NOTT DEFENDANTS MARIPOSA PEAK, LLC AND M&I FRENCH RANCH, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Plaintiffs'wn Acts or Omissions) As a Fifth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of action alleged therein, Defendants allege on information and belief that Plaintiffs'lleged damages, if any, were directly and proximately caused, in whole or in part, by the acts or omissions of the Plaintiffs and/or their agents, representative or employees for which Plaintiffs, and each of them, are barred from recovery. 10 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Assumption of Risk) As a Sixth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of action alleged therein, Defendants allege Plaintiffs, and each of them, voluntarily and knowingly and/or 12 impliedly assumed the risk or risks attendant to the matters complained about in the Complaint, 13 completely barring or proportionally reducing the rights of Plaintiffs, if any there be. 14 15 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Mitigation of Damages) As a Seventh, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of action 17 alleged therein, Defendants allege on information and belief that Plaintiffs failed to take reasonable, 18 necessary, appropriate and feasible measures to mitigate their damages, if any, in the manner and to 19 the extent required by law. Therefore, Plaintiffs'ecovery, if any, should be proportionally 20 diminished. 21 22 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 23 24 As an Eighth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of action alleged therein, Defendants allege on information and belief that the Complaint, and each cause of 25 action alleged therein, is barred by the docirine of unclean hands. 26 27 28 SPINELLI, DONALC & NOTT NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Duty to Plaintiff) As a Ninth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of action 3 DEFENDANTS MARIPOSA PEAK, LLC AND MkJ FRENCH RANCH, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT alleged therein, Defendants allege on information and belief that they owed no duty to Plaintiffs, or any of them, that is alleged in the Complaint, and therefore is excused, in whole or in part, from any liability arising from any such alleged duty. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Standing) As a Tenth, separate and Mirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of action alleged therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs are without standing to sue Defendants on some or all of the causes of action alleged in the Complaint. 10 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) As an Eleventh, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of 12 13 action alleged therein, Defendants allege on information and belief that Plaintiffs, through their acts and/or omissions, have each waived their causes of action and every right of recovery against 14 Defendants alleged in the Complaint. 15 16 17 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Necessity) As a Twelfth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of action 18 alleged therein, Defendants allege that it reasonably appeared to Defendants to be necessary to enter 19 Plaintiffs'roperty to prevent serious harm to persons and/or property, including but not limited to 20 21 22 residential snttctures on properties, livestock on properties, and protected habitat and species on properties for which conservation easements had been granted, creating a public and/or private necessity, and Defendants therefore are excused from any liability to Plaintiffs for any injuries or 23 damage. 24 25 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Permission) 26 As a Thirteenth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of 27 action alleged therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs and/or their agent, employees or 28 representative, granted Defendants and other persons permission to enter Plaintiffs'roperty for the SPINELLI, DONALC a NOTT DEFENDANTS MARIPOSA PEAK, LLC AND M&I FRENCH RANCH, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT purpose of creating a firebreak and/or taking other protective measures, and Defendants therefore are excused from any liability to Plaintiffs for any injuries or damage. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Adequate Remedy at Law) As a Fourteenth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of action alleged therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any equitable remedies because, although Defendant deny that any cause of action has been sufficiently stated against them, to the extent there is a judicial determination that any of the alleged facts or circumstances sufficiently states a cause of action against Defendants, Plaintiffs would have an adequate remedy 10 at law. 12 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Frivolous Action) 13 As a Fifteenth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each cause of 14 action alleged therein, Defendants allege that the claims of Plaintiffs, and each of them, against 15 Defendants are not brought in good faith, are frivolous, and entitle Defendants to an award of 16 reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 17 18 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Proportionate Share) 19 As a Sixteenth, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each of action 20 alleged therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs'njuries and damages, if any, were the result of 21 22 negligence and fault of other persons and/or entities, and that Defendants'iability, if any, is therefore limited to their percentage share of liability, which liability is expressly contested and 23 denied. 24 RESERVE DEFENSES 25 These answering Defendants allege that Defendants presently have insufficient knowledge 26 27 and information upon which to form a belief as to whether Defendants may have additional, as yet unstated, affirmative defenses to PlaintifFs Complaint. Accordingly, these answering Defendants 28 reserve the right to assert additional defenses in the event that discovery and/or investigation reveal SPINELLI, DONALc & iiorr DEFENDANTS MARIPOSA PEAK, LLC AND MAJ FRENCH RANCH, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT a factual and/or legal basis for such additional afftrmative defenses. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 10 12 13 WHEREFORE, Defendants Mariposa Peak, LLC (DOE 8) and M&J French Ranch, LLC (DOE 9) pray for relief as follows: 1. That Plaintiffs Giovannotto Land and Cattle, LLC, Salvatore Giovannotto and Michael Giovannotto, and each of them, take nothing from these answering Defendants by the Complaint; 2. That Defendants Mariposa Peak, LLC and M&J French Ranch, LLC be awarded judgments in this action; 3. That Defendants Mariposa Peak, LLC and M&J French Ranch, LLC recover their attorney fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and 4. That the Court award such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. 14 15 Dated: November 3, 2021 SPINE 16 17 18 19 By: J. SCOTT DO LD Attorneys fo efendants Elliot French, Mariposa ak, LLC (DOE 8) and M&J French Ranch, LLC (DOE 9) 20 21 22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants Mariposa Peak, LLC and M&J French jury in this action. and a trial by 23 24 Dated: November 3, 2021 SPINEL 25 26 27 28 By: J. S Att Mar M& liot French, 8) and DOE 9) SPINELLI, DONALc 8 worr 6 DEFENDANTS MARIPOSA PEAK, LLC AND M&I FRENCH RANCH, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Giovannotto v. Elliot French. et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 20CV372857 PROOF OF SERVICE I am a citizen of the United States, employed in the County of Sacramento, State ofCalifornia. My business address is 601 University Avenue, Suite 225, Sacramento, CA 95825. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the above-entitled action. I am readily familiar with Spinelli, Donald & Nott's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Pursuant to said practice, each document is placed in an envelope, the envelope is sealed, the appropriate postage is placed thereon and the sealed envelope is placed in the office mail receptacle. Each day's mail is collected and deposited in a U.S. mailbox at or before the close of each day's business. (CCP Section 1013a(3) or Fed.R.Civ.P.5(a) and 4.1.) 9 10 On the date set forth below, I served the attached DEFENDANTS MARIPOSA PEAK, LLC AND M&J FRENCH RANCH, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, the original of which was produced on recycled paper, to be served via: 12 MAIL- Placed in the United States Mail at Sacramento, California in an envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid addressed as follows: 13 14 15 E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY- I e-mailed a true and correct copy of the above-referenced document(s) to the addressee(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed below. This e-mail service is in compliance with State and Local Orders due to the restrictions presently in place relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and the many places of business currently closed or working from a remote location. 16 17 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 18 19 20 21 22 PERSONAL SERVICE- By causing delivery by hand to the addressee addressed as follows: FEDERAL EXPRESS- By causing overnight delivery by Federal Express of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 3, 2021, at Sacramento, California. 23 24 25 K 'A.RR 26 27 28 I PROOF OF SERVICE Giovannotto v. Elliot French. et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 20CV372857 Attornevs for Plaintiffs Daniel C. Stein, SBN: 250102 BAKER MANOCK 4 JENSEN PC 5260 N. Palm Ave., Suite 421 Fresno, CA 93704 Phone: (559) 432-5400 Fax: (559) 432-5620 dstei n@bakermatvock.corn cdernterQbakermanock.corn SERVICE LIST 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PROOF OF SERVICE