Answer Unlimited Fee AppliesCal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 5, 2020Law Offices of Douglas E. Klein 32 19 Overland Avenue; Suite 81 89 Los Angeles, California 90034 Tel: (310) 836-0678 Fax: (310) 838-2695 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 200V373145 Santa Clara - Civil Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 10/4/2021 2:27 PM Reviewed By: R. Burciaga Case #20CV373145 Envelope: 7393958 Douglas E. Klein, Esq. (SBN 119924) MADGETT & KLEIN, APLC 9701Wilshire Blvd; Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Tel: (310) 625-9773 Email: dek36@hotmail.com Attorneys for Defendants RICHARD KAHN and FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUP, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MAGNOLIADRHOMES, LLC, a Case N0.: 20CV373145 California limited liability corporation and YOULIN WANG, an individual Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS VS_ GROUPS, INC. ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT GUIDANCE LAW, APC, a California professional corporation, DEREK U 1. .t d J . d. t.LONGSTAFF, an individual, RICHARD n “m e ““5 10 1°“ KAHN,an individual LUIS BULAS- FELIX, an individual, LUIS BULAS- FELIX &ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, FORENSIC PROFESSIONAL GROUPS, INC., a Florida corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive; a1 Defendants. Defendants RICHARD KAHN and FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC.(hereinafter “Defendants” 0r “these Responding Defendants”) answers this unverified First Amended Complaint as follows: 1- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC. . Burciaga Law Offices of Douglas E. Klein 32 19 Overland Avenue; Suite 81 89 Los Angeles, California 90034 Tel: (310) 836-0678 Fax: (310) 838-2695 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants denies, both generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and denies that the Plaintiff is not entitled t0 any relief whatsoever. GENERAL DENIAL Under the provisions 0f California Code 0f Civil Procedure, Section 431.30, Defendants deny generally and specifically , each and every allegation contained in the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and the Whole thereof, and denies that the Plaintiffs have sustained damages in the sum 0r sums alleged, 0r in any sum, 0r at all, by reason of any act, breach or omission on the part of the Defendant. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES As t0 the Defendants affirmative defenses to the First Amended Complaint, the Defendants do not, by stating the matters set forth in these defenses, allege 0r admit that it has the burden of proof 0r persuasion with respect to any o these matters, and does not assume the burden 0f proof 0r persuasion as t0 any matters in which the Plaintiffs have the burden 0fproof 0r persuasion. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim) The First Amended Complaint’s’ purported causes of action, and each 0f them, fail to state a claim upon Which reliefmay be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ( Lack 0f Standing) The Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the action and is not the real party in interest. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ( Lack 0f Jurisdiction) 2- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC. Law Offices of Douglas E. Klein 32 19 Overland Avenue; Suite 81 89 Los Angeles, California 90034 Tel: (310) 836-0678 Fax: (310) 838-2695 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This Court lacks personal and subject matter jurisdiction over these responding Defendants. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Breach of Contract) The Defendants allege that any obligations owed by it under any alleged contract were excused by Plaintiffs’ breach 0f the alleged contract. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Fault) The Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were caused by the primary negligence and/or acquiescence in the acts and omissions alleged in the First Amended Complaint by the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs ‘agents, employees, representatives, relatives, heirs, assigns, attorneys, and/or any others acting on Plaintiff” s behalf. By reason thereof, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to damages 0r any other relief whatsoever as against Defendant. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Consent) The Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs are barred from prosecuting the purported causes 0f action set forth in the First Amended Complaint because the Plaintiffs and/or the persons and/or entities acting on their behalf, consented t0 and acquiesced in the subject conduct. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) The Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs are barred in Whole 0r in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the First Amended Complaint by the doctrine 0f estoppel. 3- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC. Law Offices of Douglas E. Klein 32 19 Overland Avenue; Suite 81 89 Los Angeles, California 90034 Tel: (310) 836-0678 Fax: (310) 838-2695 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) The Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs are barred in whole or in part from prosecuting the purported causes 0f action set forth in the First Amended Complaint by the doctrine 0f laches. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Justification/Excuse) The Defendants allege that by Virtue 0f the acts of the Plaintiffs and/or the persons and/or entities acting 0n their behalf. The Plaintiffs are barred from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the First Amended Complaint because the acts and/or omissions alleged in the First Amended Complaint were justified and/or excused. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Injury 0r Damage) The Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs have not been injured 0r damaged as a proximate result 0f any act or omission for which the Defendant is responsible. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Offset) The Defendants allege that by Virtue 0f the acts 0f the Plaintiff and/.or the persons and/or the entities acting 0n Plaintiff’ s behalf, the Defendants have been damaged in an amount equal t0 0r greater than the amount 0f damages if any, to Which the Plaintiffs might be entitled. As a result, the Defendant is entitled t0 an offset against any sums found owing to the Defendants from the Plaintiffs. 4- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC. Law Offices of Douglas E. Klein 32 19 Overland Avenue; Suite 81 89 Los Angeles, California 90034 Tel: (310) 836-0678 Fax: (310) 838-2695 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ( Performance Excused) The Defendants allege that the Defendants are excused from any performance due from them to the Plaintiffs under any alleged applicable contracts. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ( Punitive Damages Barred) The Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs alleged claim for punitive damages is barred by the provisions of California Civil Code, Sections 3294 and 3295. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages Unconstitutional) The Defendants allege that the imposition of punitive damages runs afoul of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) The Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs are barred in whole or in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the First Amended Complaint by the doctrine 0f unclean hands. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) The Defendants allege that the Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from prosecuting the purported causes 0f action set forth in the First Amended Complaint by the doctrine 0f waiver. 5- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC. Law Offices of Douglas E. Klein 32 19 Overland Avenue; Suite 81 89 Los Angeles, California 90034 Tel: (310) 836-0678 Fax: (310) 838-2695 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (All Obligations Performed) The Defendants allege that the Defendants have fully and substantially performed any and all obligations it may have had to the Plaintiff. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Compliance with Law) The Defendants allege that the actions taken by Defendants was in full compliance with the law. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate) The Defendants allege that the Plaintiff has failed, refused and neglected to take reasonable steps to mitigate the alleged damages, if any, thus barring or diminishing Plaintiffs’ recovery herein. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Causation) The Defendants allege that the damages alleged to have been suffered by the Plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint were not caused, either in-fact 0r proximately, by Defendants’ alleged acts or failure t0 act. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Malicious Intent) The Defendants allege that the Defendants did not act With malicious intent t0 deprive any person of any right or to cause any other injury and therefore is not liable. 6- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC. Law Offices of Douglas E. Klein 32 19 Overland Avenue; Suite 81 89 Los Angeles, California 90034 Tel: (310) 836-0678 Fax: (310) 838-2695 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Not Liable for Act 0r Omission 0f Subordinate) The Defendants allege that insofar as Defendants have delegated any duty to any subordinate, such delegation was at all times done in good faith with due care. The Defendants are therefore not liable for any act 0r omission of any subordinate. TWENTY -THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ( Statute 0f Limitations) The Defendants allege that the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations including, but not limited to California Code 0f Civil Procedure sections 33 7,338, 339 and 343. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure 0f Performance) The Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs failed t0 perform their duties and obligations under any agreement alleged in the First Amended Complaint, and such acts 0r omissions bar Plaintiff’ s recovery herein. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ( Intervening /Superseding Causes) The Defendants allege that the injuries and damages 0f Which the Plaintiffs complains were proximately caused, 0r contributed to, by the acts of other defendants, cross- defendants, persons and/or entities, and that said acts were an intervening and superseding cause of the injuries and damages, if any, of which the Plaintiffs complain thus barring Plaintiffs from any recovery against these Defendants. 7- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC. Law Offices of Douglas E. Klein 32 19 Overland Avenue; Suite 81 89 Los Angeles, California 90034 Tel: (310) 836-0678 Fax: (310) 838-2695 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Contribution) Defendants allege that the injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiffs at the times and places alleged in the First Amended Complaint were a direct and proximate result 0f the acts, omissions, 0r negligence of third parties not Within the knowledge or control of the Defendants, and therefore were sustained, if at all, Without any negligence, fault or liability on the part of the Defendants. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEENSE (Ratification 0f Acts) Defendants allege that Plaintiffs, by their acts, conduct and/or omissions, has ratified the acts, conduct and omissions, if any, 0f these Defendants, therefore the Plaintiffs are barred from seeking any relief from the Defendants. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEENSE (No Reasonable Reliance) Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs did not and/or could not rely upon any alleged misrepresentations 0r nondisclosures of material facts made by these Defendants. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are barred from seeking any affirmative relief against these Defendants. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEENSE (Unclean Hands) Defendants allege that by reason 0f the Plaintiff’s conduct which constitutes a breach of contract , tortious conduct, waiver, unclean hands, the Plaintiffs are estopped t0 assert any right 0f relief. 8- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC. Law Offices of Douglas E. Klein 32 19 Overland Avenue; Suite 81 89 Los Angeles, California 90034 Tel: (310) 836-0678 Fax: (310) 838-2695 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIRTEETH AFFIRMATIVE DEENSE (Full Performance) Defendants allege that its full performance of any agreement or act required of it, if there be such agreements or acts, fulfills all its duties and obligations t0 the Plaintiffs, if any there be, contractual, fiduciary, 0r other, and no other duty or obligation to the Plaintiffs remains on behalf 0f these Defendants. THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Barred by the Anti-SLAPP Statute) Defendants allege that this action is barred by the provisions 0f the California anti- SLAPP statute, as set forth in California Code ofCivil Procedure, Section 425.16, et. seq. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Barred by the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine) Defendants allege that this action is barred by Noerr-Pennington Doctrine. THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Barred by the Petition Clause t0 the First Amendment t0 the United States Constitution) The Defendants allege that this action is barred under the Petition Clause t0 the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Barred by the Doctrine 0f Primary Jurisdiction) Defendants allege that doctrine 0f primary jurisdiction bars this First Amended Complaint and each cause 0f action. 9- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC. Law Offices of Douglas E. Klein 32 19 Overland Avenue; Suite 81 89 Los Angeles, California 90034 Tel: (310) 836-0678 Fax: (310) 838-2695 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Barred for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and are therefore barred from seeking relief from the Plaintiffs. THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Barred for Failure t0 Satisfy the Prerequisites for RICO Relief) Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs failed to plead the requisite standard to seek relief under RICO. THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Barred By Mandatory Arbitration) Defendants allege that this action is barred but the mandatory arbitration agreement. THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Action Preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act) Defendants allege that the First Amended Complaint and each cause 0f action is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Barred by Res Judicata) Defendants allege that some or all of the claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Barred by Collateral Estoppel) Defendants allege that some 0r all 0f the claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint are barred by the doctrine 0f collateral estoppel. 10- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC. Law Offices of Douglas E. Klein 32 19 Overland Avenue; Suite 81 89 Los Angeles, California 90034 Tel: (310) 836-0678 Fax: (310) 838-2695 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Reservation of Rights t0 Assert Additional Defenses) Defendants reserve their right to amend their answer to assert further affirmative defenses that are not presently known but may become available through further investigation and discovery. WHEREFORE, the Defendants prays for relief as follows: 1. That the First Amended Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice and in its entirety; 2. That the Plaintiffs take nothing by reason 0f this First Amended Complaint and that judgment be entered against the Plaintiffs and in favor 0f these Responding Defendants; 3. That the Responding Defendants be awarded their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending this action; and 4. That the Responding Defendants be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: October 1, 2021 MADGETT & KLEIN, APLC By; Paw(“KM DOUéLAs E. KLEIN Attorneys for Defendants, RICHARD KAHN and FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUP, INC. 1 1- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC. Los Angeles, California 90034 Tel: (310) 836-0678 Fax: (310) 838-2695 Law Offices of Douglas E. Klein 3219 Overland Avenue; Suite 8189 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE NAME OF CASE: Magnolia DRMomes, LLC V. Guidance Law CASE NUMBER: 20CV373 145 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, Douglas E. Klein, am employed in the City of Los Angeles, County 0f Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the Within action. My business address is Madgett & Klein, APLC, 9701 Wilshire Blvd; Suite 1000, Beverly Hills, California 90212. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice 0f collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. This practice is as follows: In the ordinary course 0f business, items t0 be mailed are collected and deposited With the U.S. Postal Service at Los Angeles, California on that same day With postage thereon fully prepaid. _X_BY ELECTRONIC TRANSFER. The parties, through their attorneys have stipulated and agreed in writing t0 the service 0f all pleadings, discovery and other documents required t0 be served by ELECTRONIC SERVICE pursuant to CCP Section 1010.6, CRC 2.251, or Fed. R. CiV. P. 5(b)(2)(E). The email address is indicated on the attached service list. On October 1, 2021, I caused t0 be served the following document(s): DEFENDANT RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC. ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 0n the interested party(ies) in this action, addressed as follows: Dhaivat H. Shah Amanda E. Manahan, Esq. Email: ds@grellas.com Guidance Law APC David I. Siegel Manahan Flashman &Brandon dsiegenggrellas30m 20 Enterprise; Suite 375 Erin M. Adrian, Esq. Aliso Viejo, California 92656 ema rellas.com Surya Kundu, Esq. sk rellas.com Grellas Shah LLP 20400 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 280 Cuppertino, California 95014 12- ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC. Law Offices of Douglas E. Klein 32 19 Overland Avenue; Suite 81 89 Los Angeles, California 90034 Tel: (310) 836-0678 Fax: (310) 838-2695 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 4, 2021 at Beverly Hills, California. PawK‘KM Douglas E. Klein 13 - ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS RICHARD KAHN AND FORENSIC PROFESSIONALS GROUPS, INC.
