Answer Response No FeeCal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 20, 2020\OOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQONUI-bUJNHOOOOQONUI-bkpNHO 20CV373882 Santa Clara - Elizabeth A. Skane, Esq. (SBN 187752) Robert C. Chojnacki, Esq. (SBN 169936) SKANE MILLS LLP 33 New Montgomery Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (4 1 5) 43 1 -4 1 50 / Facsimile: (41 5) 43 1-4 1 51 eskane@skanemills.com / rchoinacki(a)skanemills.com Civil Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 5/25/2021 4:04 PM Reviewed By: Y. Chavez Case #20CV373882 Envelope: 651 8778 Attorneys for Defendant, HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA D.S. JORDAN CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. INNOVATE CONCRETE, INC, d.b.a. INNOVATE ENGINEERING, a California corporation; HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, a California corporation; RAYMOND CHRISTOPHER SOMBILON and RENEE SOMBILON, husband and Wife, d.b.a. BAYVIEW PLUMBING; MISH-RA, INC., d.b.a. TRICORE PANELS, INC.;; and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants. CASE NO. 20CV373882 HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S ANSWER TO MISH-RA, INC.’S CROSS- COMPLAINT Judge: Hon. Drew Takaichi Dept: 2 Complaint Filed: November 20, 2020 Y. CI“ MISH-RA, INC., DBA TRICORE PANELS, INC., Cross-Complainant, vs. INNOVATE CONCRETE, INC, d.b.a. INNOVATE ENGINEERING; HIGH END DEVELOPMENT; RAYMOND CHRISTOPHER SOMBILON and RENEE SOMBILON, husband and Wife, d.b.a. BAYVIEW PLUMBING; and ROES 1 through 50, Cross-Defendants. /// /// 1 aveZ HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S ANSWER TO MISH-RA, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT \DOONQUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQUI-PUJNHOKDOOQQUI-bUJNHO COMES NOW Cross-Defendant HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC., (“Cross-Defendant”) and answers the Cross-Complaint 0fMISH-RA INC. (DBA and sued herein as TRICORE PANELS INC) (“Cross-Complainant”), 0n file herein, as follows: Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 43 1 .30 of the State of California, this answering Cross-Defendant denies generally and specifically each, every and all of the allegations in said Cross-Complaint, and the whole thereof, including each and every purported cause 0f action contained therein. This answering Cross-Defendant further denies that Cross-Complainant has or will sustain damages in the amount alleged or in any amount whatsoever. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Negligence) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times and places set forth in the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Complainant failed t0 exercise ordinary care on its own behalf, Which negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause 0f some portion, up t0 and including the whole thereof, 0f the injuries and damages complained 0f in this action. Cross- Complainant’s recovery, therefore, against this answering Cross-Defendant should be barred or reduced according t0 the principles 0f comparative negligence. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Apportionment) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times and places set forth in the Cross-Complaint, parties, other than this answering Cross-Defendant, failed t0 exercise ordinary care 0n their own behalf, Which negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion, up t0 and including the Whole thereof, 0f the injuries and damages complained 0fby Cross-Complainant in this action. The fault, if any, 0f this answering Cross-Defendant should be compared With the fault 0f the other Cross-Defendants and the damages, if any, should be apportioned among the Cross-Defendants in direct relation to their comparative fault. This answering Cross- Defendant should be obligated to pay only such damages, if any, Which are directly attributable to its percentage 0f comparative fault. T0 require this answering Cross-Defendant to pay any more than its percentage of comparative fault violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution 0f the State 0f California. 2 HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S ANSWER TO MISH-RA, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT \DOONQUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQUI-PUJNHOKDOOQQUI-bUJNHO THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Equitable Bar) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that as between Cross-Complainant and this answering Cross-Defendant, the equities do not preponderate in favor of Cross-Complainant and, accordingly, Cross-Complainant is barred from the recovery sought herein. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 State Cause 0f Action) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Cross- Complaint, and every purported cause of action therein, fails t0 set forth facts sufficient t0 state a cause 0f action. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Cross- Complainant’s action may be barred by the applicable statute 0f limitations, including, but not limited to, the provisions 0f sections 337; 337.1; 337.2; 337.15; 338; 339; 339.5; 340; 340.8; 342; 343 and, 344 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Intervening Acts) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the injuries and damages 0f Which Cross-Complainant complains were proximately caused or contributed t0 by the acts of other Cross-Defendants, persons and/or entities. Said acts were an intervening, supervening and superseding cause 0f the injuries and damages, if any, 0f which Cross-Complainant complains; thus, barring Cross-Complainant from any recovery against this answering Cross-Defendant. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Passive vs. Active Defense) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, without admitting that any of the allegations in the Cross-Complaint 0n file herein are true, Cross-Complainant was actively negligent With respect t0 the acts and omissions alleged in the Cross-Complaint. Cross- 3 HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S ANSWER TO MISH-RA, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT \DOONQUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQUI-PUJNHOKDOOQQUI-bUJNHO Complainant is, therefore, barred from maintaining any action for implied total indemnity as against this answering Cross-Defendant. Said cause of action for total indemnity is also barred by Virtue of Standard Pacific ofSan Diego v. A. A. Baxter Corporation, et al., 176 Cal. App. 3d 577 (1986). EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Cross- Complainant has engaged in conduct With respect t0 the activities and/or property Which are the subject 0f the Cross-Complaint and by reason 0f said activities and conduct, Cross-Complainant is estopped from asserting any claim for damages or seeking any other relief against this answering Cross-Defendant. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that to the extent 0f its tardiness in asserting its purported right t0 recover, Cross-Complainant’s claims should be barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Act of God) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any and all events, happenings, injuries and damages, if any, as alleged in the Cross-Complaint, were a direct result of an unforeseeable act of God. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Offset) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that that this answering Cross-Defendant is entitled t0 a set-off as a result 0f any recovery obtained by Cross- Complainant from any other party, in connection With the damages claimed in this lawsuit. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack 0f Agency) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that this 4 HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S ANSWER TO MISH-RA, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT \DOONQUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQUI-PUJNHOKDOOQQUI-bUJNHO answering Cross-Defendant neither is nor was, at any time material hereto, an agent, servant, representative, employee, partner 0r joint venturer With any 0f the other parties named herein. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Cross- Complainant is barred by the doctrine of waiver. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Assumption 0f Risk) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at the time and place of the incident described in the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Complainant voluntarily assumed the risks of the activities alleged under the circumstances and conditions then and there existing, and the resultant damages, if any, sustained by Cross-Complainant were proximately contributed to and/or caused by its own voluntary assumption of the risk. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that to the extent 0f Cross-Complainant’s unlawful, immoral, careless, negligent and other wrongful conduct, Cross- Complainant should be barred from recovering against this answering Cross-Defendant by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Untimely Notice) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that that Cross- Complainant did not give this answering Cross-Defendant notice in a reasonable 0r timely manner 0f any conditions Cross-Complainant believed to be improper or defective, and further did not give this answering Cross-Defendant an opportunity to inspect or remedy same, thereby barring the claims 0f Cross-Complainant herein. /// /// 5 HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S ANSWER TO MISH-RA, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT \DOONQUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQUI-PUJNHOKDOOQQUI-bUJNHO SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Code 0f Civil Procedure § 1021) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that this answering Cross-Defendant is entitled t0 all necessary and reasonable defense costs, including attorney’s fees incurred herein, as more particularly set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Controversy) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Cross- Complaint, and each alleged cause of action contained therein, was brought Without reasonable cause and without a good faith belief that there was a justifiable controversy under the facts and the law which warranted the filing of said Cross-Complaint against this answering Cross-Defendant; that Cross-Complainant is therefore responsible for all necessary and reasonable defense costs, including attorney’s fees, incurred by this answering Cross-Defendant, as more particularly set forth in California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 128.6 and 128.7. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 Mitigate) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Cross- Complainant has failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence t0 avoid loss and to minimize damages and, therefore, Cross-Complainant may not recover for losses Which could have been prevented by reasonable efforts 0n its own part, or by expenditures that might reasonably have been made and, therefore, Cross-Complainant’s recovery, if any, should be reduced by the failure of the Cross-Complainant to mitigate its damages, if any there be. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Warranties) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that this Cross- Defendant provided no products, items, structures 0r systems t0 Cross-Complainant. Further, this answering Cross-Defendant did not manufacture, assemble, design 0r construct any products, items, 6 HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S ANSWER TO MISH-RA, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT \DOONQUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQUI-PUJNHOKDOOQQUI-bUJNHO structures or systems for 0r 0n behalf 0f Cross-Complainant. As a result, no express or implied warranties were made by Cross-Defendant t0 Cross-Complainant. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Discharge) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Cross- Complainant, Cross-Defendants and other persons or entities retained by Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendants have made changes, alterations and/or modifications t0 the work performed by this answering Cross-Defendant, thereby discharging this Cross-Defendant from any liability herein. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Excuse - Impossibility of Performance) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that this answering Cross-Defendant is excused from performance by Virtue of impossibility caused by persons and/or events beyond the control 0f this answering Cross-Defendant. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Excuse -Acceptance 0f Work) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that this answering Cross-Defendant is excused from performance by Virtue of acceptance 0f its work by others. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Bar - Acts of Others) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Cross- Complainant’s damages, if any, were proximately caused 0r contributed to by the intervention of separate causes originating from parties, persons, 0r entities for Which this answering Cross-Defendant is not responsible, including, but not limited to, architects, engineers, subcontractors, contractors, and others. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Compliance with Standard of Care) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times 7 HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S ANSWER TO MISH-RA, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT \DOONQUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQUI-PUJNHOKDOOQQUI-bUJNHO relevant hereto this answering Cross-Defendant complied with the standard 0f care in the performance of its work, thereby barring and precluding Cross-Complainant from recovery herein. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Code of Civil Procedure § 1431.2) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the liability, if any, of this answering Cross-Defendant for the amount 0f non-economic damages, if any, should be limited pursuant to the Fair Responsibility Act of 1986, Civil Code section 143 1 .2, in direct proportion to the percentage of negligence or fault, if any, attributable t0 this answering Cross-Defendant, and a separate judgment should be rendered against this answering Cross-Defendant for that amount. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Civil Code § 2782, et seq.) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any and all causes 0f action seeking implied and/or express indemnity against this answering Cross-Defendant is barred by Virtue 0f the provisions of Civil Code section 2872, et seq., t0 the extent that they relate t0 design defects and/or work of other independent contractors. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Condition Precedent) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that there has been non-performance 0f a condition precedent t0 any contractual duty 0n the part 0f this answering Cross-Defendant. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Subsequent Modification) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Cross- Complainant and/or Cross-Defendants and other persons and entities retained by Cross-Complainant and/or Cross-Defendants have made changes, alterations and/or modifications to the work performed by this answering Cross-Defendant, which conduct discharges this answering Cross-Defendant from any liability. /// 8 HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S ANSWER TO MISH-RA, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT \DOONQUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQUI-PUJNHOKDOOQQUI-bUJNHO THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Excuse) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that if any contracts, obligations 0r agreements, as alleged in the Cross-Complaint, have been entered into, any duty for performance by this answering Cross-Defendant is excused by reason of failure of consideration, waiver, breach of condition precedent, breach by Cross-Complainant, impossibility of performance, prevention by Cross-Complainant, frustration 0f purpose, and/or acceptance by Cross- Complainant. THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack 0f Consideration) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that there was no consideration of any alleged promise or agreement of indemnity or warranty, which said terms were included as boilerplate provision in the pre-printed forms submitted by Cross-Complainant and ancillary t0 the agreement between the parties. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Approval by Public Entity) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any and all work performed by this answering Cross-Defendant With regard to the property Which is the subject matter of this litigation, was inspected and approved by the local public entities/jurisdictional authority at the time this answering Cross-Defendant performed its work at the subject property. THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unconscionable Contract) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the contract in issue between this answering Cross-Defendant and Cross-Complainant, if any, was unconscionable at the time it was made and, therefore, remains unenforceable. In the alternative, the application of the unconscionable contract and clauses contained therein should be limited so as t0 avoid any unduly oppressive result. 9 HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S ANSWER TO MISH-RA, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT \DOONQUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQUI-PUJNHOKDOOQQUI-bUJNHO THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Adhesion Contract) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the contract in issue between this answering Cross-Defendant and Cross-Complainant, if any, contained non- negotiable terms and conditions which exclusively benefited Cross-Complainant t0 the detriment of this answering Cross-Defendant; as such, the alleged contract is one of adhesion and any ambiguities in the terms and conditions must be resolved against Cross-Complainant as the drafter and the contract must be enforced, if at all, in accordance With the reasonable expectations 0f this answering Cross- Defendant. THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Direction/Approval) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Cross- Complainant directed, ordered, approved and/or ratified this answering Cross-Defendant’s conduct, and Cross-Complainant is, therefore, estopped from asserting any claim based thereon. THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Res Judicata/Retraxit/Collateral Estoppel) This answering Cross-Defendant alleges that each cause of action in the Cross-Complaint is barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel, res judicata, and/or retraxit. THIRTY- SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Standing) This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Cross- Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action stated therein, fails t0 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause 0f action because Cross-Complainant lacks standing. THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Necessary and Indispensable Parties) This answering Cross-Defendant alleges Cross-Complainant failed t0 name necessary and indispensable parties t0 its Cross-Complaint; therefore, judgments on the claims presented in the Cross- 10 HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S ANSWER TO MISH-RA, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT \DOONQUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQQUI-PUJNHOKDOOQQUI-bUJNHO Complaint are barred in their entirety. THIRTY- NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Third Parties’ Negligence) The damages sustained by Cross-Complainant, if any, were legally caused, either Wholly 0r in part, by the negligence or fault of persons, firms, corporations, partnerships, 0r entities other than this answering Cross-Defendant and that such negligence 0r fault should be imputed to Cross-Complainant, by reason 0f the relationship between such persons and Cross-Complainant, and/or that said negligence or fault should comparatively reduce the percentage of negligence or fault, if any, attributable to this answering Cross-Defendant. FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Substantial Factor) Cross-Defendant’s conduct did not cause, and/or was not a substantial factor is causing, the damages alleged by Cross-Complainant, and/or others. FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Innocent Party) Cross-Complainant, and/or others were negligent in and about the acts complained of in the Complaint and/or Cross-Complaint. Therefore, any relief Cross-Complainant, may be entitled to (which it is not), as against this answering Cross-Defendant, must be denied pursuant t0 Civil Code section 3543, and other statutory and case authority. FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Attorneys’ Fees) The Cross-Complaint, and the causes 0f action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to recover attorneys’ fees against this answering Cross-Defendant. However, if and t0 the extent a basis for a claim of attorney’s fees exists, this answering Cross-Defendant is entitled t0 recover all attorneys’ fees incurred in defense of the action. FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Equitable Indemnity/Contribution) If this answering Cross-Defendant is held liable t0 Cross-Complainant, and any other persons or 11 HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S ANSWER TO MISH-RA, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT \OOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-t OOQONUIAUJNHOOOOQQUIAUJNHO entities are likewise held liable, Cross-Defendant is entitled t0 a percentage reduction of its liability reflecting the fault 0f such other persons or entities in accordance With the principles 0f equitable indemnity and comparative contribution. FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N0 Causation) Any and all alleged actions and/or omissions claimed by Cross-Complainant, and/or others, to have been made by this answering Cross-Defendant did not cause any damages. FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Additional Defenses) This answering Cross-Defendant reserves the right to file additional affirmative defensives and claims based upon information revealed during the course of discovery. WHEREFORE, this answering Cross-Defendant prays for judgment herein as follows: 1. That Cross-Complainant takes nothing by way 0f its Cross-Complaint on file herein, 2 For costs 0f suit incurred herein; 3. For those costs, fees, and expenses incurred in the defense of the Cross-Complaint; 4 For attorney’s fees according t0 proof; and 5 For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: May 25, 2021 SKANE MILLS LLP /I%= Elizabeth A. Skane, Esq. Robert C. Chojnacki, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC. 12 HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S ANSWER TO MISH-RA, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT Superior Court of the State of California FOR COURT USE ONLY County 0f Santa Clara TITLE OF CASE (Abbreviated) D. S. Jordan Constructlon vs Innovate Concrete et a1 ATTORNEY(S) NAME AND ADDRESS Elizabeth A. Skane, Esq. Robert C. Chojnacki, Esq. SKANE MILLS LLP 33 New Montgomery Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 431-4150/ F (415) 431-4151 eskane@skanemills.com / rchoinacki@skanemills.com ATTORNEY(S) FOR: HEARING: DATE-TIME-DEPT; CASE NUMBER: High End Development, Inc. 20CV373882 DECLARATION 0F SERVICE [C.C.P. §§ 1013A and 2015.5] I, the undersigned, declare: I am, and was at the time of service of the papers herein referred to, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to this action. My business address is 33 New Montgomery Street, Suite 1250, San Francisco, CA 94105. I served the following document(s): HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S ANSWER T0 MISH-RA, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT, on the parties in this action addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED ATTORNEY SERVICE LIST BY MAIL: I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope addressed as indicated in the attached attorney service list, on the date noted below. I am readily familiar With the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that 0n motion 0f party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date 0f deposit for mailing in affidavit. BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Pursuant t0 Judicial Council Emergency Rule 12, and notwithstanding CCP § 1010.6, by emailing the document(s) to the person(s) at the email address(es) listed, based 0n notice provided 0n March 17, 2020 that during the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic this office will be working remotely, unable t0 send and receive physical mail as usual and is using only electronic mail at this time. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission of the document(s). I 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 May 25, 2021, at San Francisco, California. PM Mflam’ RON WILLIAMS Re: D. S. Jordan Construction vs Innovate Concrete et al. Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 20CV373882 Our File N0. 123-1 1 18 SERVICE LIST John J. Freni, Esq. John J. Freni, Esq., APLC 401 W A St., Floor 17 San Diego, CA 92101-7994 Phone: (619) 557-9128 | Fax: (619) 238-1981 Email: john@freni-1aw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, D.S. Jordan Construction, Inc. Marissa N. Acree, Esq. Stone and Associates 2125 anacio Valley Rd., Ste.101 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Phone: (925) 938-1555 | Fax: (925) 938-2937 Email: mnacree@stonelawoffice.com Attorneys for Defendant, Innovate Concrete, Inc. dba Innovate Engineering Thomas D. Fama, Esq. Asha L. Renouf, Esq. Wood Smith Henning & Berman 1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700 Concord, CA 94520 Phone: (925) 222-3400 | Fax: (925) 356-8250 Email: arenouf@wshblaw.com; tfama@wshblaw.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant MISH-RA, INC, dba TRICORE PANELS, INC. Annalisa S. Zulueta, Esq. Daniel J. Ashby, Esq. G&P I Schick 99 Almaden B1Vd., Ste. 740 San Jose, CA 951 13 Phone: (408) 995-5050 | Fax: (408) 995-5150 Email: azulueta@2pschicklaw.com Counsel for High End Development, Inc.
