Answer Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 3, 2021

@mNQUIthA NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA WNOG#wNA°¢DmNO§m#wN-\O EDGAR w. HAWKYARD, ESQ. (SBN 126735) Electronically Filed PHILIP M. ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES by Superior Court of CA, Employees of the Law Department County of Santa Clara, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on 5/1 0/2021 3:43 pM 4450 Rosewood Drive, Suite 450 Reviewed By: R_ Tie" Pleasanton, CA 94588 Telephone: (925) 225-6838 case #21?V379118 Facsimile: (855) 732-9437 Enve'OPe- 6412975 Email: ed.hawkyard@statefarm.com Attorneys for Defendant Frank Paul Mikulastik IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA/ UNLIMITED JURISDICTION JAMIE ANN GARRISON, NO. 21CV3791 18 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT v. Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Drew Takaichi FRANK PAUL MIKULASTIK AND Dept. 2 DOES 1 THROUGH 20, Defendants. Defendant, FRANK PAUL MIKULASTIK, in answer to the Unverified Complaint filed by plaintiff, JAIME ANN GARRISON, herein admits, denies and alleges as follows: Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, this answering defendant denies, generally and specifically, all and singular, each and every allegation contained in the Unverified Complaint of plaintiff herein, and the whole thereof, and specifically denies that plaintiff has been injured or damaged as alleged herein, or in any other sum or manner, or otherwise or at all. 1. AS A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff was careless and negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that said carelessness and negligence on plaintiff's own part proximately contributed to the -1- Answer to Complaint @mNQUIthA NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA WNOG#wNA°¢DmNO§m#wN-\O happening of the incident in question, and to the injuries, loss, and damages complained of, if any there were. 2. AS A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause 0f Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the injuries and damages complained of by plaintiff, if there were any, were either wholly or in part directly and proximately caused by the negligence of persons or entities other than this answering defendant, and said negligence comparatively reduces the proportion of negligence and corresponding liability of this answering defendant. 3. AS A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that said Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant or at all. 4. AS A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the injuries, loss and damages complained of, if any there were, were increased by the failure of plaintiff to use reasonable diligence to mitigate them. 5. AS A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that if liability is assessed against him, pursuant to Civil Code Section 1431 mu this answering defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to him in direct proportion to the percentage of fault assessed against him by the trier of fact and requests that a separate judgment be rendered against him for that amount. 6. AS A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint and each Cause of Action alleged therein is barred by California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 and/or the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure §§337, 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340.3 and 343. 7. AS A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each -2- Answer to Complaint OGNQUIhWNA MNMMNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA QNOUI¥OONfi°