Answer Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 23, 2021

Sensitivity: Cc l’ 21 CV380972 Santa Clara - Civil LAW OFFICE OF CATHERINE WALSH BY: Illise Schulman, Esq.-STATE BAR NO 1771 17 1800 Sutter Street, Suite 260 Concord, CA 94520 Attom s and Su ort Sta are Em lo ees 0 GEICgStafi’Coflgvel Depjcjzfrtment p y f Telephone: 925-825-9500 Fax: 925-825-9716 Email: ischulman@geico.com Attorneys for Defendants LISA SMAS KARL ANDREAS SIGNAR SMAS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION YONATAN SMOLYAR, THROUGH MARINA SMOLYAR, GUARDIAN AD PLAINTIFF, VS. LISA SMAS, KARL ANDREAS SIGNAR SMAS AND DOES 1 TO 20, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS . COME NOW defendants, LISA SMAS and KARL ANDREAS SIGNAR SMAS (collectively “defendants”), answering the Complaint of plaintiffYONATAN SMOLYAR (“plaintiff”), as follows: Pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure, Section 43 1 .30, these answering defendants deny, both generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in each CASE NO. 21CV3 80972 LITEM, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Vict Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 9/10/2021 12:13 PM Reviewed By: Victoria Ca Case #21 CV380972 Envelope: 7241 383 Page 1 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT fidential oria Castaneda staneda Sensitivity: Cc r and every paragraph 0f plaintiff” s Complaint; defendants filrther deny that plaintiff has been damaged in any sum 0r sums whatsoever, 0r at all. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At the time and place 0f the accident referred t0 and alleged in plaintiffs Complaint, plaintiff did so negligently and carelessly own, manage, operate, control and/or drive a bicycle so as t0 proximately cause and contribute t0 the accident and resulting injuries and damages, if any. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE These answering defendants allege that the accident, and any 0r all injuries and/or damages resulting therefrom, were due t0 the negligence 0f plaintiff and/or other persons for whom these answering defendants are not responsible. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ complaint, and each cause 0f action thereof, fails t0 state sufficient facts t0 constitute a cause 0f action against these answering defendants. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ complaint, and each cause 0f action thereof, is barred by the applicable Statute 0f Limitations. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE These answering defendants allege that ifplaintiff was injured and/or damaged, as set forth in plaintiffs’ complaint, or in any other way, sum or manner, 0r at all, then said injuries and/or damages, and the whole thereof, proximately and concurrently resulted from and were caused, in whole 0r in part, by plaintiff” s failure t0 exercise ordinary care for the protection 0f his person and/or property at the time and place mentioned in plaintiff” s complaint. Page 2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT fidential Sensitivity: Cc r SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The injuries alleged by plaintiff, if any, were proximately caused by the negligence and liability 0f other persons 0r entities, and these answering defendants request that an allocation 0f such negligence and liability be made among such other persons 0r entities, and that, if any liability is found 0n the part 0f these answering defendants, judgment against these defendants be only in the amount which is proportionate t0 the extent and percentage by which these answering defendants’ acts 0r omissions contributed t0 plaintiff s injuries and damages, if any. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole, 0r in part, by the doctrine 0f Accord and Satisfaction. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole, 0r in part, because these answering defendants are entitled t0 an offset for sums paid t0 0r for the benefit 0f the plaintiff for damages allegedly sustained as a result 0f the incident complained 0f herein. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE These answering defendants allege that plaintiffwas capable 0f and failed t0 mitigate damages. Therefore, any amounts awarded t0 plaintiff for damages allegedly sustained should be reduced by those amounts which plaintiff would have avoided by taking reasonable steps t0 d0 so. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At the time and place 0f the accident referred t0 and alleged in plaintiffs Complaint, plaintiff acted in was Violation 0f one 0r more sections 0f Chapter 10.64 0f the Palo Alto Page 3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT fidential Sensitivity: Cc r Municipal Code Section, and thereby caused the accident referred t0 and alleged in plaintiff s Complaint. WHEREFORE, these answering defendants pray that plaintiff take nothing by way 0f his Complaint; that these defendants have judgment for costs 0f suit incurred herein; and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COMES NOW defendants, LISA SMAS AND KARLANDREASIGN SMAS ERRONOUSELY SUED AS KARL ANDREAS SIGNAR SMAS, and answers the complaint 0fYONATAN SMOLYAR, THROUGH MARINA SMOLYAR, GAL, as follows: Pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure, Section 43 1 .30, this answering defendant(s) denies both generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in each and every paragraph 0f said complaint; defendant(s) filrther denies that plaintiff has been damaged in any sum 0r sums whatsoever, 0r at all, whether it is alleged in plaintiff’s complaint 0r otherwise. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At the time and place 0f the accident referred t0 and alleged in plaintiff‘s Complaint, the plaintiff, Yonatan Smolyar, through Marina Smolyar, GAL, did so negligently and carelessly entrust, manage, operate, control and drive said motor vehicle so as t0 proximately cause and contribute t0 the accident and resulting injuries and damages, if any. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Page 4 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT fidential Sensitivity: Cc r This answering defendant(s) alleges that the accident, and any 0r all injuries and/or damages caused therefrom, were due t0 the negligence 0f plaintiff and persons other than this answering defendant(s). THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff‘s complaint, and each cause 0f action thereof, fails t0 state sufficient facts t0 constitute a cause 0f action against this answering defendant(s). FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff‘s complaint, and each cause 0f action thereof, is barred by the Statute 0f Limitations since the events alleged causing personal injuries t0 the plaintiff, occurred more than two (2) year prior t0 the filing 0f said complaint, and said complaint was not filed within two (2) year 0f the occurrence 0f said event as is required by Statute. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This answering defendant(s) alleges that if plaintiffwas injured and/or damaged, as set forth in plaintiff‘s complaint, or in any other way, sum or manner, 0r at all, then said injuries and/or damages, and the whole thereof, proximately and concurrently resulted from and were caused, in whole 0r in part, by plaintiff‘s failure t0 exercise ordinary care for the protection 0f his person and/or property at the time and place mentioned in plaintiff‘s complaint. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The injuries alleged by plaintiff, if any, were proximately caused by the negligence and liability 0f other persons 0r entities, and this answering defendant(s) requests that an allocation 0f such negligence and liability be made among such other persons 0r entities, and that, if any liability is found 0n the part 0f this defendant(s), judgment against said defendant(s) be only in the amount which is proportionate t0 the extent and percentage by Page 5 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT fidential Sensitivity: Cc r which this answering defendant's acts 0r omissions contributed t0 plaintiff‘s injuries 0r damages. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole, 0r in part, by the doctrine 0f Accord and Satisfaction. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole, 0r in part, because this answering party is entitled t0 an offset paid t0, 0r for the benefit 0f plaintiffs for damages allegedly suffered as a result 0f the incident complained of herein. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This answering defendant(s) alleges that plaintiffwas capable 0f and failed t0 mitigate damages. Therefore, any amount awarded t0 plaintiff for damages suffered should be reduced by that amount which plaintiff would have avoided by taking reasonable steps t0 d0 so. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims for general damages are barred 0n the grounds that they, and each 0f them, failed t0 comply with the requirements 0f the state’s financial responsibility laws, as required in Civil Code §3333.4. WHEREFORE, this answering defendant(s) prays that plaintiff take nothing by way 0f their Complaint, judgment for costs 0f suit incurred herein and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Page 6 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT fidential Dated: September 9, 2021 LAW OFFICE OF CATHERINE WALSH Illise Schulman, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants LISA SMAS KARL ANDREAS SIGNAR SMAS By: Page 7 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Sensitivity: Cc r fidential OLOOONOUO‘l-bQJNA NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mflmmth-‘OQmNmO'lkCflNA Sensitivity: Cc r PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NO.: 21CV3 80972 The undersigned declares: 1am a citizen 0f the United States and am employed in the County 0f Contra Costa, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f 18 years and not a party t0 the within action. I am employed by Law Office 0f Catherine Walsh, and my business address is 1800 Sutter Street, Suite 260, Concord, CA 94520. On September 10 , 2021, I served the attached ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the parties t0 said action as follows: For Plaintiff Anna Dubrovsky, Esq. Anna Dubrovsky Law Group Inc 750 Battery St Ste 700 San Francisco, CA 941 11 415-746-1477 anna@dubrovskylawyers.com BY MAIL. Iprovided a true copy 0f each documents and attachments t0 be placed thereof in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail. _XX BY ELECTRONIC MAE: E-mailing the document(s) t0 the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed based 0n notice previously provided that, during the Coronavirus (C0Vid-19) pandemic, this office will be primarily working remotely, unable t0 send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. N0 electronic message 0r other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received Within a reasonable time after the transmission. BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Iprovided a true copy 0f each document t0 be delivered by personal service 0n the above individual. Executed 0n September 10 , 2021. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct.W JENINE ADAMS fidential