Answer Limited 10K and 25K

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

H NNNNNNNNNHHt-‘r-‘r-r-‘r-Ap-Hr- WQC‘x‘Jl-PWNF-‘OOOO‘JQMAWNP-‘O \Dooflmm'AmN 0mm L Michael Panetta 101 W Weddell Dr Apt 353 ' Sunnyvale, CA 94089 F ‘ L E D Phone: 408-480-1 162 _ A 1: 5? Email: mpanettal7@yahoo,com 1 ZUN JUN l H FL? K '1: Ti‘E 1 S i [n Pro Per {9C m LOUAC ' SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA -- MAIN COURTHOUSE DISCOVER BANK, Case No.2 21CV38 1231 Plaintiff, LIMITED CIVIL DEFENDANT MICHAEL PANETTA’S V- ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF DISCOVER BANK’S COMPLAINT MICHAEL PANETTA, and DOES 1-10, ' inclusive, Complaint Filed: May 3,2021 Defendant. Trial Date: None Defendant, MICHAEL PANETTA (“Defendant”), hereby submits his Answer to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff, DISCOVER BANK (“Plaintiff”), as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Defendant generally denies each and every allegation 0f Plaintiff’s complaint and for a further defense Defendant alleges the following affirmative defenses: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff has failed t0 state an essential element for one 0r more of its causes 0f action, Specifically: the Plaintiff did not state the date the: contract was entered into; the Plaintiff did not state the date the contract was breached or otherwise not complied with; and the Plaintiff failed t0 adequately describe the material terms 0f the contract or attach a COpy of the contract as an exhibit to the complaint. /// DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT I \OOOQQU‘I-hwww NNNNNNNNNHr-‘t-‘u-tp-HHv-r-nv-I W‘JGMAWNHOOWQONMAMNHO SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate Damages) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff has failed to take reasonable steps t0 reduce or minimize the damages experienced. Specifically, the Plaintiff has: refilsed t0 accept a reasonable settlement offered by the Defendant, and by refusing this reasonable settlement has incurred additional interest, attorney fees, and court costs unnecessarily. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE {Unclean Hands! The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff has committed a wrongdoing, and this lawsuit is attempting to benefit from this wrongdoing. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (m1 The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s assignor owes money or other valuable consideration t0 the Defendant, or has not properly credited payments made, or has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and/or Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unjust Enrichment) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is seeking t0 recover more than Plaintiff is entitled t0 recover in this case, and award of the judgment sought by the Plaintiff would unjustly enrich the Plaintiff. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) Plaintiff’s claims are barred under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.1. Plaintiff has failed to adhere to the provisions and guidelines set forth in 15 U.S.C § 1692b t0 1692j in its attempts to collect the alleged consumer debt. /// ' /// DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 2 \OOOQONLh-bmwh. NNNNNNNNNfi-‘F-‘r-r-r-th-r-‘r-Hn- wqomngNF-‘OOOOQGMQWNP‘O SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Truth-In-Lending Act) Plaintiff failed t0 make disclosures req'uired by the Federal Truth-In-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Right to Amend! Defendant reserves the right to amend his Answer, to assert additional affirmative defenses and to supplement, alter 0r change his Answer and affirmative defenses upon revelation 0f more definitive facts by the Plaintiff and upon the undertaking of discovery and investigation in this matter. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack 0f Consideration) Plaintiff’s causes of action, and each ofthem, against Defendants are barred, in whole or in part, by the defense of lack 0f consideration. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure of Consideration) Plaintiff’s causes 0f action, and eéch of them, against Defendants are barred, in whole 0r in part, by the defense 0f failure 0f consideration. h ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Improper Notice 0f Breach) Plaintiff‘s causes of action, and each 0f them, against Defendants are barred, in whole 0r in pafi, by the defense 0f improper fiotice of breach. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Breach 0f Implied Covenant 0f Good Faith) Plaintiff is barred from obtaining the relief they seek against Defendant by virtue of Plaintiff’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in all contractual relationships. /// DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 3 KOOO'QQLh-waa-u NNNNNNNNNHHHHo-H-‘r-‘fir-u OOQONM-bWNHONOOOQONm-wa-‘O THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute 0f Frauds) Plaintiff” s causes of action, and each of them, against Defendants are barred, in whole 0r in part, by the defense of statute 0f frauds. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Attornejs’ Fees Not Recoverable) Plaintiff is barred from obtaining attorney’s fees in this case as there is n0 contract provision, statute, or other agreements that entitles Plaintiff t0 recover attorney’s fees. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays.for award/judgment as follows: 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by its Complaint and claims therein and that an award/judgment be entered herein in favor 0f Defendant; 2. For reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred herein; 3. For costs of suit incurred herein; and, 4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper Dated; M Pry QQHA ,2021 IN PRO PER M&W Michael Panetta DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 4