Answer Limited 10K and 25K

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

lO ll 12 l3 l4 l5 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sensitivity: Confidential Electronically FiledLAW OFFICES OF CATHERINE A. WALSH -b S erorCo rtofCA, CHANDRANI MANDAL, (SBN 321 149) ciuxtz olf Sam: c|ara 1800 gutter Street, suite 260 on 6/16/2021 8:57 AM ’ Concord, CA 94520 Reviewed By: L Del Mundo 925-825-9500; Fax (925) 825-9716 Case #21 cv331 243 Email: CMandal@GEICO.com Envelope: 6653619 Attorneys for Defendant SOHEIL SHABABI SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA LIMITED JURISDICTION STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE CASE NO. 21CV381248 INSURANCE COMPANY, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Plaintiff, (Date Complaint Filed: May 3, 2021) V. SOHEIL SHABABI, AND DOES 1-40, INCLUSIVE, Defendant. COMES NOW Defendant SOHEIL SHABABI and answers the Complaint of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as follows: Pursuant t0 California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 43 1 .30, this answering Defendant denies both generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in each and every paragraph 0f said Complaint; defendant further denies that Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or sums whatsoever, 0r at all, whether it is alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint or otherwise. 1 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT lO ll 12 l3 l4 l5 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sensitivity: Confidential FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At the time and place 0f the accident referred t0 and alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint, the Plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and Plaintiff s insured driver did s0 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 This answering Defendant alleges that the accident, and any or all injuries and/or damages caused therefrom, were due t0 the negligence 0f Plaintiff’s insured driver and persons other than this answering Defendant. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs Complaint, and each cause 0f action thereof, fails t0 state sufficient facts t0 constitute a cause 0f action against this answering Defendant. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by the Statute of Limitations since the events alleged causing property damages t0 the Plaintiff, occurred more than three (3) year prior t0 the filing of said Complaint, and said Complaint was not filed Within three (3) year of the occurrence of said event as is required by Statute. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This answering Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff was injured and/or damaged, as set forth in Plaintiff‘s Complaint, or in any other way, sum 0r 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 Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiff s insured driver’s failure t0 exercise ordinary care for the protection 0f his/her person and/or property at the time and place mentioned in Plaintiffs Complaint. 2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT lO ll 12 l3 l4 l5 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sensitivity: Confidential SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The injuries alleged by Plaintiff, if any, were proximately caused by the negligence and liability of other persons or entities, and this answering Defendant requests that an allocation of 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, judgment against said Defendant be only in the amount Which is proportionate t0 the extent and percentage by Which this answering Defendant’s acts 0r omissions contributed to Plaintiff‘s injuries 0r damages. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole, or 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 Defendant is entitled t0 an offset paid to, 0r for the benefit of Plaintiff for damages allegedly suffered as a result 0f the incident complained 0f herein. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was capable 0f and failed to mitigate damages. Therefore, any amount awarded to Plaintiff for damages suffered should be reduced by that amount Which Plaintiff would have avoided by taking reasonable steps t0 do so. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims for general damages are barred 0n the grounds that they, and each of them, failed t0 comply with the requirements 0f the state’s financial responsibility laws, as required in Civil Code §3333.4. /// /// 3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1 WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays: 2 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by reason 0f the Complaint; 2. That Defendant has judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs 0f suit herein incurred; and 3. For such other and further relief as to the Court seems just and proper. 8 DATED: June 15, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF CATHERINE A. WALSH 1: wax, 12 CHANDRANI MANDAL 1 3 Attorney for Defendant l 4 SOHEIL SHABABI 15 l6 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Sensitivity: Confidential lO ll 12 l3 l4 l5 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sensitivity: Confidential PROOF OF SERVICE (C.C.P. $1013(a)(1)(3) [State Farm V. Shababil Santa Clara Superior Court Limited CASE NO.: 21CV381248] The undersigned declares: I am 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 the Law Offices of Catherine A. Walsh, and my business address is 1800 Sutter Street, Suite 260, Concord, CA 94520. On June 16, 2021, I served the attached ANSWER TO COMPLAINT the parties t0 said action, addressed as follows: [ x ] BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: E-mailing the document(s) to 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. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received Within a reasonable time after the transmission. For Plaintiff, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Richard L. Mahfouz II, Esq. Alice Shapiro, Esq. Clerkin, Sinclair & Mahfouz, LLP 530 B Street, 8th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 619-308-6550 rlmahfouz@clerkinlaw.com ashapiro@clerkinlaw.com Executed on June 16, 2021. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. GD Wwwfl DANA MCDANIEL 1 PROOF OF SERVICE - ANSWER