Answer Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 25, 2021

Sensitivity: Cc r LAW OFFICES OF CATHERINE A. WALSH Elecuomcally Flled BY: Catherine A. Walsh-- BAR N0 124289 by Swen” court 0f CA, Attorneys AtLaW County of Santa Clara, 1800 Sutter Street, Suite 260, on 6/3/2021 10:00 AM Concord, California 94520 Reviewed By; L De| Munc Attorneys and; Support Staffare Employees 0f Case #21 CV381 329 GEICO StaflCounsel Department Envelope: 6571 51 9 Telephone: 925-825-9500 Fax: (925) 825-9716 Attorneys for Defendant, NATHAN DANIEL KALINOWSKI SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION DAVID LINARES AKA CARLOS DAVID CASE NO. 21CV381329 LINARES FARRERAS, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PLAINTIFFS, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO VS- Hon. NATHAN DANIEL KALINOWSKI; AND DEPARTMENT: 19 DOES 1 TO 50, DEFENDANTS. COMES NOW defendant, NATHAN DANIEL KALINOWSKI, and answers the complaint 0fDAVID LINARES AKA CARLOS DAVID LINARES FARRERAS, as follows: Pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure, Section 431.30, this answering defendant(s) denies both generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in each and every paragraph 0f said complaint; defendant(s) further denies that plaintiff has been Page 1 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT fidential O Sensitivity: Cc r 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, David Linares, 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 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 plaintiff was injured and/or damaged, as set forth in plaintiff‘s complaint, 0r 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 Page 2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT fidential Sensitivity: Cc r 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 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 0f herein. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This answering defendant(s) alleges that plaintiff was 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. Page 3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT fidential Sensitivity: Cc r 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. Dated: June 3, 2021 LAW FIfiO THERINE A. WALSH III. II By: Catherine A. Walsh, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant, NATHAN DANEIL KALINOWSKI Page 4 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT fidential OLOOONOUO‘l-bOONA NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mem¥®NAO©mVO§CTI¥CDNA Sensitivity: Cc r PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NO.: 21CV381329 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 Offices 0f Catherine A. Walsh, and my business address is 1800 Sutter Street, Suite 260, Concord, California 94520. On June 3 , 2021, Iserved the attached ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 0n the parties t0 said action t0 the addressed as follows: For Plaintiff John V. Mejia, Esq. Scranton Law Firm/ Thuy Le 2450 Stanwell Drive Concord, California 94520 925-602-2727 - Telephone 925-676-9999 - Facsimile johnm@scrant0nlawfirm.com BY MAE. 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 June 3 , 2021. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct.W Janine Adams fidential