Answer Unlimited Fee AppliesCal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 26, 2021\OOONO‘xUl-PUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 26 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 CV381411 Santa Clara - Civil A. Villanueva Electronically Filed LAW OFFICES OF MELANIE D. JOHNSON by Superior Court of CA, $798 Techcnxlggy 1%rilv3eé98te 238 County of Santa Clara, an Jose, 511 - . Electronic Address: SanJoseLegaKaDallstate.c0m on 7/27/2021 ?0'59.AM Telephone: (408) 392-6961 geV'egze1dc33é-8?A¥1I"anueva By; DEVEREAUX RENDLER E:\jzlo e_ 6930680State Bar No. 118680 p ' Our File No. 0541725750. 1-CRC Attorneys for Defendants: DAN YANG AND HUI YANG SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNLA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA - UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION RE_B_EKA SINAI BENITEZ, an CASE N0. 21CV381411 m‘hVIdual’ ANSWER T0 COMPLAINT Plaintiff, VS. DAN YANG, an individual, HUI YANG, an individual; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. Defendants. Defendants, DAN YANG AND HUI YANG, allege as follows: 1. The Defendants, DAN YANG AND HUI YANG, answering all the paragraphs in the unverified Complaint herein and by Virtue of the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, now generally denies/deny each and every allegation therein contained and the whole thereof. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. That the cause 0f action stated in the Complaint herein is barred by the applicable statutes 0f limitation including the provisions 0f California Code 0f Civil Procedure Sections 335.1 and 338, et seq. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. That the complaint fails t0 state facts sufficient t0 constitute a cause 0f action 1 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT \OOONONUI-PUJNp-t NNNNNNNNNHHh-tb-Ab-h-Hb-h-H OOflom-PWONHOCOOQONMLWNF-‘O entitling Plaintiff t0 damages. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. That Defendant is entitled t0 an offset 0r setoff from any damages in amounts according to proof. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. That the complaint is barred due to a misjoinder or defect 0f parties 0r due t0 a lack of standing. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. That at the alleged time and place in question, Plaintiff so negligently and carelessly acted as to proximately cause and contribute t0 the happening 0f the accident complained 0f, and to whatever injury or damage, if any, Plaintiff claims to have sustained. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. That if Plaintiff received any injuries, and/or damages, if any, as a result of the incident complained of herein, then said Plaintiff proximately caused, aggravated and/or failed t0 take proper action t0 mitigate and/or reduce said injuries if any, 0r damages, if any. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. Defendant’s liability, if any, for Plaintiffs non-economic damages, is limited t0 Defendant’s proportionate share 0f fault in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1431.2. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. If it should be found that any answering party herein is in any manner legally responsible for injuries or damages, if any, sustained by any Plaintiff(s), which supposition is not admitted but merely stated for the purpose of this defense, that any such injuries 0r damages found to have been incurred 0r suffered by said Plaintiff in this action was proximately contributed to or by other Defendants 0r Cross-Defendants in this case, whether served or not served and/or by other persons 0r companies, Whether made parties t0 this action 0r not, be determined and prorated, and that any judgment that might be rendered against any answering party herein be reduced not only by that degree 0f contributory negligence and/or assumption 0f 2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT \OOONONUI-PUJNp-t NNNNNNNNNHHh-tb-Ab-h-Hb-h-H OOflom-PWONHOCOOQONMLWNF-‘O risk found to exist as t0 any Plaintiff, but also as to the total 0f that degree of negligence and/or fault found to exist as to said other persons 0r companies. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times Plaintiff was acting in the course and scope 0f his employment and that Plaintiff’s recovery is limited t0 the exclusive remedies provided by the California Labor Code relating t0 worker’s compensation law. WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by reason 0f the Complaint and that Defendants be given judgment for costs 0f suit incurred herein and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: July 26, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF MELANIE D. JOHNSON cf _ __-_ M 4% 2 I, ._:'/ K By: DEVEREAUX RENDLER Attorney for Defendants DAN YANG AND HUI YANG 3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT \OOONO‘xUl-PUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 26 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ICCP 1010.6(a)(2)(A)(i). 1010.6(a)(2)(A)(ii), CRC 2.251(c)(3), 2.251(b)] I am employed in the County 0f Santa Clara, State 0f California, I am over the age of eighteen (18) years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1798 Technology Drive, Ste 238, San Jose, CA 95 1 10-1399. That the necessity resulting from Executive Order N-33-20 (also referred to as the “Stay-at-Home Order") issued 0n March 19, 2020, by the Governor 0f the State 0f California in response to the Covid-19 virus which has presented a national emergency as declared by the President 0f the United States, has resulted in this office’s use 0f remote working staff members and the interruption 0f our normal capabilities t0 accept, dispatch and process physical mail causing the use of electronic service as this office’s principal means of dispatch. On July 26, 2021, I caused the within ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the patty 0r parties named 0n the attached mailing list t0 be served, by dispatching a true and correct copy thereof Via electronic mail (e-mail) addressed as follows: Neil J. Berry, Esq. MAKKABI LAW GROUP, APC Email: info@makkabilaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, REBEKA SINAI BENITEZ N0 electronic message or other notice that the transmission electronically sent was unsuccessfully dispatched, was received Within a reasonable period after the transmission. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the foregoing Proof of Service is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed 0n July 26, 2021, at San Jose, California. Alice Shore Email: SanJoseLegal@allstate.com 4 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
