Answer Amended

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 29, 2021

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 CV381421 Santa Clara - Civil V. Castan Electronically Filed Scott D. Miller, Esq. - (SBN 66874) - MILLER MILLER GERBER LLP by S”'°e"°r cw” °f CA’ ATTORNEYS AT LAW county Of santa Clara, 18301 Von Karman Ava, Ste. 950 0n 12/28/2021 2:51 PM Irvine, CA 92612 Reviewed By: V. Castaneda (7 14) 450-3800 Case #21 CV381 421 (714) 450-3801 Envelope: 7944679 Attorneys for Defendant, CAMERON HALL SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA VALLEY CASE NO.: 21CV381421 TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY DEFENDANT CAMERON HALL’S Plaintiff, AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT _Vs_ CAMERON HALL, an individual; EAN Complaint Filed: March 29, 2021 HOLDINGS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. COMES NOW Defendant, Cameron Hall, and answers Plaintiff” s unverified Complaint for themselves and no other Defendants as follows: Answering Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action thereof, pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure, §43 1 .30, Subdivision (d), this Answering Defendant denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations 0f said Complaint and further deny that Plaintiffwas damaged in the sum 0r sums alleged, 0r in any sum, or at all. / / / / / / _ 1 _ DEFENDANT CAMERON HALL’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT eda 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AS A FIRST SEPARATE, FURTHER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That Plaintiff s Complaint, and each and every cause 0f action contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Answering Defendant. AS A SECOND SEPARATE, FURTHER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That Plaintiff s Complaint, and each and every cause 0f action contained therein, fails t0 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Answering Defendant. AS A THIRD SEPARATE, FURTHER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That at all times relevant herein, Plaintiff failed t0 use ordinary care, caution 0r prudence for his own health, safety and well-being and said failure proximately resulted in all or some portion 0f the loss, damage, and/or injury, if any, alleged t0 have been suffered by Plaintiff; and that Plaintiff is thereby barred and precluded from recovering all 0r such portion of said alleged damage t0 the extent that Plaintiff was responsible therefore. AS A FOURTH SEPARATE, FURTHER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: _ 2 _ DEFENDANT CAMERON HALL’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 That if Plaintiff sustained any loss, damage 0r injury at 0r about the time and place alleged, the same were the direct and proximate result 0f a risk, if any risk there was, knowingly assumed by Plaintiff; and that Plaintiff is thereby barred and precluded from recovery herein. AS A FIFTH SEPARATE, FURTHER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: Under and pursuant to the terms of Civil Code §§ 1431.1 through 1431.5, Plaintiff is barred and precluded from recovery against this Answering Defendant for any non-economic damages except those allocated t0 these defendants in direct proportion t0 their percentage 0f fault, if any such fault or damages there be. AS A SIXTH SEPARATE, FURTHER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: This claim is limited t0 economic damages, pursuant to Civil Code § 3333.4. AS A SEVENTH SEPARATE, FURTHER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That the complaint and each cause 0f action therein is barred by the applicable Statute 0f Limitations, pursuant to California Code 0f Civil Procedure § 340. /// /// /// _ 3 _ DEFENDANT CAMERON HALL’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT .p \DOOQONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AS A EIGHTH SEPARATE. FURTHER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES: That this answering defendant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at the time and place alleged herein, that Jay Gadingen was gainfully employed and working in the course and scope of her employment; that if plaintiff, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, has suffered 0r sustained any loss, damage or injury, as alleged in the Complaint; or at all, the same were proximately contributed t0 by the negligence 0f plaintiff, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority; and that the plaintiff, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, as the employer 0f Jay Gadingen, and the workers' compensation carrier for the employer, are thereby barred and precluded from recovering all 0r such portion 0f the workers' compensation benafits paid 0r Which in the future may be paid to plaintiff arising out 0f the incident, including but not limited to all sums paid or provided for medical treatment, temporary disability, permanent disability, and/or legal expenses incident thereto, to the extent that said negligence of plaintiff, plaintiffs co-employees and/or plaintiff‘s employer proximately contributed t0 the alleged loss, damage 0r injury. DEMAND FOR JURY Defendant, Cameron Hall hereby requests a jury trial in the above-captioned matter. WHEREFORE, this Answering Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of his Complaint; 2. That this Answering Defendant be dismissed together With costs 0f suit incurred; 3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: December 28, 2021 MILLER MILLER GERBER LLP ATTORNEYS/AT WI. /- 46% W ”3L I S‘cfitt D. Miller, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant, CAMERON HALL BY: _ 4 _ DEFENDANT CAMERON HALL’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT .p \OOOQONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF 0FSERVICE (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority v. Hall, et al.; Case N0. 21CV381421) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the County 0f Orange, State of California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 18301 Von Karman Ave., Suite 950, Irvine, CA 92612 On December 28, 2021, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANT CAMERON HALL’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: David W. Hughes, Esq. Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi LLP One Capitol Mall, Ste. 400 Sacramento, CA 958 14 T: 925-499-4999 F: 925-348-9710 E: dhughes@1flm.com [XX] ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Only by emailing the document(s) t0 the persons at the e-mail address(es). This is necessitated during the declared National Emergency due t0 the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic because this office Will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message 0r other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. We Will provide a physical copy, upon request only, When we return to the office at the conclusion 0f the national emergency. [ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered such envelope by hand to the office of the addressee. [ ] BY FEDERAL EXPRESS: I caused said envelope to be sent by overnight delivery to the addressee. [ ] BY FACSIMILE: I caused said documents to be transmitted by fax and the transmission was reported as complete and without error from (714) 450-3801. A copy of the transmission report is attached t0 the proof 0f service. I declare under penalty 0f perjury pursuant to the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 28, 2021 at Irvine, California.W ATHENA REDDERSEN _ 5 _ PROOF OF SERVICE