Answer Cross Complaint

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 1, 2021

I Kevin P. Courtney, Esq. SBN¹76133 Law Offices of Kevin P. Courtney 2 17415 Monterey Rd. ¹204 Morgan Hill, CA 95037-3668 3 408-779-5101 (voice) 408-779-6833 (fax) 4 kevin'urtneylawgroup.corn Attorney for Plaintiffs 5 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 8 JOSEPH H~ SHANNON HAAR., Case Noc 21CV381430 Plaintiff, newer to Cross-Complaint 10 vs. Complaint fded: April 1, 2021 11 STEVEN E. SivtiTH, SAIL%TOGA PAVERS, SILVE 12 CONTRACTORS, INC. GEICYLER H. SILVA and 13 DOES 1-10, inclusive, 14 Defendants. 15 16 STEVEN E. SMITH dba SARATOGA PAVERS, 17 Cross-Complainant, 18 vs. 19 JOSEPH HAAR, SHANNON HAAR, and 20 MOES 1-10, inclusive. 21 Cross-Defendants. 22 23 Cross-Defendants answer the cross-complaint on file herein as follows: 24 25 1. These answering cross-defendants admit the allegations in paragraphs 2, 5, 6, 17. 2. These answering cross-defendants have neither information nor belief and on that basis deny on information and belief the allegations in paragraphs I, 3, 4, 12, 16, 21, 24 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/27/2021 9:39 AM Reviewed By: Desiree Alfaro Case #21CV381430 Envelope: 6929537 21CV381430 Santa Clara - Civil Desiree Alfaro 3. These answering cross-defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26. 4. These answering cross-defendants assert the following as affirmative defenses: 4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ¹I 5 (Failure to State Sufficient Facts) 6 The complaining party is barred from seeking the relief as prayed for in the pleadings being responded tc7 herein because complaining party has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in each and every 8 cause of action in the pleading being responded to. 10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ¹2 (Unclean Hands) 12 The complaining party is barred &urn seekmg the relief prayed for in the pleading being responded tc 13 herein from JOSEPH HAAR AND SHANNON HAAR because the complaining party does not come into a court oi 14 equity with clean hands and the complaining party is guilty of wrongful conduct in connection with the transaction or subject matter as described in the pleadings being responded to herein. 17 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ¹3 (Failure to Mitigate Damages) Complaining party and its agents have failed to mitigate the damages alleged in the pleading being19 responded to herein and in each alleged cause of action contained therein.20 21 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ¹4 22 (Failure or Lack of Consideration) 23 The Complaining party is barred from seeking the relief prayed for in the pleading being responded tc 24 herein because there has been a failure or lack of consideration. 25 I AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ¹5 2 (Laches) 3 The complaining party has lost any right to relief against JOSEPH HAAR AND SHANNON HAAR4 through laches, in that he has failed to take timely action to assert his rights, if any, and this delay has causec 5 substantial prejudice to JOSEPH HAAR AND SHANNON HAAR. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ¹6 (Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) The transaction of relationship between the parties and their agents imposed upon the parties a duty of gooc 10 faith and fair dealing. Complaining party and their agents have engaged in acts, omissions or conduct whicl constitute a breach of that duty and which were calculated to prevent Defendant from performing its obligations. 12 13 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ¹7 14 15 (Estoppel) The complaining party is estopped from asserting the allegations contained in each and every alleged cause of action contained in this pleading being responded to herein by reason of the acts, omissions, representations, anc16 courses of conduct of the complaining party and his agents, upon which JOSEPH HAAR AND SHANNON HAAR17 relied to his prejudice and detriment. 18 19 20 21 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ¹8 (Accord and Satisfaction) The complaining party is barred from seeking the relief prayed for in the pleading being responded tc 22 herein because an accord and satisfaction was entered between that complaining party and Defendant. 23 24 25 I AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ¹9 2 (Conditions Subsequent) 3 The complaining party is barred &om seeking the relief prayed for in the pleading being responded tc 4 herein because there was a failure of an independent condition subsequent to JOSEPH HAAR AND SHANNON 5 HAAR's obligation to act or omit to act as alleged in the pleading being responded to herein. WHEREFORE, this cross-defendant prays that the cross-complaiaaots take nothing by way of its complaint aod that this answering cross-defendant, JOSEPH HAAR AND SHANNON HAAR., be awarded reanbursemeot for 9 reasonable attorney's fees, costs aod such other and further rehef as the Court deems just and proper. 10 12 13 14 15 16 Dated: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 Kevin P. Courtney, Esq. SBN¹76133 Law Offices of Kevin P. Courtney 17415 Monterey Rd. ¹204 Morgan Hill, CA 95037-3668 408-779-5101 (voice) 408-779-6833 (fax) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25