Answer Response No Fee

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

Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 12/28/2021 10:17 AM Reviewed By: I. Murillo Case #21CV381434 Envelope: 7941412 SKAGGSIFAUCETTELLP #WN OQOOQONU‘I 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JASON M. SKAGGS (NO. 202190) SKAGGS FAUCETTE LLP Email: jason@skaggsfaucette.com 530 Lytton Avenue, 2nd Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: 650/617-3226 Facsimile: 650/644-0200 Attorneys for Defendant KATHERINE STRATTON AS TRUSTEE OF STRATTON SURVIVORS TRUST A AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE STRATTON BYPASS TRUST SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA COUNTY MCPHARLIN SPRINKLES AND THOMAS LLP, Plaintiffs, V. VASILI STRATTON, an individual, KATHERINE STRATTON AS TRUSTEE OF STRATTON SURVIVORS TRUST A, KATHERINE STRATTON AS TRUSTEE OF THE STRATTON BYPASS TRUST, THALIA STRATTON AS TRUSTEE OF THE STRATTON GRANDCHILDREN’S TRUST, SAMOS ENTERPRISES, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive Defendants. N0. 210v381434 KATHERINE STRATTON’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT K. STRATTON ANSWER SKAGGSIFAUCETTELLP \Oooflc‘x 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ANSWER Defendant Katherine Stratton As Trustee Of Stratton Survivors Trust A and As Trustee Of The Stratton Bypass Trust (“Katherine”)1 hereby answers the unverified Complaint of Plaintiff McPharlin Sprinkles And Thomas LLP as set forth herein below. GENERAL DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 43 1 .30(d), Katherine generally denies each and all 0f the allegations 0f Plaintiff’s Complaint and each purported cause of action therein, and, without limitation on the generality of the foregoing, deny that Plaintiff has been damaged in any amount, 0r at all, by reason of any act or omission of any Defendant and further deny that Plaintiff is entitled t0 any 0f the relief sought by the Complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Katherine sets forth below her affirmative defenses. Each affirmative defense is asserted as t0 each and every cause 0f action unless otherwise noted. By setting forth these affirmative defenses, Katherine does not assume the burden ofproof or persuasion with respect to any fact, issue 0r element 0fa cause of action where such burden properly belongs to Plaintiff. Nothing stated herein is intended 0r shall be construed as an acknowledgment that any particular issue or subject matter is relevant to Plaintiff’ s allegations. Katherine reserves the right to assert such other defenses as continuing investigation and discovery may disclose. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure To State A Claim) 1. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because each purported cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, including, but not limited to, the lack of competing claims to the funds at issue. lDue to common last names, the Stratton family will be referred t0 by their first names herein, with no disrespect intended. K. STRATTON ANSWER -1 _ SKAGGSIFAUCETTELLP \DOONONUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHr-Ir-tr-‘r-tp-Awp-AH OOQC‘xUI-bWNr-‘OCOOQONUIAWNr-‘O SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) 2. Plaintiff“ s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffhas engaged in conduct and activities and/or wrongdoing with respect to the underlying transaction and refusal t0 release the funds at issue sufficient to constitute a waiver ofthe claims alleged in the Complaint. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 3. Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine 0f estoppel by reason of its conduct, acts and/or omissions. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Consent) 4. Plaintiff’ s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the other defendants and/or their agents gave their consent, express or implied, to the release 0f the funds at issue FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unjust Enrichment) 5. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole 0r in part, by the doctrine 0f unjust enrichment in that Plaintiff’s recovery 0f attorneys fees or any other relief would be unjust under the circumstances of this case. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 6. Plaintiff‘s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Samos Case) 7. All 0f Katherine’s claims and arguments in the Samos case (Case N0. 19CV349730) are K. STRATTON ANSWER -2- SKAGGSIFAUCETTELLP \OOONONUIAUJNid NNNNNNNNNHHHr-tu-th-nr-nr-ny-nH OONONMkWNHOCOONQUl-PUJNHO incorporated by reference herein. WHEREFORE, Katherine prays for the entry ofjudgment in her favor and against Plaintiff as follows: 1. That the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and with prejudice; 2. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of the Complaint; 3. That Katherine be awarded any legally recoverable costs, expert Witness fees, and attomeys’ fees in defending agairist the Complaint; 4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: December 28, 2021. Respectfully, By: Attorney for KATHERINE STRATTON AS TRUSTEE OF STRATTON SURVIVORS TRUST A AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE STRATTON BYPASS TRUST K. STRATTON ANSWER -3-