Cross Complaint

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.May 10, 2021

©W\l0\UI£MNH NNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH \IGNUIRDJNHOQWQGNUIhMNHG 28 COLLINS+ COLLINS.» Ryan P. Harley, Esq. (SBN 245059) Lauren B. Fazio, Esq. (SBN 337941) COLLINS + COLLINS LLP 2175 N California Boulevard, Suite 835 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (510) 844-5100 - FAX (510) 844-5101 Email: rharley@ccllp.law Email: lfazi0@ccllp.law Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant PARADIGM STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, INC. Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 12/1 6/2021 9:18 AM Reviewed By: I. Murillo Case #21 CV382867 Envelope: 7877929 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff VS. PARADIGM STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, INC. and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive, Defendants. PARADIGM STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, INC., Cross-Complainant, vs. ROES 1 TO 20, inclusive, Cross-Defendants. 22816 -XCPARADIGM CASE NO. 21CV382867 DEFENDANT PARADIGM STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. . Contribution / Apportionment2 3. 4 5 6. Equitable Indemnity Breach 0f Contract - General . Breach 0f Contract - Express Indemnity . Declaratory Relief - Immediate Duty t0 Defend Declaratory Relief - Hold Harmless Release Complaint Filed: 05/10/2021 Trial Date: None 1 PARADIGM’ S CROSS-COMPLAINT ©WQQM£MNH NNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH \IGNUIBMNHG\OW\IO\UI£MNHG 28 COLLINS+ COLLINS.» Defendant PARADIGM STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, INC. (“Paradigm” 0r “Cross- Complainant”) cross-complains 0f cross-defendants and alleges: Nature 0f this Cross-Complaint 1. This is a Cross-Complaint by Paradigm against Roes 1-20 for equitable indemnity and contribution / apportionment, and against Roes 1-20 for breach of contract - general, breach 0f contract - express indemnity, and declaratory relief. Other parties are responsible for the injuries and damages alleged in the Plaintiffs’ operative complaint. Other parties owe, but are failing to perform, contractual obligations. Paradigm seeks declaration 0f the parties’ rights and obligations, including the duty that other parties have t0 immediately defend Paradigm in this lawsuit. The Parties 2. Cross-Complainant Paradigm is a California corporation that does business in this country and the state of California at all times mentioned herein. Paradigm’s principal place of business is located at 639 Front Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 941 1 1. 3. Cross-Defendants ROES 1-20 are unknown person(s), business entities, and/or public entities, who are and/or were licensed t0 d0 business and were doing business in the State 0f California at all relevant times mentioned herein. 4. The true names and capacities 0f Cross-Defendants ROES 1-20, inclusive, are presently unknown to Paradigm, and for that reason they have been sued herein by their fictitious names. Paradigm is informed and believes, and hereby alleges that each 0f said fictitiously named Cross- Defendants is in some manner responsible for the acts and transactions complained of herein and for Plaintiffs” damages as herein alleged. Paradigm will seek leave to amend this Cross-Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named Cross-Defendants once Paradigm knows them. 5. Paradigm is informed and believes that Cross-Defendants are actively and primarily responsible for the alleged defects, damages, events, and happenings referred t0 in this Cross- Complaint and/or in Plaintiff” s Complaint in that Cross-Defendants, and each 0fthem, were negligent in carrying out their respective duties. Paradigm is informed and believes that Cross-Defendants’ failures and active negligence are the sole and proximate causes 0f the alleged damages, if any. 22816-XCPARADIGM 2 PARADIGM’ S CROSS-COMPLAINT ©W\l°\UI£MNH NNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH \IGNUIBMNHOQWQGNUIhMNHG 28 COLLINS+ COLLINS.» 6. Paradigm is informed and believes that at all times mentioned herein, each Cross-Defendant was the agent and/or employee of each of the remaining Cross-Defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the scope 0f such agency and/or employment, and that each Cross-Defendant ratified and approved of the facts 0f each of the remaining Cross-Defendants. Jurisdiction and Venue 7. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court 0f the State of California for this county, Which is a court 0f general jurisdiction. 8. Personal jurisdiction over all Cross-Defendants is proper under California Code of Civil Procedure, section 410.10, which provides that California courts are authorized t0 exercise jurisdiction over parties “on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution.” 9. Paradigm is informed and believes that personal jurisdiction over all Cross-Defendants is proper because they are residents 0f the State 0f California and this county, they have purposeful contacts with the California forum, and/or they performed acts and consummated transactions in California giving rise to the allegations and claims in this Cross-Complaint. 10. Paradigm is informed and believes that venue is proper in the Superior Court 0f the State 0f California for this county because the wrongful conduct alleged herein took place, in Whole 0r in part, in this county. First Cause 0f Action (Equitable Indemnity Against ROES 1-20) 11. Paradigm incorporates all preceding paragraphs in this Cross-Complaint, inclusive, as if set out in full in this First Cause of Action. 12. Plaintiffs alleges in their operative complaint that they sustained damage. Paradigm is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that if Paradigm is found liable to Plaintiff in any amount, then it will be due solely t0 the actions 0f Cross-Defendants. Cross-Defendants were each actively negligent and primarily responsible for the damages for which Plaintiffs complain. 13. If Paradigm is found liable t0 either Plaintiff, then Paradigm is entitled t0 be indemnified and be held harmless under the principles of equitable indemnity by Cross-Defendants, and each ofthem, either from all damages or from a percentage based upon principles of comparative 22816 -XCPARADIGM 3 PARADIGM’ S CROSS-COMPLAINT ©WQQM£MNH NNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH \lGNUIhMNHOQWQGNUIfiMNHG 28 COLLINS+ COLLINS.» fault, including, but not limited t0, costs and expenses in defending this lawsuit in its entirety. Second Cause of Action (Contribution/Apportionment Against ROES 1-20) 14. Paradigm incorporates all preceding paragraphs in this Cross-Complaint, inclusive, as if set out in full in this Second Cause of Action. 15. Each Plaintiff alleges in the operative complaint that they sustained damage. Paradigm alleges that if it is found liable to Plaintiff in any amount, then it Will be due solely to the actions of Cross-Defendants. Cross-Defendants were each actively negligent and primarily responsible for the damages for Which Plaintiffs complain. 16. Paradigm alleges that it’s liability, if any, should be compared t0 the liability of the Cross-Defendants. Cross-Defendants, and each of them, are entirely liable or partially liable in a percentage which the Court and jury should determine. Should a judgment be rendered Paradigm for damages allegedly sustained by either Plaintiff, that in equity and good conscience should be borne by Cross-Defendants, and each 0fthem, in such an amount as is their comparative fault, and Paradigm should each be entitled to total or partial contribution from Cross-Defendants. Third Cause of Action (Breach of Contract - General Against ROES 1-10) 17. Paradigm incorporates all preceding paragraphs in this Complaint, inclusive, as if set out in full in this Third Cause of Action. 18. Paradigm entered into written contract(s) With Cross-Defendants for the purpose 0f performing work related to the RiCloud property. Paradigm fully performed all obligations imposed upon it by the contract(s). Cross-Defendants breached the contract in numerous respects including, but not limited t0, by failing to procure appropriate insurance, failing to name Paradigm as an additional insured on purchased insurance, entering into these contracts without the intention of honoring them, and failing t0 adhere t0 the contract requirements. 19. As a proximate, legal, and direct cause of the foregoing, Paradigm has suffered damages in an amount that Will be quantified at the time of trial. Paradigm incorporates its below Prayers for Relief as appropriate. 22816 -XCPARADIGM 4 PARADIGM’ S CROSS-COMPLAINT ©WQQM£MNH NNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH \IGNUIRDJNchmflGNUIhMNHG 28 COLLINS+ COLLINS.» Fourth Cause 0f Action (Breach of Contract - Express Indemnity Against ROES 1-10) 20. Paradigm incorporates all preceding paragraphs in this Complaint, inclusive, as if set out in full in this Third Cause 0f Action. 21. Paradigm entered into written contract(s) with Cross-Defendants for the purpose of performing work related to the RiCloud property. Paradigm fully performed all obligations imposed upon it by the contract(s). Cross-Defendants breached the contract in numerous respects including, but not limited to, by failing to defend, indemnify, and/or hold Paradigm harmless in this lawsuit. 22. As a proximate, legal, and direct cause of the foregoing, Paradigm has suffered damages in an amount that will be quantified at the time 0f trial. Paradigm incorporates its below Prayers for Relief as appropriate. Fifth Cause of Action (Declaratory Relief - Immediate Duty t0 Defend Against ROES 1-10) 23. Paradigm incorporates all preceding paragraphs in this Cross-Complaint, inclusive, as if set out in full in this Fifth Cause 0f Action. 24. Paradigm is informed and believes that an actual controversy exists between the parties relating to their respective rights and duties related to this lawsuit. Paradigm fully performed its contractual obligations. Cross-Defendants owe Paradigm a contractual duty t0 immediately defend Paradigm in this lawsuit. Paradigm is informed and believes that Cross-Defendants dispute the foregoing. 25. The judicial determination 0f the rights the parties is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that Paradigm ascertains its rights. Sixth Cause 0f Action (Declaratory Relief - Hold Harmless Release Against ROES 1-10) 26. Paradigm incorporates all preceding paragraphs in this Cross-Complaint, inclusive, as if set out in full in this Sixth Cause 0f Action. 27. Paradigm is informed and believes that an actual controversy exists between the parties relating t0 their respective rights and duties related to this lawsuit. Paradigm fully performed 22816 -XCPARADIGM 5 PARADIGM’ S CROSS-COMPLAINT ©W4QM£MNH NNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH \lGNUIhUJNHOQWQGNUIfiMNHG 28 COLLINS+ COLLINS.» its contractual obligations. Cross-Defendants promised t0 hold Paradigm harmless, Which is an effective release of Cross-Defendants’ claims against Paradigm in this lawsuit. Paradigm is informed and believes that Cross-Defendants dispute the foregoing. 28. The judicial determination of the rights the parties is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that Paradigm ascertains its rights. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Paradigm prays for judgment against Cross-Defendants, and each 0f them, for: For the First and Second Causes of Action 1. Damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 2. Costs and expenses of this lawsuit; 3. Prejudgment interest in accordance With the law; 4. Contribution and/or apportionment pursuant to each Cross-Defendants’ comparative fault; and 5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. For the Third and Fourth Causes 0f Action 1. Damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial; 2. Costs and expenses of this lawsuit; 3. Prejudgment interest in accordance with the law; 4. Attorney fees as allowed by contract and/or law; and 5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. For the Fifth and Sixth Cause 0f Action 1. An order adjudicating the right and duties of the parties, including Cross-Defendants’ duty to defend and/or hold Paradigm harmless in this lawsuit; and 2. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 22816 -XCPARADIGM 6 PARADIGM’ S CROSS-COMPLAINT H DATED: December 16, 2021 COLLIN? COLLINS’ LLP Lauren F3210 RYAN P. HARLEY Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant PARADIGM STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, INC. \OWQQUIhMN NNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH \IGNUIRUJNHOQWQONUIhMNHG 28 COLLINS+ COLLINS.» 22816 -XCPARADIGM 7 PARADIGM’ S CROSS-COMPLAINT ©WQQM£MNH NNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH \IGNUIRUJNHOQWQONUIhMNHG 28 COLLINS+ COLLINS.» State of California, ) County of Contra Costa. ) business address is 2175 N California Boulevard, Suite 835, Walnut Creek, California 94596. INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: QM9PPH addressed as follows. D E gSTATEz - I declare under penalty ofpeljury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. D gEEDERA 2- I declare that I am employed 1n the office of aWmembe‘a‘fgem bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. KEL\Y FORSTE kforst cllp.lawy 22816 -XCPARADIGM 8 PROOFOFSERVKI: (CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) SS. I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party to the within action; my On this date, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANT PARADIGM STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, Equitable Indemnity Contribution / Apportionment Breach 0f Contract - General Breach of Contract - Express Indemnity Declaratory Relief- Immediate Duty to Defend Declaratory Relief- Hold Harmless Release on the interested parties in this action by placing same in a sealed envelope, SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST jfiY MAIL! - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid t0 be placed in the United States mail in Walnut Creek California to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service list. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collectior and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited With the U.S. Postal Service 0n that same day Witf postage thereon fully prepaid at Walnut Creek, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the part3 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date 0f deposit for mailing in affidavit. (BY CERTIFIED MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) With postage thereon fully prepaid Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requestec t0 be placed in the United States Mail in Walnut Creek, California. FEDERAL EXPRESS - I caused the envelope t0 be delivered to an authorized courier 0r driver authorized t0 receive documents Witl“ delivery fees provided for. (BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND/OR SERVICE) -I served a true copy, with all exhibits, electronically on designated recipients listed 0n the attached service list. ELECTRONIC SERVICE PER CODE CIV. PROC. 1010.6 - By prior consent 0r request 0r as required by rules 0f cou11 (Code CiV. Proc., § 1010.6 (amended Jan. 1, 2021); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013(g); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(a)). (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) - I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the office(s) of the addressee(s). Executed on December 16, 2021 at Walnut Creek, California. PARADIGM’ S CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 Scottdale Insurance Company v. Paradigm Structural Engineers Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number: 21CV382867 2 CCLLP File Number: 22816w 3 4 Awadalla Vasiliki, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY T. SCHNEIDER 5 4685 Macarthur Court, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-553-1359 - Fax 855-880-5646 6 Awadav 1 @nationwide.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF SCOTTSDALE 7 INSURANCE 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS+COllINSm 22816 -XCPARADIGM 9 PARADIGM’ S CROSS-COMPLAINT