AnswerCal. Super. - 3rd Dist.August 1, 2017as 8 | 10 12 | 13 | 141 15 16 17 18 19 | 20 .. i a | 22 | 23 | 24 25 26 IL. j} | Kevin J, Tully, Esq., SB#079559 LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. TULLY 411 Borel Avenue, Suite 505 San Mateo, CA 94402. - |! Telephone; (650) 377-0708 fae EE ceo | Facsimile: 650) 377-0606 SUPERIOR Cx : (650) ton Sout oF o CAdtroRNA Attorneys for Defendant. AUG 31 2047 FORD MOTOR COMPANY : JAKE CHATTER EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2 CLERK By: C, Valian- -Brown, Deputy SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER || JIM CRUM, } Case No: SCV0039799. _ ) Plemtif ). DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S vs. y ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES | FORD MOTOR COMPANY, and DOES, 1 } | Hirongh | 10, inclusive, ) : ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) COMES NOW defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY answering plaintifPs unverified complaint on file herein, admits, denies, and alleges as. follows: This answering defendant denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the allegations in said complaint and each cause of action therein contained. | Further, answering said complaint and each cause of action therein contained, this answering i defendant denies that plaintiffs have sustained damage in any sum or sums, or otherwise, or at all due to any act or omission on the part of this answering defendant. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 1 10 11 12 13 14 15, 16 | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 © © AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, itis alleged that the complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as against this answering defendant. AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, it is alleged that the complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute; a cause of action for punitive damages as against this answering defendant, AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, it is alleged that each’ purported cause. of action appears to be barred by the applicable statute off limitations, namely Sections 337, 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339 and/or 340 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and/or Section 2725. of the California Comm Code, and Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports (1991) 234 Cal. App 3d 205, as well as UCC Sec. 2725. AS AND: FOR. A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, it is alleged that the complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state a cause. of action under! Civil Code Section 1790, et seq., otherwise known as the "Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act", which pertains, inter alia, to warranties accompanying new consumer products and/or new motor vehicles. AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, it is alleged that plaintiffs were guilty of negligence in and about the matters and things complained off in the complaint, and that such negligence on the part of plaintiffs contributed directly and proximately, to the happenin: of the accident, and to the damages, if any, sustained by plaintiffs. Further, it is ptayed that if plaintiffs recover a verdict in this case, that the same shall be reduced proportionately by| the percentage of negligence attributed to the plaintiffs as a proximate cause of the incident. AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, it is alleged that the injuries sustained by plaintiffs, if any, were either wholly or in part negligently caused by persons; firms, corporations or entities other than defendant, and that said negligence is. either] ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 2 10 rr 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 at 22 23 25 26 27 28 y ©) Oo imputed to plaintiffs by reason of the relationship of said patties to plaintiffs and/or said negligence, , comparatively reduces the percentage of negligence, if any, by this answering defendant. AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, it is alleged that plaintiffs failed, subsequent to the occurrence described in the complaint, to properly mitigate damages and are thereby precluded from recovering. those damages which could have reasonably been avoided by the exercise of due care on the part of plaintiffs. AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, it is alleged that no: timely or reasonable notice was given to defendant of the alleged breach of warranty. AS AND FOR A SEPARATE. AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, it is alleged -that plaintiffs, and/or persons, firms, corporations or entities other than defendant, misused| and abused said. product and/or failed to use said product for the purpose for which it was intended, which misuse and abuse is imputed to plaintiffs, thereby barring any recovery by plaintiffs herein. AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, it is alleged that any claim for incidental and/or consequential damages are effectively precluded by thel reasonable disclaimer set forth in the express warranty and given by defendant FORD MOTOR! COMPANY as to such matters at the time of purchase. WHEREFORE, defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY prays that plaintiffs take nothing by the complaint on file herein, that defendant be hence dismissed with costs, and for such. other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. DATED: AugustZs5 2017 LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. TULLY _f , Kevin J. Nilly in NY efo\dan CS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 3 10 ul 12 13 4 15 16 17 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROOF OF SERVICE Jim Crumy, Ford Motor Company Placer County Superior Court No. SCV0039799 Tama citizen of the United States and employed in the County of San Mateo, State of California, where this service occurs. Tam over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. I am an employee of the Law Offices of Kevin J. Tully; my business address is 411 Borel Avene, Suite 505, San Mateo, California 94402, Lam readily familiar with my employer’s normal business practice for collection and processing of correspondence, On the date set forth below, following ordinary business practice, I served the foregoing document(s) described as follows: DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES XX = BY MAILE on the following party(ies). in said action, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013(a), by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope, first-class postage fully prepaid, in a designated area for outgoing mail, addressed as set forth below. In the ordinary course of business in the.firm of Law Offices of Kevin J, Tully, mail placed in that location is deposited that same day-in a'U.S. mailbox in the City and County:of San Mateo. ‘ BY PERSONALLY DELIVERING a.true. and correct copy thereof, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1011, to the person(s):and at the address(és) set forth below BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY on the following party(iés) in said action, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013 ( ¢), by placing a true copy thereof'in a sealed envelope, with delivery fees paid of provided for, in-a designated area for outgoing overnight mail, addressed as set forth below. BY FACSIMILE/ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION in accordance: with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(€) to the following party(ies) at the facsimile muber(s) indicated. This transmission was reported ag complete and without error, and a copy of the transmission report which was issued by the transmitting facsimile machine is.attached to the original Proof. Attorney Name/Address/Tel/Fax Attorneys for Plaintiff: Deborah L. Horowitz Jim Crum: The California Lemon Law Group, Inc. 11440 West Bernardo Court, Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92127 FAX: 858-759-2502 e-mail: Debbie@Californial emonLawGroup.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the. State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, . Executed at Sai Mateo, California, on August (J? 2017. PROOF OF SERVICE - 1
