AnswerCal. Super. - 3rd Dist.November 25, 2019$ 5 O - 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GEORGE F. VOGT, JR., SBN 107310 LINDSAY L. VOLLE, SBN 305199 HERRIG & VOGT, LLP 4210 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 100 Granite Bay, California 95746-5902 Telephone: (916) 960-1000 Facsimile: (916) 960-1005 Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Complainants, RONALD D. HART and MINDA HART IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER JEDIAH HOFFMAN dba HOFFMAN Case No.: SCV0044093 EXCAVATING dba JHD AG SOLUTIONS, DEFENDANTS RONALD D. HART Plaintiff, AND MINDA HART’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT VS. RONALD D. HART, a married man; MINDA COMPLAINT FILED: NOVEMBER 25, HART, a married woman; and DOES 1 through 2019 50, inclusive, Defendants. RONALD D. HART, a married man; MINDA HART, a married woman Cross-Complainant, vs. JEDIAH HOFFMAN dba HOFFMAN EXCAVATING dba JHD AG SOLUTIONS; and DOES 1-50, Cross-Defendants. Defendants/Cross-Complainants RONALD HART, a married man, and MINDA HART, a B Y * F A X married woman, (herein “Defendants” or “HARTS”) hereby responds to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff JEDIAH HOFFMAN dba HOFFMAN EXCAVATING dba JHD AG SOLUTIONS, a California sole proprietorship (herein “Plaintiff”), as follows -l- RONALD D. HART AND MINDA HART’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30, Defendant generally denies allegation contained within the Complaint filed by Plaintiff. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1, As a first separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE a As a second separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's Complaint, and the causes of action contained therein, is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible, and that recovery thereon is therefore barred. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. As a third separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff has not been damaged in the sums alleged, or in any sum, or at all. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. As a fourth separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that the willful, intentional, deliberate, malicious and fraudulent conduct of Plaintiff was responsible for and proximately contributed to the damages alleged to have been sustained by it, if any such damages were sustained, the fact of which is expressly denied, and that such conduct constitutes a bar to Plaintiff's recovery hereunder. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3: As a fifth separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that any recovery hereunder by Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. As a sixth separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that any r@coyery hereunder by Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of laches. > SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE aa Ts As a seventh separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that to the extent that -2- RONALD D. HART AND MINDA HART’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT a o n N a N 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ai ae 23 24 2 26 at 28 Plaintiff alleges any breach, default, or failure to perform on the part of Defendants under any agreement between the parties, or otherwise, the fact of which is expressly denied, then such breach, default, or failure to perform was legally excused and discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the material breach, default, or failure to perform on the part of Plaintiff under such agreement or otherwise. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. As an eighth separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that to the extent that Plaintiff alleges any breach, default, or failure to perform on the part of Defendants under any agreement between the parties, or otherwise, the fact of which is expressly denied, such alleged breach, default, or failure to perform has been waived by Plaintiff. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. As a ninth separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that to the extent that Plaintiff alleges any breach, default, or failure to perform on the part of Defendants under any agreement between the parties, or otherwise, the fact of which is expressly denied, then one or more conditions precedent to the effectiveness of such agreement, or other understanding, or to the obligation of Defendants to perform thereunder, or to the obligation of Defendants to refrain from breaching or defaulting thereunder, were never satisfied. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. As a tenth separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that to the extent that Plaintiff alleges any breach, default, or failure to perform on the part of Defendants under any agreement between the parties, or otherwise, the fact of which is expressly denied, Plaintiff is estopped to assert any such claimed breach, default, or failure to perform, or to recover therefore. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE x 11. As an eleventh separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that thegyfully performed all agreements and acts required of them and fulfilled all contractual and other dutfes-and obligations owed to the Plaintiff and therefore owe no other duty or obligation to Plaintiff. mM Mf =F = RONALD D. HART AND MINDA HART’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a 28 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. As a twelfth separate and affirmative defense, Defendants are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege, that Plaintiff has failed to join all indispensable parties as Defendants in its action herein. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. Asa thirteenth separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that each and every cause of action in Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure, sections 339 and/or 340. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14, As a fourteenth separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that damages suffered by Plaintiff, if any, that may be the liability of Defendants must be reduced by the damages suffered by Defendants that are Plaintiff's liability under the doctrine of equitable setoff. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. Asa fifteenth separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that the intervening and/or supervening intentional acts or negligent acts of Plaintiff and/or one or more third parties, other than Defendants, was responsible for and proximately contributed to the damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff, if any such damages were sustained by Plaintiff, the fact of which is expressly denied, and recovery hereunder; or alternatively, that any damage awarded to Plaintiff hereunder should be recoverable from each party only in direct proportion to the respective degree of fault attributed to each such party. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. As a sixteenth separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages, if any such damages were sustained, the fact of which is expregsly denied, and that such failure to mitigate damages constitutes a bar to Plaintiff's recovery against Defendants. > SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ~ 17. As a seventeenth separate and affirmative defense, Defendants are informed and -4- RONALD D. HART AND MINDA HART’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT S N DS oo 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 believe, and upon such information and belief allege, that Plaintiff's claim is barred by a failure of consideration and failure of performance. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. As an eighteenth separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that to the extent that Plaintiff alleges any breach, default or failure to perform on the part of Defendant under any agreement between the parties, or otherwise, the fact of which is expressly denied, then such agreement, or other understanding, was amended and/or modified so as to cure any such breach, default or failure to perform on the part of Defendants. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19. Asanineteenth separate and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that the damages purported to have been suffered by Plaintiff, if any such damages were sustained, the fact of which is expressly denied, are the direct and proximate result of conduct of persons other than Defendants. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20. | Asatwentieth separate, and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that the complaint and all causes of action alleged therein are barred because Plaintiff failed to adequately describe the material terms of the contract or attach a copy of the contract as an exhibit to the complaint. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Zhi As a twenty-first separate, and affirmative defense, Defendants allege that the Plaintiff is seeking to recover more that Plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action, and award of the judgment sought by Plaintiff would unjustly enrich the Plaintiff. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22. | Asatwenty-second separate and affirmative defense, Defendants may be entitled to a certain defense to which they are not yet aware. Defendants reserves their right to plead these re defenses at a later time, or to amend this response to conform to proof at trial as necessary. Ci Hl > ll oe I! -5- RONALD D. HART AND MINDA HART’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT O o C O N D 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRAYER WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment against Plaintiff on all causes of action set forth in the Complaint as follows: 1, That Plaintiff takes nothing by way of its Complaint against Defendant; 2 That Plaintiff's Complaint be entirely dismissed with prejudice; Ze That judgment thereupon be entered in favor of Defendant; 3. For reasonable attorney’s fees; 4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 5. For such other reasonable and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Date: February 18, 2020 HERRIG & VOGT, LLP Attorngy for Defendan}/Cross-Complainants RONALD D. HART ahd MINDA HART BY F A X -6- ~ RONALD D. HART AND MINDA HART’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE CCP § 1013a(3) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF PLACER ) I, the undersigned, declare as follows: Iam over 18 years of age and nota party to the within action; my business address is 4210 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 100, Granite Bay, California; I am employed in Placer County, California. On February 18, 2020, I served a copy of the accompanying document(s) entitled: DEFENDANTS RONALD D. HART AND MINDA HART’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT On the interested parties listed on the attached Service List as follows: xX and correct, and that the declaration was executed on February 18, 2020, at Granite Bay, California. BY U.S. MAIL By following ordinary business practice, placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service where it would be deposited for first class delivery, postage fully prepaid, in the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. [_] Certified Mail - Receipt No. ([_]See Attached Service List) [_] Return Receipt Requested BY FACSIMILE By transmitting the document(s) listed above from Herrig & Vogt, LLP in Granite Bay, California to the facsimile machine telephone number(s) set forth on the attached service list. This facsimile machine complies with Rule 2.301 of the California Rules of Court. Service by facsimile transmission was made pursuant to agreement of the parties confirmed in writing. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - FEDERAL EXPRESS By depositing copies of the above documents in a box or other facility regularly maintained by Federal Express, in an envelope or package designated by Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided for. BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE (via individual persons) By electronically transmitting the document(s) listed above to the email address(es) of the person(s) set forth on the attached service list. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. See Rules of Court, rule 2.260. BY PERSONAL SERVICE By causing personal delivery the document(s) listed above to the offices at the address(es) shown on the attached service list. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is t BY F A X - 4 Vit charto, 4 Ve Michaelle Mize 8 1 PROOF OF SERVICE SERVICE LIST Name(s) of Attorney and Firm Attorneys for//Owners of Record: Address: Cruz Rocha Jediah Hoffman dba Hoffman . Excavating dba JHD AG Solutions Murphy, Austin, Adams, Schoenfeld, LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 850 Sacramento, CA 95814 T; 916-446-2300 F: 916-503-4000 E-Mail: CRocha@murphyaustin.com BY F A X
