AnswerCal. Super. - 3rd Dist.June 9, 2021 Lauren E. Britt State Bar No. 302086 CARBONE, SMITH & KOYAMA ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1610 ARDEN WAY, SUITE 190 SACRAMENTO, CA 95815-4035 (916) 480-1059 EMAIL: LAUREN.BRITT@CSAA.COM ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DANA WAYNE JOHNSON _______________________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION PAMELA RAE MAUPIN, Plaintiff, v. DUANE JOSEPH GORHAM, DANA WAYNE JOHNSON, NIKUNJ A. PATEL, P.V. HOLDING CORP., dba AVIS BUDGET GROUP, THOMAS RICHARD DOROW, ERIC RICHARD WICK, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. SCV0046822 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT COMES NOW DEFENDANT DANA WAYNE JOHNSON and answers the complaint on file herein as follows: 1. Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, this answering defendant generally denies each and every allegation of the complaint, and the whole thereof, and further denies that plaintiff has been or is now or will be damaged to the extent alleged or to any other extent. AS AND FOR FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, ANSWERING DEFENDANT AVERS: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. The incident or incidents complained of by plaintiff herein were caused, in whole _______________________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 or in part, by the negligence of the plaintiff. Any recovery by plaintiff in this case must be reduced by that percentage of the plaintiff’s negligence which contributed to the incident or incidents. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. Plaintiff failed to use reasonable care to mitigate, in whole or in part, the damages alleged in the complaint. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. Damages complained of by plaintiff herein were caused, in whole or in part, by acts and omissions of persons other than this answering defendant, which other persons may or may not be named as defendants in this action. This answering defendant should only be required to pay that portion of the plaintiff’s damages attributable to this answering defendant pursuant to Civil Code sections 1431.2 and/or 1432. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. The complaint and/or causes of action therein are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, specifically including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1; 337; 338(a),(b),(c),(d) and (j); and 339. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at the time of the incident which is the subject of this action plaintiff was not insured as required by the state's financial responsibility laws, and/or that plaintiff was driving in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152 and/or 23153 for which violation(s) plaintiff was convicted. Therefore, plaintiff’s recovery, if any, must be limited to economic damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3333.4. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. The complaint and/or causes of action therein fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. Plaintiff acted with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding _______________________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the alleged injury and thus assumed the risk of injury if any. WHEREFORE, defendant prays: 1. That plaintiff takes nothing; 2. For costs of suit herein; and 3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: August 30, 2021 CARBONE, SMITH & KOYAMA __________________________________ Lauren E. Britt Attorneys for Defendant Dana Wayne Johnson Digitally signed by Lauren E. Britt Date: 2021.08.30 13:06:24 -07'00' _______________________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Maupin v. Gorham Placer County Superior Court Case No. SCV0046822 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Catherine M. Murphy, am a citizen of the United States and employed by the office of Carbone, Smith & Koyama located at 1610 Arden Way, Suite 190, Sacramento, CA 95815-4035. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to this action. On the below date, I served the accompanying ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the parties in said action addressed as follows: Evan A. Wolfe, Esq. Law Offices of Evan A. Wolfe 12120 Herdal Drive Auburn, CA 95603 Attorney for Plaintiff (530) 889-8000 BY MAIL: By placing a true and correct copy of the document(s) for collection and mailing on the date set forth below, following ordinary business practices at the above business address of my employer, in a sealed envelope, with postage fully paid. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the offices of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Dated: August 30, 2021 __________________________________ Catherine M. Murphy Digitally signed by Catherine M. Murphy Date: 2021.08.30 13:07:14 -07'00'
