AnswerCal. Super. - 3rd Dist.June 9, 2021 Page 1 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 Sensitivity: Confidential LAW OFFICES OF ANN MARIE DEFELICE BY: Marshal R. Parks-- BAR NO 296684 Attorneys At Law 11060 White Rock Road, STE 250 Rancho Cordova, California 95670 Attorneys and; Support Staff are Employees of GEICO Staff Counsel Department Telephone: 916-465-9965 Fax: 916-635-5296 Attorneys for Defendant, JACKIE KRAMEK PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT UNLIMITED JURISDICTION RORY AIRHEART, PLAINTIFFS, VS. JACKIE KRAMEK DOES 1 TO 10, DEFENDANTS. CASE NO. S-CV-0046840 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT COMES NOW defendant(s), Jackie Kramek, and answers the complaint of Rory Airheart, as follows: Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 431.30, this answering defendant(s) denies both generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in each and every paragraph of said complaint; defendant(s) further denies that plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or sums whatsoever, or at all, whether it is alleged in plaintiff’s complaint or otherwise. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Page 2 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 Sensitivity: Confidential At the time and place of the accident referred to and alleged in plaintiff's Complaint, the plaintiff, Rory Airheart, did so negligently and carelessly entrust, manage, operate, control and drive said motor vehicle so as to proximately cause and contribute to the accident and resulting injuries and damages, if any. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This answering defendant(s) alleges that the accident, and any or all injuries and/or damages caused therefrom, were due to the negligence of plaintiff and persons other than this answering defendant(s). THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant(s). FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by the Statute of Limitations since the events alleged causing personal injuries to the plaintiff, occurred more than two (2) year prior to the filing of said complaint, and said complaint was not filed within two (2) year of the occurrence of said event as is required by Statute. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This answering defendant(s) alleges that if plaintiff was injured and/or damaged, as set forth in plaintiff's complaint, or in any other way, sum or manner, or at all, then said injuries and/or damages, and the whole thereof, proximately and concurrently resulted from and were caused, in whole or in part, by plaintiff's failure to exercise ordinary care for the protection of his person and/or property at the time and place mentioned in plaintiff's complaint. Page 3 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 Sensitivity: Confidential SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The injuries alleged by plaintiff, if any, were proximately caused by the negligence and liability of other persons or entities, and this answering defendant(s) requests that an allocation of such negligence and liability be made among such other persons or entities, and that, if any liability is found on the part of this defendant(s), judgment against said defendant(s) be only in the amount which is proportionate to the extent and percentage by which this answering defendant's acts or omissions contributed to plaintiff's injuries or damages. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole, or in part, by the doctrine of Accord and Satisfaction. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole, or in part, because this answering party is entitled to an offset paid to, or for the benefit of plaintiffs for damages allegedly suffered as a result of the incident complained of herein. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This answering defendant(s) alleges that plaintiff was capable of and failed to mitigate damages. Therefore, any amount awarded to plaintiff for damages suffered should be reduced by that amount which plaintiff would have avoided by taking reasonable steps to do so. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims for general damages are barred on the grounds that they, and each of them, failed to comply with the requirements of the state’s financial responsibility laws, as required in Civil Code §3333.4. Page 4 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 Sensitivity: Confidential WHEREFORE, this answering defendant(s) prays that plaintiff take nothing by way of their Complaint, judgment for costs of suit incurred herein and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: September 9, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF ANN MARIE DEFELICE By: Marshal R. Parks, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant, JACKIE KRAMEK 1 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 Sensitivity: Confidential PROOF OF SERVICE RORY AIRHEART v. JACKIE KRAMEK CASE NO.: S-CV-0046840 The undersigned declares: I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County of Kern, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. I am employed by Law Offices of Ann Marie DeFelice, and my business address is 11060 White Rock Road, STE 250, Rancho Cordova, California 95670. On September 9, 2021, I served the attached ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the parties to said action to the addressed as follows: For Plaintiff John A. Mason, Gurnee Mason Rushford Bonotto & Forestiere, LLP 2240 Douglas Blvd., Suite 150 Roseville, CA 95661 john@gurneelaw.com martha@gurneelaw.com ___X_____BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: E-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed based on notice previously provided that, during the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, this office will be primarily working remotely, unable to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. Executed on September 9, 2021. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Erika Garnica _______________________________ Erika Garnica
