Answer: Mona Tovar vs Rebecca Dee Te Velde et.al.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                FIL
fr surcnion count STOCK TON
CRAIG A. CALDWELL, CAL. BAR NO. 88551

LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW G. SALAZAR 2018 NOV 27 py 3: 26
2251 Harvard Street, Suite 100 a “
acramento, OSA JUNO
(916) 921-9353 UEIRO. CLERK
Fax: (916) 921-9040 Deaey Yo Gala
EPUT
Attorneys for Defendants

BERNARD TE VELDE and REBECCA DEE TE VELDE, Trustees of the 2000 Te Velde

Family Trust 1 up?
ee Bel nel
BASS:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
MONA TOVAR, Individually and as Special }
Administrator of the Estate of Carlos
Alexander Tovar, Deceased, and IZAIAH ; CASE NO. STK-CV-UPI-2018-10826
TOVAR and OLIVIA TOVAR, Minors, by J
and through their Guardian ad Litem, MONA ) ANSWER. TO PLAINTIFFS" 2
TOVAR, UNVE T FO
OVA } DAMAGES BY DEFENDANTS
a ) BERNARD TE VELDE AND REBECCA
Plaintiffs, } DEE TE VELDE, TRUSTEES OF THE
2000 TE VELDE FAMILY TRUST
v. }
BERNARD TE VELDE and REBECCA DEE )
TE VELDE, Trustees of the 2000 Te Velde }
Family Trust, HOLT REPAIR & Judge: Hon. Roger Ri
MANUFACTURING, INC., and DOES ONE } mt a {gt Roger Ross
through ONE-HUNDRED, inclusive, } Complaint filed: 8/30/2018
Defendants. ;
)

COME NOW defendants, BERNARD TE VELDE and REBECCA DEE TE VELDE,
Trustees of the 2000 Te Velde Family Trust, each in answer to plaintiffs’ unverified complaint on
file herein as follows:

Pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, defendant
denies generally each and every allegation of the complaint and each cause of action therein, and

further denies that any plaintiff was or will be damaged in any sum or sums whatsoever.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

 

Use
VP

BY FAXJ

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Plaintiff's Comparative Negligence)

AS A SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to plaintiffs’ complaint, and to each
cause of action thereof, each defendant alleges by way of a plea of comparative negligence thal the
plaintiffs were negligent in and about the matters and activities alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint,
that said negligence contributed to and was a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and
damages, if any, and that if the plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages against this defendant by
virtue of plaintiffs’ complaint, defendant prays that said recovery be diminished by reason of the

negligence of the plaintiffs in proportion to the degree of fault attributable to the plaintiffs.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Negligence of Decedent)

AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to plaintiffs’ complaint,
and to each cause of action thereof, each defendant alleges each plaintiff is barred from recovery
by the careless, negligent and willful conduct or misconduct of the decedent, or by reason of his or
her legal responsibility for similar such conduct of others, including his or her agents, partners, or

joint venturers, all of which proximately caused any damage claimed in this action.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)

AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to plaintiffs’ complaint,
and to each cause of action thereof, each defendant alleges that plaintiffs have failed to state facts

sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendants.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)

AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to said complaint, and to
each cause of action thereof, each defendant alleges that plaintiffs failed to take reasonable

measures to decrease or eliminate the damages of which plaintiffs now complain.

 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINTa

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Proposition 51)

AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to plaintiffs” complaint,
each answering defendant alleges that other defendants in this lawsuit, as well as other persons and
entities not parties to this lawsuit, were themselves responsible for the plaintiffs’ damages, if any
there were. This defendant requests that its liability, if any, be assessed in proportion to the
liability of other co-defendants, persons and entities who are not parties to this action, and that
defendant be required to pay only for its proportionate share of fault, if any there be. It is further
requested that the court order and determine that the liability, if any, of this answering defendant
for any damages shall be joint and several only for economic damages, and that this defendant’s
liability for non-economic damages be allocated to this answering defendant in direct proportion to

any percentage of fault attributable to these answering defendants.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Negligence of Others)

AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, each defendant alleges
that if there was any negligence proximately causing the injuries, loss and/or damages sustained by

the plaintiffs, if any, such negligence was that of parties other than this answering defendant.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Proximate Cause)
AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, each defendant alleges
that any act or omission by defendants was not the proximate cause of any injuries suffered by

plaintiffs.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Compliance with Standard of Care)
AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, each defendant alleges
that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and Plaintiffs’ are precluded from any recovery in this action

because each defendant at all times complied with the standard of care required of defendants.

 

 

 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT20

21

22

23,

24

25

26

27

28

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Assumption of Risk)
AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, each defendant alleges

that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Govt. Code Immunities and Defenses)

AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, each defendant alleges
that each act or omission alleged in the Complaint falls within the immunities and defenses
provided by the California Government Code, including but not limited to Government Code §
846.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Superseding, Intervening Causes)
AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, each defendant alleges
that all injuries claimed herein resulted from superseding, intervening causes for which there can

be no relief granted.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unforeseeability)
AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, each defendant alleges
that all injuries claimed herein resulted from unforeseeable events for which defendants can have

no liability and for which there can be no relief granted.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
{Open and Obvious Condition)
AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, each defendant alleges
that If there was a defect in the condition of defendants’ property, which defendants expressly

deny, any such defect was open and obvious.

 

 

 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT24

25

26

27

28

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Trivial Defect)
AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, each defendant alleges
that if there was a defect in the condition of defendants’ property, which defendants expressly
deny, the defect was a minor, trivial and insignificant defect, which did not create a substantial

tisk of injury.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Proposition 51)
AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, each defendant alleges
that he, she, or it is not joint and severally responsible for non-economic damages sustained by the
plaintiffs, if any, and that the judgment must take into account the proportionate liability of these

answering defendants for such non-economic damage pursuant to Civil Code § 1431.2.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Maritime Law Inapplicable)
AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, each defendant alleges
that the complaint fails to state facts upon which relief can be granted under General Maritime
Law.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment against Plaintiffs as follows:
1. That plaintiffs take nothing by reason of their complaint herein;
2. That defendants have judgment for costs of suit herein incurred;

3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

   

Dated: November 27, 2018 (AW OFFICE OF MATTHEW G. SALAZAR.

 

Craig A. Caldwell

Attorney for Defendants BERNARD TE VELDE and
REBECCA DEE TE VELDE, Trustees of the 2000
Te Velde Family Trust

 

 

 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT23

a4

25

26

27

28

 

 

Tovar v. Te Velie, ef al.
San Joaquin County Superior Court Case #STK-CV-UPI-10826

PROOF OF SERVICE

lam a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Sacramento; I am over the
age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Law Office of
Matthew G. Salazar, 2251 Harvard Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, California, 95815. I am readily
familiar with the business practice of Law Office of Matthew G. Salazar of collecting and processing
of pleadings and correspondence for mailing and depositing with the United States Postal Service that
same day in the ordinary course of business; so that on the date indicated below, | served the
following document(s):

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BY
DEFENDANTS BERNARD TE VELDE AND REBECCA DEE TE VELDE, TRUSTEES OF
THE 2000 TE VELDE FAMILY TRUST

on the parties in said cause, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as
follows:

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorney for Defendant and Cross-Defendant Holt
Doug S. Saeltzer Repair & Manufacturing, Inc.
Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger Malcolm D. Schick
650 California Street, 26" Floor Erica C. Gonzalez
San Francisco, CA 94108 G&P Schick
T: (415) 981-7210; F: (415) 358-4522 99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 740
spahlke@walkuplawolfice.com San Jose, CA 95113-1605

T: (408) 995-5050; F: (408) 995-5150
Michael B. Bassi info@epschicklaw.com
Michael B. Bassi, A Law Corporation evonzalez@epschicklaw.com

333 Bush Street, Suite 1100

San Francisco, CA 94104

T: (415) 986-8122; F: (415) 986-0733
mbbassi@bassilaw.com

xX] U.S. POSTAL SERVICE by placing a true and correct copy of the aforementioned
document(s) in a sealed envelope and placing in the mail depository at my place of business,
with postage prepaid, addressed as listed above, [Code of Civ. Proc. § 1013a(3)]

(1 FACSIMILE by transmitting the aforementioned document(s) by facsimile at the number
indicated above, which is maintained by said party, and verifying receipt of same. A true and
correct copy of the transmission report is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference. [Code of Civ. Proc. § 1013(e), (D]

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed on November 27, 2018, at Sacramento, California.

he &y. Zorn "
e ELL] FANNING