Preview
._a
Law Oflices 0f
D
m E
_
MICHAEL P.
AND ASSOCIATES
RING .-
3
F l
gEfikiffiilmflnx F ____
State Bar #95922 UESDWVCé‘l’gKM
W
Michael 9. Ring,
_
1234 Santa Barbara Street
'
Santa Barbara, CA 93101 2 ‘1
V -——--
(805)564-2333 om; 5, park,“ 5mm," 0,, ,
CA
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PATSY MOLER
BY Qua. .
FIN _-
-@
;
J
—
\OOO\IO\UIAUJN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
m
PIY
_
-
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
i
Patsy Moler,
ANACAPA
)
DIVISION
Case No. 1417847
COD
ST — 5
'
ANSWER TO
)
CROSS-COMPLAINT
.._
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) (Assigned to the Hon. James E. Herman)
)
Chris Hulme, and dba
.
individually )
DOES
.
Clearview Industries, Inc., and 1 )
through 10, inclusive )
)
Defendants. )
)
Clearview Industries, Inc.,
NND—lD—lD—ID—fib—lb—lD—II—iD—‘D—l
.
)
)
SBHOWOONCAUIAUJNHO
Cross-Complainant, )
v. )
)
Patsy Moler, et a1, )
)
Cross-Defendants. )
)
COMES NOW Defendant Patsy Moler, who, for herself alone, responds to the Cross-
Complaint as follows:
1. This answering Defendant denies specifically and generally that she is liable to Cross-
Complainant in the amount claimed, or in any sums whatsoever, and further denies that there isany
basis for the finding of liability against this answering Defendant.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
2. As a first affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows:
Cross-Complainant isbarred from asserting itsclaims based upon the doctrine of unclean hands.
3. As a second affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows:
1
COMPLAINT
Cross-Complainant’s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, including, but not
limited to CCP §§338, 339, & 340.
AWN 4. As a third affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows:
Cross-Complainant did not suffer any injury from any allegedly conduct of this answering Cross-
Defendant and/or decedent.
5. As a fourth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows:
the Cross-Complaint,
\OOO\lO\M
including each purported claim contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient
5toconstitute a cause of action.
6. As a fifth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows:
10 ICross-Complainant failed to take such steps, or took such steps, such that the alleged damages, if
11 any, were not mitigated or were increased as the result of said conduct.
12 7. As a sixth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows:
13 All the damages claimed by Cross-Complainant, if any exist, were caused in whole or in part by the
14 acts and omissions of Cross-Complainant and/or third parties, and/or the employees and agents
15 thereof.
16 8. As a seventh affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows:
17 Cross-Complainant is barred from itsclaims as itwould be unjustly enriched if it recovered damages,
18 in whole or in part, as alleged from this answering Cross-Defendant.
19 9. As an eighth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows:
20 the Cross-Complaint and the whole thereof fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
21 10. As a ninth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows:
22 The Cross-Complainant is barred from seeking the relief claimed based upon failure of
23 iconsideration.
24 11. As a tenth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows:
25 Cross-Complainant isbarred from seeking the relief claimed by the doctrine of estoppel.
26. 12. As an eleventh affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as
'
27 follows: The Cross-Complainant isbarred from seeking the relief claimed pursuant to the provisions
28 of Civil Code no memorandum
'
§1624, in that note or of any alleged contract is in writing and
2
COMPLAINT
I ‘subscribed by the this answering Cross-Defendant and/or decedent, or their agents or predecessors
2 iasrequired by law.
3
l
13. As a twelfth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows:
4 HThe Cross-Complainant is barred from seeking the relief claimed pursuant to the provisions of Bus.
5 H& Prof. Code §7159.
14. As a thirteenth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as
7‘lfollows: Cross-Complainant was careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the
8 ‘Cross-Complaint, and that said carelessness and negligence on said Cross-Complainant’s own part
9 proximately contributed to the happening of the incident and to the injuries, loss and damages ’
10 complained of, if any there were; that should Cross-Complainant recover damages, this answering
11 Cross-Defendant are entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced or eliminated to the extent
12 that Cross-Complainant’s negligence caused or contributed to
}
.
its injuries, if any.
As
I
13 15. a fourteenth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as
!
14 Efollows: Cross-Complainant lacks standing to pursue its claims herein.
15 16. As a fifteenth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant incorporates each
16 and every allegation of her complaint on file herein.
17H 17. As a sixteenth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as
I
18|ifollowsz the claims of Cross-Complainant are grossly and fraudulently overstated. Upon
19 “determination of the actual worked done at the site, Cross-Complainant will be found to be entitled
20 lto no damages from Cross-Complainant, and will be found to owe substantial sums to Cross-
21 Defendant.
22 _
18. As a seventeenth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as
23 follows: the workmanship of Cross-Complainant was so utterly defective and beneath industry
24 standards as to have not only no value, but resulted in a great expense to correct the multitude of
25 .
problems created at the site due to Cross-Complainant’s shoddy work.
26. 19. As an eighteenth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as
27 follows: this answering Cross-Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses
28 .to the Cross-Complaint as discovery in this case proceeds which reveals grounds for such additional
3
COMPLAINT
‘
._n
affirmative defenses.
WHEREFORE, this answering Cross-Defendant prays judgment as follows:
1. That Cross-Complainant take nothing by the Cross-Complaint, and that judgment
thereon be entered in favor of this answering Cross-Defendant;
2. That this answering Cross-Defendant be awarded reasonable expenses, attomey’s
\OWQQM-P‘WN
fees, expert witness fees, and costs of suit to be paid by Cross-Complainant;
3. That the claims of the Cross-Complainant be declared to be without merit and
unenforceable as against this answering Cross-Defendant;
4. For such other and further relief to which this answering Cross-Defendant are entitled
'or which the Court may deem just and proper.
///
Respectfully submitted,
D—‘D—lD—dD—‘D—‘D—fi
MAWNHO
. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL P. RING & ASSOC.
Dated: September 2013 By /
O\
p—d .
I MICHAEL P ING ’
ATTORNE S FOR PLAINTI
D—ID—lr—l
\ooou
NO
WNONMAUJNH‘
NNNNNNNN
4
COMPLAINT
H PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1234 Santa Barbara Street, Santa Barbara,
California, 93101 .
‘
On September 24, 2013, I served the foregoing document described as ANSWER TO
CROSS-COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action
x _ K_
\OWQQLIIAWN
I
by placing the original a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed
as follows:
Klinkenbeard Ramsey Spackman & Clark
3938 State Street
Suite 200
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
(BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I caused such documents to be
~
fiicfed up by Federal Express at 1234 Santa Barbara St., Santa Barbara, CaliforniaI 93101, in an
ox designated by Federal Express for overnight delivery, with delivery fees provided for,
:.addressed to the person on whom it is to be served.
(BY FAX) I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be sent via facsimile to the above-
named persons at the following facsimile number:
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices
NNNNn—ne—IHD—IHHr—an—ar-ne—a
of the addressee.
xx (BY PLACING FOR COLLECTION AND MAILING) I placed the above-mentioned
document(s) in sealed envelope(s) addressed as set forth above. and placed the envelope(s) for
'
collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm’s
practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal
Service. Under that practice it would be deposited with the US. Postal Service on that same day
with postage thereon fully prepaid at 1234 Santa Barbara Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 in the
ordinary course of business.
xx (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
0’1“
Executed on September 24, 2013, at Santa Barbara, California.
anom
Type or Print Name Signature
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
._a Law Oflices 0f D m E _ MICHAEL P. AND ASSOCIATES RING .- 3 F l gEfikiffiilmflnx F ____ State Bar #95922 UESDWVCé‘l’gKM W Michael 9. Ring, _ 1234 Santa Barbara Street ' Santa Barbara, CA 93101 2 ‘1 V -——-- (805)564-2333 om; 5, park,“ 5mm," 0,, , CA ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PATSY MOLER BY Qua. . FIN _- -@ ; J — \OOO\IO\UIAUJN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA m PIY _ - FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA i Patsy Moler, ANACAPA ) DIVISION Case No. 1417847 COD ST — 5 ' ANSWER TO ) CROSS-COMPLAINT .._ Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) (Assigned to the Hon. James E. Herman) ) Chris Hulme, and dba . individually ) DOES . Clearview Industries, Inc., and 1 ) through 10, inclusive ) ) Defendants. ) ) Clearview Industries, Inc., NND—lD—lD—ID—fib—lb—lD—II—iD—‘D—l . ) ) SBHOWOONCAUIAUJNHO Cross-Complainant, ) v. ) ) Patsy Moler, et a1, ) ) Cross-Defendants. ) ) COMES NOW Defendant Patsy Moler, who, for herself alone, responds to the Cross- Complaint as follows: 1. This answering Defendant denies specifically and generally that she is liable to Cross- Complainant in the amount claimed, or in any sums whatsoever, and further denies that there isany basis for the finding of liability against this answering Defendant. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 2. As a first affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows: Cross-Complainant isbarred from asserting itsclaims based upon the doctrine of unclean hands. 3. As a second affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows: 1 COMPLAINT Cross-Complainant’s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, including, but not limited to CCP §§338, 339, & 340. AWN 4. As a third affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows: Cross-Complainant did not suffer any injury from any allegedly conduct of this answering Cross- Defendant and/or decedent. 5. As a fourth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows: the Cross-Complaint, \OOO\lO\M including each purported claim contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient 5toconstitute a cause of action. 6. As a fifth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows: 10 ICross-Complainant failed to take such steps, or took such steps, such that the alleged damages, if 11 any, were not mitigated or were increased as the result of said conduct. 12 7. As a sixth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows: 13 All the damages claimed by Cross-Complainant, if any exist, were caused in whole or in part by the 14 acts and omissions of Cross-Complainant and/or third parties, and/or the employees and agents 15 thereof. 16 8. As a seventh affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows: 17 Cross-Complainant is barred from itsclaims as itwould be unjustly enriched if it recovered damages, 18 in whole or in part, as alleged from this answering Cross-Defendant. 19 9. As an eighth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows: 20 the Cross-Complaint and the whole thereof fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 21 10. As a ninth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows: 22 The Cross-Complainant is barred from seeking the relief claimed based upon failure of 23 iconsideration. 24 11. As a tenth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows: 25 Cross-Complainant isbarred from seeking the relief claimed by the doctrine of estoppel. 26. 12. As an eleventh affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as ' 27 follows: The Cross-Complainant isbarred from seeking the relief claimed pursuant to the provisions 28 of Civil Code no memorandum ' §1624, in that note or of any alleged contract is in writing and 2 COMPLAINT I ‘subscribed by the this answering Cross-Defendant and/or decedent, or their agents or predecessors 2 iasrequired by law. 3 l 13. As a twelfth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as follows: 4 HThe Cross-Complainant is barred from seeking the relief claimed pursuant to the provisions of Bus. 5 H& Prof. Code §7159. 14. As a thirteenth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as 7‘lfollows: Cross-Complainant was careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the 8 ‘Cross-Complaint, and that said carelessness and negligence on said Cross-Complainant’s own part 9 proximately contributed to the happening of the incident and to the injuries, loss and damages ’ 10 complained of, if any there were; that should Cross-Complainant recover damages, this answering 11 Cross-Defendant are entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced or eliminated to the extent 12 that Cross-Complainant’s negligence caused or contributed to } . its injuries, if any. As I 13 15. a fourteenth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as ! 14 Efollows: Cross-Complainant lacks standing to pursue its claims herein. 15 16. As a fifteenth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant incorporates each 16 and every allegation of her complaint on file herein. 17H 17. As a sixteenth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as I 18|ifollowsz the claims of Cross-Complainant are grossly and fraudulently overstated. Upon 19 “determination of the actual worked done at the site, Cross-Complainant will be found to be entitled 20 lto no damages from Cross-Complainant, and will be found to owe substantial sums to Cross- 21 Defendant. 22 _ 18. As a seventeenth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as 23 follows: the workmanship of Cross-Complainant was so utterly defective and beneath industry 24 standards as to have not only no value, but resulted in a great expense to correct the multitude of 25 . problems created at the site due to Cross-Complainant’s shoddy work. 26. 19. As an eighteenth affirmative defense, this answering Cross-Defendant alleges as 27 follows: this answering Cross-Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses 28 .to the Cross-Complaint as discovery in this case proceeds which reveals grounds for such additional 3 COMPLAINT ‘ ._n affirmative defenses. WHEREFORE, this answering Cross-Defendant prays judgment as follows: 1. That Cross-Complainant take nothing by the Cross-Complaint, and that judgment thereon be entered in favor of this answering Cross-Defendant; 2. That this answering Cross-Defendant be awarded reasonable expenses, attomey’s \OWQQM-P‘WN fees, expert witness fees, and costs of suit to be paid by Cross-Complainant; 3. That the claims of the Cross-Complainant be declared to be without merit and unenforceable as against this answering Cross-Defendant; 4. For such other and further relief to which this answering Cross-Defendant are entitled 'or which the Court may deem just and proper. /// Respectfully submitted, D—‘D—lD—dD—‘D—‘D—fi MAWNHO . LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL P. RING & ASSOC. Dated: September 2013 By / O\ p—d . I MICHAEL P ING ’ ATTORNE S FOR PLAINTI D—ID—lr—l \ooou NO WNONMAUJNH‘ NNNNNNNN 4 COMPLAINT H PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1234 Santa Barbara Street, Santa Barbara, California, 93101 . ‘ On September 24, 2013, I served the foregoing document described as ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action x _ K_ \OWQQLIIAWN I by placing the original a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Klinkenbeard Ramsey Spackman & Clark 3938 State Street Suite 200 Santa Barbara, CA 93105 (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I caused such documents to be ~ fiicfed up by Federal Express at 1234 Santa Barbara St., Santa Barbara, CaliforniaI 93101, in an ox designated by Federal Express for overnight delivery, with delivery fees provided for, :.addressed to the person on whom it is to be served. (BY FAX) I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be sent via facsimile to the above- named persons at the following facsimile number: (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices NNNNn—ne—IHD—IHHr—an—ar-ne—a of the addressee. xx (BY PLACING FOR COLLECTION AND MAILING) I placed the above-mentioned document(s) in sealed envelope(s) addressed as set forth above. and placed the envelope(s) for ' collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice it would be deposited with the US. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at 1234 Santa Barbara Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 in the ordinary course of business. xx (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 0’1“ Executed on September 24, 2013, at Santa Barbara, California. anom Type or Print Name Signature 1 PROOF OF SERVICE