Preview
1 Jeffrey M. Lenkov (State Bar No. 156478)
jml@manningllp.com
2 Daniel J. Sullivan (State Bar No. 251455)
djs@manningllp.com
3 MANNING & KASS
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
4 801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-3012
5 Telephone: (213) 624-6900
Facsimile: (213) 624-6999
6
Attorneys for Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA
7 MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA
TRANSPORT, LLC
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SONOMA
11
12 MARINA MIRANDA; ISABELLA Case No. SCV-270065
MIRANDA by GAL – DAVID MIRANDA;
13 WYATT MIRANDA by GAL – RUDY DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA
MIRANDA, MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA
14 TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE
Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY
15 TRIAL
v.
16 Hon. Gary Nadler, Dept. 19 – 3055 Cleveland
MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL; Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403
17 CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC;
WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Action Filed: 01/25/2022
18 INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, Trial Date: N/A
19 Defendants.
20
Pursuant to Sections 431.10, et seq., of the California Code of Civil Procedure defendants,
21
MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC
22
("Defendants"), answer the Complaint of plaintiffs, MARINA MIRANDA; ISABELLA
23
MIRANDA, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem DAVID MIRANDA; WYATT MIRANDA,
24
by and through his Guardian Ad Litem RUDY MIRANDA ("Plaintiffs"). Defendants deny, both
25
generally and specifically, each and every allegation of the Complaint and deny that Plaintiffs are
26
entitled to any relief whatsoever.
27
28
4869-4543-6710.1
DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S,
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
2 Defendants plead the following separate defenses. Defendants reserve the right to assert
3 additional affirmative defenses that discovery indicates are proper.
4
5 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Failure to State a Claim)
7 1. As a separate and first affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to the purported
8 causes of action set forth therein, Defendants allege that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient
9 to constitute a cause of action.
10 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Apportionment of Fault)
12 2. As a separate and second affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
13 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs' damages, if any, were caused
14 by the negligence and/or acts or omissions of parties other than the Defendants, whether or not
15 parties to this action. By reason thereof, Plaintiffs' damages, if any, as against the Defendants,
16 must be reduced by the proportion of fault attributable to such other parties, and to the extent that
17 this is necessary, Defendants may be entitled to partial indemnity from others on a comparative
18 fault basis.
19 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Assumption of Risk)
21 3. As a separate and third affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
22 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs, and/or the persons and/or
23 entities acting on Plaintiffs' behalf, assumed the risk of all conduct of the Plaintiffs or their agents.
24 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Compliance with the Law)
26 4. As a separate and fourth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
27 cause of action contained therein, Defendants alleges that the actions taken by Defendants were in
28 full compliance with the law.
4869-4543-6710.1 2
DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S,
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Vague, Ambiguous and Uncertain Complaint)
3 5. As a separate and fifth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
4 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action,
5 is vague, ambiguous and uncertain as to these answering Defendants.
6 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Estoppel)
8 6. As a separate and sixth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
9 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs are barred in whole or in part
10 from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of
11 estoppel.
12 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 (Failure to Mitigate)
14 7. As a separate and seventh affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
15 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs' claims, if any, are barred for
16 their failure, and/or the failure of the persons and/or entities acting on their behalf, to mitigate any
17 purported damages.
18 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Not Liable for Act or Omission of Subordinate)
20 8. As a separate and eighth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
21 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that insofar as Defendants has delegated any
22 duty to any subordinate, such delegation was at all times done in good faith, and with due care.
23 Defendants are therefore not liable for any act or omission of any subordinate.
24 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Fraud)
26 9. As a separate and ninth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
27 cause of action contained therein, Defendants alleges that any alleged obligation owing to
28
4869-4543-6710.1 3
DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S,
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 Plaintiffs is void or voidable based upon Plaintiffs' actual fraud as defined by Civil Code §1572
2 and by Plaintiffs' constructive fraud as defined by Civil Code §1573.
3 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 (Intervening and Superseding Cause)
5 10. As a separate and tenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
6 cause of action contained therein, Defendants alleges that if Plaintiffs suffered or sustained any
7 loss, damage or injury as alleged in the Complaint, such loss, damage or injury was legally caused
8 or contributed to by the negligence or wrongful conduct of other parties, persons or entities, and
9 that their negligence or wrongful conduct was an intervening and superseding cause of the loss,
10 damage or injury of which Plaintiffs complain.
11 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Laches)
13 11. As a separate and eleventh affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
14 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs are barred in whole or in part
15 from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of
16 laches.
17 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (No Injury or Damage)
19 12. As a separate and twelfth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
20 cause of action contained therein, Defendants alleges that Plaintiffs have not been injured or
21 damaged as a proximate result of any act or omission for which Defendants are responsible.
22 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Proximate Cause – Other Persons)
24 13. As a separate and thirteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
25 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that the damages alleged to have
26 been suffered by Plaintiffs in the Complaint were proximately caused or contributed to by acts or
27 failures to act of persons other than these answering Defendants, which acts or failures to act
28 constitute an intervening and superseding cause of the damages alleged in the Complaint.
4869-4543-6710.1 4
DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S,
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Proximate Cause – Plaintiffs)
3 14. As a separate and fourteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
4 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant allege that the injuries and damages
5 alleged in the Complaint by Plaintiffs occurred, were proximately caused by and/or were
6 contributed to by Plaintiffs' or their agent's own acts or failures to act and that Plaintiffs' recovery,
7 if any, should be reduced by an amount proportionate to the amount by which said acts caused or
8 contributed to said alleged injury or damages.
9 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Statute of Limitations)
11 15. As a separate and fifteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
12 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that the purported causes of action asserted in
13 the Complaint are barred by such statutes of limitation as may be applicable, including, but not
14 limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 335, 335.1, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 340.5,
15 340.9, 343, 344 and 474.
16 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Waiver)
18 16. As a separate and sixteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
19 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs are barred in whole
20 or in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the
21 doctrine of waiver.
22 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Unclean Hands)
24 17. As a separate and seventeenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
25 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs are barred in whole
26 or in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the
27 doctrine of unclean hands.
28 ///
4869-4543-6710.1 5
DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S,
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 EIGTHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (No Causal Connection)
3 18. As a separate and eighteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
4 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that although Defendants
5 specifically deny that they were, or could be, guilty of any negligence or liability as alleged in the
6 Complaint, there is no causal connection between the condition of said Plaintiffs and the alleged
7 negligence of these Defendants. Rather, Defendants allege on knowledge and belief that the
8 condition of the Plaintiffs was and is the sole proximate result of conditions, causes, illnesses and
9 circumstances which were in no way caused by, or related to, any alleged act or alleged omission
10 of these Defendants.
11 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Lack of Facts to Entitle Plaintiffs to Prejudgment Interest)
13 19. As a separate and nineteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
14 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that the Complaint on file herein
15 fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action entitling Plaintiffs to prejudgment
16 interest.
17 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Spoliation of Evidence)
19 20. As a separate and twentieth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
20 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs and/or their agents
21 failed to preserve and permitted the spoliation of material evidence. Such conduct bars recovery
22 from Defendants and/or gives rise to liability for damages payable to these answering Defendants.
23 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Offset)
25 21. As a separate and twenty-first affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
26 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that by virtue of the acts of the
27 Plaintiffs and/or the persons and/or the entities acting on Plaintiffs' behalf, the Defendants have
28 been damaged in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of damages, if any, to which
4869-4543-6710.1 6
DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S,
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 Plaintiffs might be entitled. As a result, the Defendants are entitled to an offset against any sums
2 found owing to the Plaintiffs from Defendants.
3 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 (Proposition 51)
5 22. As a separate and twenty-second affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
6 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Defendants' liability for non-
7 economic damages, if any, is limited to that percentage of those damages which are in direct
8 proportion of Defendants' percentage of fault in accordance with Civil Code section 1431.2(a).
9 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Lack of Facts to Entitle Plaintiff to Attorney's Fees)
11 23. As a separate and twenty-third affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
12 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that the Complaint on file herein
13 fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action entitling Plaintiffs to Attorney's Fees.
14 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Non-Economic Damages Barred)
16 24. As a separate and twenty-fourth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
17 purported cause of action contained therein insofar as non-economic damages are prayed for,
18 Defendants allege that non-economic damages may not be recovered as to any cause of action by
19 virtue of the bar of Civil Code §§3333.3 through 3333.4, inclusive.
20 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (Ongoing Investigation)
22 25. As a separate and twenty-fifth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
23 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that they have not yet completed a
24 thorough investigation or study or completed the discovery of all the facts and circumstances of
25 the subject matter of the Complaint and, accordingly, reserve Defendants right to amend, modify,
26 revise or supplement its answer and to plead such other defenses and take such other further
27 actions as Defendants may deem proper and necessary in their defense upon completion of said
28 investigation and/or study.
4869-4543-6710.1 7
DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S,
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for relief as follows:
2 1. That the Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice and in its entirety;
3 2. That Plaintiffs takes nothing by reason of this Complaint and that judgment be
4 entered against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants;
5 3. That Defendants be awarded their costs incurred in defending this action;
6 4. That Defendants be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem
7 just and proper.
8
9 DATED: June 27, 2022 MANNING & KASS
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
10
11
12
13
14
By:
15
Jeffrey M. Lenkov
16 Daniel J. Sullivan
Attorneys for Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA
17 MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA
TRANSPORT, LLC
18
19
20 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
21 Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA
22 TRANSPORT, LLC, herein, hereby demands trial of this matter by jury.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
4869-4543-6710.1 8
DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S,
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 DATED: June 27, 2022 MANNING & KASS
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
2
3
4
5
6
By:
7
Jeffrey M. Lenkov
8 Daniel J. Sullivan
Attorneys for Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA
9 MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA
TRANSPORT, LLC
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4869-4543-6710.1 9
DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S,
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 801 S.
4 Figueroa St, 15th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-3012.
5 On June 27, 2022, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA
6 TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
on the interested parties in this action as follows:
7
8 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST.
9 BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and
10 mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of
Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP for collecting and processing correspondence for
11 mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited
in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with
12 postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The
envelope was placed in the mail at Los Angeles, California.
13
ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Only by emailing the document(s) to the
14 persons at the e-mail address(es). This is necessitated during the declared National Emergency
due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic because this office will be working remotely, not
15 able 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
16 reasonable time after the transmission. We will provide a physical copy, upon request only, when
we return to the office at the conclusion of the National Emergency.
17
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
18 foregoing is true and correct.
19 Executed on June 27, 2022, at Los Angeles, California.
20
21
22
23
24 Daniel J. Sullivan
25
26
27
28
4869-4543-6710.1 10
DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S,
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 SERVICE LIST:
2 Anna Dubrovsky (SBN: 197116)
ANNA DUBROVSKY LAW GROUP, INC.
3 750 Battery Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94111
4
Tel: (415) 746-1477
5 Fax: (415) 746-1478
Email: anna@dubrovskylawyers.com
6
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, MARINA MIRANDA; ISABELLA MIRANDA by GAL – DAVID
MIRANDA; WYATT MIRANDA by GAL – RUDY MIRANDA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4869-4543-6710.1 11
DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S,
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Preview
1 Jeffrey M. Lenkov (State Bar No. 156478) jml@manningllp.com 2 Daniel J. Sullivan (State Bar No. 251455) djs@manningllp.com 3 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 4 801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 5 Telephone: (213) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 6 Attorneys for Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA 7 MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SONOMA 11 12 MARINA MIRANDA; ISABELLA Case No. SCV-270065 MIRANDA by GAL – DAVID MIRANDA; 13 WYATT MIRANDA by GAL – RUDY DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MIRANDA, MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA 14 TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY 15 TRIAL v. 16 Hon. Gary Nadler, Dept. 19 – 3055 Cleveland MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL; Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 17 CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC; WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Action Filed: 01/25/2022 18 INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, Trial Date: N/A 19 Defendants. 20 Pursuant to Sections 431.10, et seq., of the California Code of Civil Procedure defendants, 21 MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC 22 ("Defendants"), answer the Complaint of plaintiffs, MARINA MIRANDA; ISABELLA 23 MIRANDA, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem DAVID MIRANDA; WYATT MIRANDA, 24 by and through his Guardian Ad Litem RUDY MIRANDA ("Plaintiffs"). Defendants deny, both 25 generally and specifically, each and every allegation of the Complaint and deny that Plaintiffs are 26 entitled to any relief whatsoever. 27 28 4869-4543-6710.1 DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 2 Defendants plead the following separate defenses. Defendants reserve the right to assert 3 additional affirmative defenses that discovery indicates are proper. 4 5 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Failure to State a Claim) 7 1. As a separate and first affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to the purported 8 causes of action set forth therein, Defendants allege that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient 9 to constitute a cause of action. 10 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Apportionment of Fault) 12 2. As a separate and second affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 13 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs' damages, if any, were caused 14 by the negligence and/or acts or omissions of parties other than the Defendants, whether or not 15 parties to this action. By reason thereof, Plaintiffs' damages, if any, as against the Defendants, 16 must be reduced by the proportion of fault attributable to such other parties, and to the extent that 17 this is necessary, Defendants may be entitled to partial indemnity from others on a comparative 18 fault basis. 19 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Assumption of Risk) 21 3. As a separate and third affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 22 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs, and/or the persons and/or 23 entities acting on Plaintiffs' behalf, assumed the risk of all conduct of the Plaintiffs or their agents. 24 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Compliance with the Law) 26 4. As a separate and fourth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 27 cause of action contained therein, Defendants alleges that the actions taken by Defendants were in 28 full compliance with the law. 4869-4543-6710.1 2 DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Vague, Ambiguous and Uncertain Complaint) 3 5. As a separate and fifth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 4 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action, 5 is vague, ambiguous and uncertain as to these answering Defendants. 6 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Estoppel) 8 6. As a separate and sixth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 9 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs are barred in whole or in part 10 from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of 11 estoppel. 12 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (Failure to Mitigate) 14 7. As a separate and seventh affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 15 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs' claims, if any, are barred for 16 their failure, and/or the failure of the persons and/or entities acting on their behalf, to mitigate any 17 purported damages. 18 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Not Liable for Act or Omission of Subordinate) 20 8. As a separate and eighth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 21 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that insofar as Defendants has delegated any 22 duty to any subordinate, such delegation was at all times done in good faith, and with due care. 23 Defendants are therefore not liable for any act or omission of any subordinate. 24 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Fraud) 26 9. As a separate and ninth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 27 cause of action contained therein, Defendants alleges that any alleged obligation owing to 28 4869-4543-6710.1 3 DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 Plaintiffs is void or voidable based upon Plaintiffs' actual fraud as defined by Civil Code §1572 2 and by Plaintiffs' constructive fraud as defined by Civil Code §1573. 3 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 (Intervening and Superseding Cause) 5 10. As a separate and tenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 6 cause of action contained therein, Defendants alleges that if Plaintiffs suffered or sustained any 7 loss, damage or injury as alleged in the Complaint, such loss, damage or injury was legally caused 8 or contributed to by the negligence or wrongful conduct of other parties, persons or entities, and 9 that their negligence or wrongful conduct was an intervening and superseding cause of the loss, 10 damage or injury of which Plaintiffs complain. 11 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Laches) 13 11. As a separate and eleventh affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 14 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs are barred in whole or in part 15 from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of 16 laches. 17 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (No Injury or Damage) 19 12. As a separate and twelfth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 20 cause of action contained therein, Defendants alleges that Plaintiffs have not been injured or 21 damaged as a proximate result of any act or omission for which Defendants are responsible. 22 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Proximate Cause – Other Persons) 24 13. As a separate and thirteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 25 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that the damages alleged to have 26 been suffered by Plaintiffs in the Complaint were proximately caused or contributed to by acts or 27 failures to act of persons other than these answering Defendants, which acts or failures to act 28 constitute an intervening and superseding cause of the damages alleged in the Complaint. 4869-4543-6710.1 4 DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Proximate Cause – Plaintiffs) 3 14. As a separate and fourteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 4 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant allege that the injuries and damages 5 alleged in the Complaint by Plaintiffs occurred, were proximately caused by and/or were 6 contributed to by Plaintiffs' or their agent's own acts or failures to act and that Plaintiffs' recovery, 7 if any, should be reduced by an amount proportionate to the amount by which said acts caused or 8 contributed to said alleged injury or damages. 9 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Statute of Limitations) 11 15. As a separate and fifteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 12 cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that the purported causes of action asserted in 13 the Complaint are barred by such statutes of limitation as may be applicable, including, but not 14 limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 335, 335.1, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 340.5, 15 340.9, 343, 344 and 474. 16 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Waiver) 18 16. As a separate and sixteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 19 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs are barred in whole 20 or in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the 21 doctrine of waiver. 22 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Unclean Hands) 24 17. As a separate and seventeenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 25 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs are barred in whole 26 or in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the 27 doctrine of unclean hands. 28 /// 4869-4543-6710.1 5 DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 EIGTHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (No Causal Connection) 3 18. As a separate and eighteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 4 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that although Defendants 5 specifically deny that they were, or could be, guilty of any negligence or liability as alleged in the 6 Complaint, there is no causal connection between the condition of said Plaintiffs and the alleged 7 negligence of these Defendants. Rather, Defendants allege on knowledge and belief that the 8 condition of the Plaintiffs was and is the sole proximate result of conditions, causes, illnesses and 9 circumstances which were in no way caused by, or related to, any alleged act or alleged omission 10 of these Defendants. 11 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Lack of Facts to Entitle Plaintiffs to Prejudgment Interest) 13 19. As a separate and nineteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 14 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that the Complaint on file herein 15 fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action entitling Plaintiffs to prejudgment 16 interest. 17 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Spoliation of Evidence) 19 20. As a separate and twentieth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 20 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs and/or their agents 21 failed to preserve and permitted the spoliation of material evidence. Such conduct bars recovery 22 from Defendants and/or gives rise to liability for damages payable to these answering Defendants. 23 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Offset) 25 21. As a separate and twenty-first affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 26 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that by virtue of the acts of the 27 Plaintiffs and/or the persons and/or the entities acting on Plaintiffs' behalf, the Defendants have 28 been damaged in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of damages, if any, to which 4869-4543-6710.1 6 DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 Plaintiffs might be entitled. As a result, the Defendants are entitled to an offset against any sums 2 found owing to the Plaintiffs from Defendants. 3 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 (Proposition 51) 5 22. As a separate and twenty-second affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 6 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Defendants' liability for non- 7 economic damages, if any, is limited to that percentage of those damages which are in direct 8 proportion of Defendants' percentage of fault in accordance with Civil Code section 1431.2(a). 9 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Lack of Facts to Entitle Plaintiff to Attorney's Fees) 11 23. As a separate and twenty-third affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 12 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that the Complaint on file herein 13 fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action entitling Plaintiffs to Attorney's Fees. 14 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Non-Economic Damages Barred) 16 24. As a separate and twenty-fourth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 17 purported cause of action contained therein insofar as non-economic damages are prayed for, 18 Defendants allege that non-economic damages may not be recovered as to any cause of action by 19 virtue of the bar of Civil Code §§3333.3 through 3333.4, inclusive. 20 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (Ongoing Investigation) 22 25. As a separate and twenty-fifth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 23 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that they have not yet completed a 24 thorough investigation or study or completed the discovery of all the facts and circumstances of 25 the subject matter of the Complaint and, accordingly, reserve Defendants right to amend, modify, 26 revise or supplement its answer and to plead such other defenses and take such other further 27 actions as Defendants may deem proper and necessary in their defense upon completion of said 28 investigation and/or study. 4869-4543-6710.1 7 DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for relief as follows: 2 1. That the Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice and in its entirety; 3 2. That Plaintiffs takes nothing by reason of this Complaint and that judgment be 4 entered against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants; 5 3. That Defendants be awarded their costs incurred in defending this action; 6 4. That Defendants be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem 7 just and proper. 8 9 DATED: June 27, 2022 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 10 11 12 13 14 By: 15 Jeffrey M. Lenkov 16 Daniel J. Sullivan Attorneys for Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA 17 MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC 18 19 20 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 21 Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA 22 TRANSPORT, LLC, herein, hereby demands trial of this matter by jury. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 4869-4543-6710.1 8 DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 DATED: June 27, 2022 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 2 3 4 5 6 By: 7 Jeffrey M. Lenkov 8 Daniel J. Sullivan Attorneys for Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA 9 MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4869-4543-6710.1 9 DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 801 S. 4 Figueroa St, 15th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-3012. 5 On June 27, 2022, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA 6 TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL on the interested parties in this action as follows: 7 8 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST. 9 BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and 10 mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP for collecting and processing correspondence for 11 mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with 12 postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope was placed in the mail at Los Angeles, California. 13 ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Only by emailing the document(s) to the 14 persons at the e-mail address(es). This is necessitated during the declared National Emergency due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic because this office will be working remotely, not 15 able 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 16 reasonable time after the transmission. We will provide a physical copy, upon request only, when we return to the office at the conclusion of the National Emergency. 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 18 foregoing is true and correct. 19 Executed on June 27, 2022, at Los Angeles, California. 20 21 22 23 24 Daniel J. Sullivan 25 26 27 28 4869-4543-6710.1 10 DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 SERVICE LIST: 2 Anna Dubrovsky (SBN: 197116) ANNA DUBROVSKY LAW GROUP, INC. 3 750 Battery Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94111 4 Tel: (415) 746-1477 5 Fax: (415) 746-1478 Email: anna@dubrovskylawyers.com 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, MARINA MIRANDA; ISABELLA MIRANDA by GAL – DAVID MIRANDA; WYATT MIRANDA by GAL – RUDY MIRANDA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4869-4543-6710.1 11 DEFENDANTS, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL and CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC'S, ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL