Preview
Jay S. Fleischman, SBN 284277
SHAEV & FLEISCHMAN , P.C.
8605 Santa Monica Blvd, #47620
Los Angeles, CA 90069
(323) 607-8833
jay@moneywiselaw.com
Attorney for Defendant John J. King
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF KERN
National Collegiate Student Loan Trust
2006-4, A Delaware Statutory Trust,
Case No.: BCV-22-101523
Plaintiff,
ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE
v.
DEFENSES
John J. King,
Defendants.
COMES NOW Defendant John J. King, and answering Plaintiff’s Complaint on file
herein, admits, denies, and alleges as follows:
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §431.30, Defendant denies each and every
allegation of the Complaint.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
1. As a first, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein,
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint, in its entirety, nor any purported cause of
________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – PAGE 1
action set forth therein, allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against
these answering Defendants.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Satisfy Conditions Precedent)
2. As a second, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein,
the answering Defendant alleges that this action is barred due to Plaintiff's failure to
satisfy conditions precedent required for the relief sought herein.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
3. As a third, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this
answering Defendant alleges that this action is barred by the applicable statutes of
limitations, including, but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure §337;
California Code of Civil Procedure §339; California Code of Civil Procedure §343; and
Commercial Code §3118.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
4. As a fourth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this
answering Defendant is informed and believes, and on such information and belief,
alleges that by reason of Plaintiff's conduct which constitutes unclean hands, Plaintiff is
estopped to assert any right of relief.
//
//
________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – PAGE 2
//
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)
5. As a fifth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this
answering Defendant is informed and believes, and on such information and belief,
alleges that by reason of Plaintiff's failure to mitigate its damages so as to reduce and/or
diminish any claim that it may otherwise have against Defendant, Plaintiff is barred from
asserting any right of relief.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)
6. As a sixth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this
answering Defendant is informed and believes, and on such information and belief,
alleges that Plaintiff has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed in asserting any claims
it may otherwise have against this Defendant within a by reason of Plaintiff's conduct
which constitutes laches, Plaintiff is estopped to assert any right of relief.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Equitable Estoppel)
7. As a seventh, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein,
this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff herein, and each and every cause of
action contained in the Complaint, is barred by reason of acts, omissions,
representations, and courses of conduct by Plaintiff, by which this answering Defendant
________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – PAGE 3
was led to rely on to its detriment, thereby barring each and every cause of action under
the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Right of Setoff)
8. As an eighth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein,
this answering Defendant alleges that Defendant is entitled to have set off from any
recovery to which the Plaintiff may be entitled, if any, the amount previously paid by any
other person.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)
9. As a ninth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this
answering Defendant alleges that by reason of the acts and omissions of the Plaintiff,
Plaintiff has waived any entitlement to any recovery, for any breach of any contract or
any duty, or for any other cause.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Damages Caused by Another)
10. As a tenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this
answering Defendant alleges that other persons or entities not named as parties to the
Complaint are responsible, in whole or in part, for damages claimed by Plaintiff and that
Defendant is entitled to a set off for damages that these parties caused.
//
//
________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – PAGE 4
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Standing)
11. As a tenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is not the real party in interest and, as such,
lacks standing to assert the claims in the Complaint.
WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays:
1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of its Complaint;
2. For reasonable attorney’s fees;
3. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
4. For such other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: August 11, 2022 SHAEV & FLEISCHMAN , P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
By:_______________________________
Jay S. Fleischman
8605 Santa Monica Blvd #47620
Los Angeles, CA 90069
(323) 607-8833
jay@moneywiselaw.com
________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – PAGE 5
Preview
Jay S. Fleischman, SBN 284277 SHAEV & FLEISCHMAN , P.C. 8605 Santa Monica Blvd, #47620 Los Angeles, CA 90069 (323) 607-8833 jay@moneywiselaw.com Attorney for Defendant John J. King SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-4, A Delaware Statutory Trust, Case No.: BCV-22-101523 Plaintiff, ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE v. DEFENSES John J. King, Defendants. COMES NOW Defendant John J. King, and answering Plaintiff’s Complaint on file herein, admits, denies, and alleges as follows: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §431.30, Defendant denies each and every allegation of the Complaint. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) 1. As a first, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint, in its entirety, nor any purported cause of ________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – PAGE 1 action set forth therein, allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering Defendants. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Satisfy Conditions Precedent) 2. As a second, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, the answering Defendant alleges that this action is barred due to Plaintiff's failure to satisfy conditions precedent required for the relief sought herein. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 3. As a third, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this answering Defendant alleges that this action is barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including, but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure §337; California Code of Civil Procedure §339; California Code of Civil Procedure §343; and Commercial Code §3118. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 4. As a fourth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this answering Defendant is informed and believes, and on such information and belief, alleges that by reason of Plaintiff's conduct which constitutes unclean hands, Plaintiff is estopped to assert any right of relief. // // ________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – PAGE 2 // FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate) 5. As a fifth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this answering Defendant is informed and believes, and on such information and belief, alleges that by reason of Plaintiff's failure to mitigate its damages so as to reduce and/or diminish any claim that it may otherwise have against Defendant, Plaintiff is barred from asserting any right of relief. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) 6. As a sixth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this answering Defendant is informed and believes, and on such information and belief, alleges that Plaintiff has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed in asserting any claims it may otherwise have against this Defendant within a by reason of Plaintiff's conduct which constitutes laches, Plaintiff is estopped to assert any right of relief. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Equitable Estoppel) 7. As a seventh, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff herein, and each and every cause of action contained in the Complaint, is barred by reason of acts, omissions, representations, and courses of conduct by Plaintiff, by which this answering Defendant ________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – PAGE 3 was led to rely on to its detriment, thereby barring each and every cause of action under the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Right of Setoff) 8. As an eighth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this answering Defendant alleges that Defendant is entitled to have set off from any recovery to which the Plaintiff may be entitled, if any, the amount previously paid by any other person. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) 9. As a ninth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this answering Defendant alleges that by reason of the acts and omissions of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff has waived any entitlement to any recovery, for any breach of any contract or any duty, or for any other cause. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Damages Caused by Another) 10. As a tenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this answering Defendant alleges that other persons or entities not named as parties to the Complaint are responsible, in whole or in part, for damages claimed by Plaintiff and that Defendant is entitled to a set off for damages that these parties caused. // // ________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – PAGE 4 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Standing) 11. As a tenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is not the real party in interest and, as such, lacks standing to assert the claims in the Complaint. WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays: 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of its Complaint; 2. For reasonable attorney’s fees; 3. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 4. For such other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: August 11, 2022 SHAEV & FLEISCHMAN , P.C. Attorneys for Defendant By:_______________________________ Jay S. Fleischman 8605 Santa Monica Blvd #47620 Los Angeles, CA 90069 (323) 607-8833 jay@moneywiselaw.com ________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – PAGE 5