Preview
I Patricia K. Buckley, SBN 130312 ELECTRONICALLY
Attorney at Law
12 Lovejoy Way
F I L E D
2 Superior Court of California,
Novato, CA 94949 County of San Francisco
3 Telephone: 415-883-2694 05/26/2020
Clerk of the Court
4 BY: MADONNA CARANTO
Deputy Clerk
Attorney for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Tachtook Tacktook Construction
5 and Cross-Defendant Tachtook Tacktook
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — LIMITED JURISDICTION
10
TACHTOOK TACKTOOK CONSTRUCTION, Case No.: CGC-19-5768586
11 A sole propriertorship,
12 Plaintiff(s), ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
13
vs.
14
EFONI SCHNITMAN, SOD Builders, Inc., a
15 California Corporation, and DOES I through
20, inclusive,
16
Defendants.
17
SOD HOME GROUP, INC., formerly doing
business as S 0D BUILDERS, INC., a
19 California corporation,
20 Cross-Complainant,
21
vs.
22
TACHTOOK TACKTOOK CONSTRUCTION,
23 a sole proprietorship; TACHTOOK
TACKTOOK, an individual; ROES I through
24 100 inclusive,
25
Cross-Defendants.
26
27
Cross-Defendants TACHTOOK TACKTOOK CONSTRUCTION and TACHTOOK TACKTOOK
-I-
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
I answer the Cross-Complaint of S 0 D HOME GROUP, INC., formerly doing business as S 0 D
2 BUILDERS, INC., as follows:
GENERAL DENIAL
4 Cross-Defendants Tachtook Tacktook Construction and Tachtook Tacktook (" cross-
5 defendants"), deny, generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in the unverified
6 complaint. Cross-defendants further deny that cross-complainant has been injured or damaged in
7 any of the sums mentioned in the Cross-Complaint, or in any other amount by reason of any act or
8 omission of cross-Defendants.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
10 l. AS A FIRST AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege that
11 cross-complainant has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these
12 answering cross-defendants.
13 2. AS A SECOND AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege
14 that this action is barred by the statutes of limitation as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Ij)337.
15 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340.2, 340.5 and 343, and each pertinent subsection
16 3. AS A THIRD AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege
17 that this action is barred by cross-complainant's failure to comply with applicable requirements of
18 the California Civil Code.
19 4. AS A FOURTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege
20 that by reason of the acts and omissions of cross-complainant, cross-complainant is estopped from
21 entitlement to recovery, if any.
22 5. AS A FIFTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege
23 that the cross-complaint is barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.
24 6. AS A SIXTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege
25 that the cross-complaint is barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.
26 7. AS A SEVENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants
27 allege that cross-complainant is barred from recovery, if any, by the doctrine of unclean hands.
-2-
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 8. AS AN EIGHTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants
2 allege that if cross-defendants owed any obligation to which full performance has not been
3 rendered, which cross-defendants expressly deny, performances of said obligation has been excused
4 by the acts and omissions of cross-complainant or cross-complainant's agents, excluding these
5 cross-defendants.
6 9. AS A NINTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege
7 that cross-complainant failed to mitigate its damages, if any.
8 10. AS A TENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege
9 that cross-complainant is barred Irom recovery because of its breaches of any agreements made
10 with cross-defendants.
11 11. AS AN ELEVENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants
12 allege that damages suffered, if any, are a result of the comparative fault of cross-complainant, and
13 as such are barred and/or must be adjusted and/or eliminated.
14 12. AS A TWELFTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants
15 allege that cross-complainant is barred from recovery of any damages because of cross-
16 complainant's own acts of carelessness, negligence and/or other fault, and further, that such
17 carelessness, negligence and/or other fault proximately contributed to the happening of any alleged
18 damages.
19 13. AS A THIRTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants
20 allege that they did not breach any duty to cross-complainant.
21 14. AS A FOURTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-
22 defendants allege that damages suffered, if any, by cross-complainant, are a result of the acts or
23 omissions of other third parties, and cross-defendants are entitled to have the amount abated,
24 reduced or eliminated.
25 15. AS A FIFTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants
26 allege that the acts or omissions complained of in the Cross-Complaint by cross-defendants were
27 consented to by cross-complainant, and therefore cross-complainant cannot complain of the
28 damages alleged therein.
-3-
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 16. AS A SIXTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-
2 defendants allege that the actions of cross-complainant prevented cross-defendants from performing
3 in any way and released cross-defendants from any duty or liability to cross-complainant. Should
4 any breach of duty have occurred on the part of cross-defendants, said breach was waived by the
5 conduct and actions of cross-complainant.
6 17. AS A SEVENTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-
7 defendants allege that cross-complainant directed, ordered, approved and/or ratified cross-
8 defendants'onduct, and cross-complainant is therefore estopped from asserting any claim based
9 thereon.
10 18. AS AN EIGHTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-
11 defendants allege that they did not enter into any written contract with cross-complainant.
12 RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO AMEND ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
13 Cross-defendants intend to rely on such other and further affirmative defenses as many
14 become available during discovery in this action and reserve the right to amend this Anxwer to
15 assert any such defenses.
16 WHEREFORE, cross-defendants pray for judgment as follows:
17 1. &That cross-complainant take nothing from cross-defendants by this cross-complaint,
18 2. For attorneys'ees and costs; and
19 3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
20
21 DATED: May 22, 2020
22
PATRICIA K. BUCKLEY
23 Attorney for Plaintiff and Cross-D dant
Tachtook Tacktook Construction d
24 Cross-Defendant Tachtook Tacktook
25
26
27
28
-4-
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
PROOF OF SERVICE
I declare that I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to this action. My business
address is 12 Lovejoy Way, Novato, CA 94949
On May 22, 2020, I served the following document:
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
By e-service through One Legal to the following at the email addresses listed below:
Kenneth S. Grossbart
ksg@arglaw.corn
Sharice Marootian
sbm@agrlaw.corn
Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman
6454 Coldwater Canyon Avenue
North Hollywood, CA 91606-1187
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 222, 2020, at Novato, California.
4/ an
Preview
I Patricia K. Buckley, SBN 130312 ELECTRONICALLY Attorney at Law 12 Lovejoy Way F I L E D 2 Superior Court of California, Novato, CA 94949 County of San Francisco 3 Telephone: 415-883-2694 05/26/2020 Clerk of the Court 4 BY: MADONNA CARANTO Deputy Clerk Attorney for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Tachtook Tacktook Construction 5 and Cross-Defendant Tachtook Tacktook SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — LIMITED JURISDICTION 10 TACHTOOK TACKTOOK CONSTRUCTION, Case No.: CGC-19-5768586 11 A sole propriertorship, 12 Plaintiff(s), ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT 13 vs. 14 EFONI SCHNITMAN, SOD Builders, Inc., a 15 California Corporation, and DOES I through 20, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 SOD HOME GROUP, INC., formerly doing business as S 0D BUILDERS, INC., a 19 California corporation, 20 Cross-Complainant, 21 vs. 22 TACHTOOK TACKTOOK CONSTRUCTION, 23 a sole proprietorship; TACHTOOK TACKTOOK, an individual; ROES I through 24 100 inclusive, 25 Cross-Defendants. 26 27 Cross-Defendants TACHTOOK TACKTOOK CONSTRUCTION and TACHTOOK TACKTOOK -I- ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT I answer the Cross-Complaint of S 0 D HOME GROUP, INC., formerly doing business as S 0 D 2 BUILDERS, INC., as follows: GENERAL DENIAL 4 Cross-Defendants Tachtook Tacktook Construction and Tachtook Tacktook (" cross- 5 defendants"), deny, generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in the unverified 6 complaint. Cross-defendants further deny that cross-complainant has been injured or damaged in 7 any of the sums mentioned in the Cross-Complaint, or in any other amount by reason of any act or 8 omission of cross-Defendants. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 10 l. AS A FIRST AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege that 11 cross-complainant has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these 12 answering cross-defendants. 13 2. AS A SECOND AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege 14 that this action is barred by the statutes of limitation as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Ij)337. 15 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340.2, 340.5 and 343, and each pertinent subsection 16 3. AS A THIRD AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege 17 that this action is barred by cross-complainant's failure to comply with applicable requirements of 18 the California Civil Code. 19 4. AS A FOURTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege 20 that by reason of the acts and omissions of cross-complainant, cross-complainant is estopped from 21 entitlement to recovery, if any. 22 5. AS A FIFTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege 23 that the cross-complaint is barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. 24 6. AS A SIXTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege 25 that the cross-complaint is barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. 26 7. AS A SEVENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants 27 allege that cross-complainant is barred from recovery, if any, by the doctrine of unclean hands. -2- ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 8. AS AN EIGHTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants 2 allege that if cross-defendants owed any obligation to which full performance has not been 3 rendered, which cross-defendants expressly deny, performances of said obligation has been excused 4 by the acts and omissions of cross-complainant or cross-complainant's agents, excluding these 5 cross-defendants. 6 9. AS A NINTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege 7 that cross-complainant failed to mitigate its damages, if any. 8 10. AS A TENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants allege 9 that cross-complainant is barred Irom recovery because of its breaches of any agreements made 10 with cross-defendants. 11 11. AS AN ELEVENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants 12 allege that damages suffered, if any, are a result of the comparative fault of cross-complainant, and 13 as such are barred and/or must be adjusted and/or eliminated. 14 12. AS A TWELFTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants 15 allege that cross-complainant is barred from recovery of any damages because of cross- 16 complainant's own acts of carelessness, negligence and/or other fault, and further, that such 17 carelessness, negligence and/or other fault proximately contributed to the happening of any alleged 18 damages. 19 13. AS A THIRTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants 20 allege that they did not breach any duty to cross-complainant. 21 14. AS A FOURTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross- 22 defendants allege that damages suffered, if any, by cross-complainant, are a result of the acts or 23 omissions of other third parties, and cross-defendants are entitled to have the amount abated, 24 reduced or eliminated. 25 15. AS A FIFTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross-defendants 26 allege that the acts or omissions complained of in the Cross-Complaint by cross-defendants were 27 consented to by cross-complainant, and therefore cross-complainant cannot complain of the 28 damages alleged therein. -3- ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 16. AS A SIXTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross- 2 defendants allege that the actions of cross-complainant prevented cross-defendants from performing 3 in any way and released cross-defendants from any duty or liability to cross-complainant. Should 4 any breach of duty have occurred on the part of cross-defendants, said breach was waived by the 5 conduct and actions of cross-complainant. 6 17. AS A SEVENTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross- 7 defendants allege that cross-complainant directed, ordered, approved and/or ratified cross- 8 defendants'onduct, and cross-complainant is therefore estopped from asserting any claim based 9 thereon. 10 18. AS AN EIGHTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, cross- 11 defendants allege that they did not enter into any written contract with cross-complainant. 12 RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO AMEND ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT 13 Cross-defendants intend to rely on such other and further affirmative defenses as many 14 become available during discovery in this action and reserve the right to amend this Anxwer to 15 assert any such defenses. 16 WHEREFORE, cross-defendants pray for judgment as follows: 17 1. &That cross-complainant take nothing from cross-defendants by this cross-complaint, 18 2. For attorneys'ees and costs; and 19 3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. 20 21 DATED: May 22, 2020 22 PATRICIA K. BUCKLEY 23 Attorney for Plaintiff and Cross-D dant Tachtook Tacktook Construction d 24 Cross-Defendant Tachtook Tacktook 25 26 27 28 -4- ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE I declare that I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to this action. My business address is 12 Lovejoy Way, Novato, CA 94949 On May 22, 2020, I served the following document: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT By e-service through One Legal to the following at the email addresses listed below: Kenneth S. Grossbart ksg@arglaw.corn Sharice Marootian sbm@agrlaw.corn Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman 6454 Coldwater Canyon Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91606-1187 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 222, 2020, at Novato, California. 4/ an