Preview
Jose A. Montalvo, Esq. (SBN: 184484)
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BIARD
215 Lennon Lane, Suite 200
Walnut Creek, California 94598
Telephone No: (925) 945-4491
Facsimile No: (855) 668-5559
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant,
Wavedivision Holdings, LLC
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Supertor Court of Calffornia,
County of San Francisco
11/21/2016
Clerk of the Court
BY:DAVID YUEN
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
KARA L, ESBORG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMCAST CORP.; COMCAST OF
CALIFORNIA III, INC.; COMCAST CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC;
WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS, LLC;
ALEKSANDR FRID and MARINA FRID,
Individually and as Trustees of Their Revocable
Trust; PAUL H. LUI and KAM T.LUL,
Individually and as Trustees of Their Revocable
Trust; and DOE | through DOE 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
PAUL H. LUI and KAM T. LUI, individually
and As Trustees of the PAUL HO-CHOW &
KAM TAI LUI REVOCABLE TRUST,
Cross-Complainants,
VS.
COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA III, INC.;
WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS, LLC;
ALEKSANDER FRID & MARINA FRID,
individually and as trustees of their revocable
trust; and ROES 1-100, inclusive,
Cross-Defendants.
()
Case No.: CGC-16-553614
CROSS-DEFENDANT
WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS, LLC’S
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
FOR INDEMNITY OF PAUL H. LUI
AND KAM T. LUI
Complaint filed: August 11, 2016
CROSS-DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTCross-Defendant WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS, LLC (“the answering Cross-
Defendant”) hereby answer the unverified Cross-Complaint of Cross-Complainants PAUL
H. LUI and KAM T. LUI as follows:
GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §431.30, the answering
Cross-Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
each cause of action of the Cross-Complaint and further deny that Cross-Complainants/
Defendants have been damaged.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a first and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaints, the answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainants/Defendants and/or their agents, servants,
employees and independent contractors were actively careless and negligent in the matters
alleged including, but not limited to, Cross-Complainants/Defendants’ failure to use
diligent care, thereby proximately causing and contributing to any alleged injury or
damage to Cross-Complainants/Defendants and that said active negligence and
carelessness bars Cross-Complainants/Defendants’ right to recovery from the answering
Cross-Defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a second and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the
answering Cross-Defendant alleges by way of a plea of comparative negligence that the
Cross-Complainants/Defendants and/or their agents, servants, employees, and independent
contractors were negligent in and about the matters and activities alleged in said Cross-
Complaint, that said negligence contributed to and was a proximate cause of Cross-
Complainants/Defendants’ alleged injuries and damages, if any, and that if the Cross-
Complainants/Defendants are entitled to recover damages against the answering Cross-
Defendant, this answering Cross-Defendant prays that said recovery be diminished by
reason of the Cross-Complainants/Defendants’ actions in proportion to the degree of fault
attributable to the Cross-Complainants/Defendants.
Q)
CROSS-DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTTHIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a third and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainants/Defendants and/or their agents, servants,
employees and independent contractors (excluding the answering Cross-Defendant) had
knowledge of the risks and hazards involved in the activity at the time and place of said
alleged accident leading to Cross-Complainants/Defendants’ alleged damages, and
voluntarily engaged therein, and assumed the risks and hazards thereof, and that said
assumption of the risks and hazards bar Cross-Complainants/Defendants’ right to recovery
from this answering Cross-Defendant.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a fourth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the
answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that, if, in fact,
Cross-Complainants/Defendants were damaged in any manner whatsoever, that said
damage, if any, was a direct and proximate result of the intervening and superseding
actions on the part of other parties, and not the answering Cross-Defendant, and that such
intervening and superseding actions of said other parties bar recovery herein on behalf of
Cross-Complainants/Defendants.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a fifth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering
Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the answering Cross-
Defendant is entitled to indemnification by apportionment against all other parties and
persons whose negligence contributed to the happening of the claimed accident or alleged
injuries.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a sixth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering
Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the answering Cross-
Defendant is entitled to a right of contribution from any entities and/or persons whose
negligence proximately contributed to the happening of the claimed accident or alleged
G)
CROSS-DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTinjuries if said Cross~-Complainants/Defendants should receive a verdict against the
answering Cross-Defendant.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Asa seventh and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the
answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that any and
all mandatory duties imposed on the answering Cross-Defendant, and/or their agents or
employees, the failure of which allegedly created the condition at the time and place which
is the subject of this Cross-Complaint were exercised with reasonable diligence and
therefore the answering Cross-Defendant is not liable to Cross-Complainants/Defendants
for the alleged injuries.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As an eighth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the
answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that if this
answering Cross-Defendant has any liability to Cross-Complainants/Defendants in this
action, which is denied, it is only severally liable for Cross-Complainants/Defendants’
non-economic damages under Civil Code §1431.2, and therefore request a judicial
determination of the percentage of their negligence, if any, which proximately contributed
to the subject accident.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a ninth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering
Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that Cross-
Complainants/Defendants had the capability and failed to mitigate damages.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Asa tenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint, including each and every purported
cause of action therein, is barred under the equitable doctrines of waiver, estoppel and
unclean hands.
Mt
(4)
CROSS-DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As an eleventh separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint, including each and every purported
cause of action therein, is barred under the equitable doctrine of laches,
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a twelfth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the
answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that the Cross-
Complaints fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Asa thirteenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the
answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and therefore alleges that the Cross-
Complaint is barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitations, which is/are contained in
CCP §§335.1, 337, 337.1, 337.6, 337.15, 338, 339, 340 and 343, or other applicable
statues.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a fourteenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the
answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that the
conduct of the answering Cross-Defendant in regard to the matters alleged in the Cross-
Complaint were justified, and by reason of the foregoing, Cross-Complainants/Defendants
are barred from any recovery against the answering Cross-Defendant.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a fifteenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the
answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that the
answering Cross-Defendant has appropriately, completely and fully performed and
discharged any and all obligations and legal duties arising out of the matters alleged in the
Cross-Complaint.
Mh
Mf
()
CROSS-DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTSIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a sixteenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the
answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that Cross-
Complainants’ sole negligence and/or wilful misconduct caused its damages and/or the
damages sustained by the Plaintiff in the underlying action, thus, any and all of Cross-
Complainants’ claims against Cross-Defendant is barred in their entirety.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a seventeenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the
answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that Cross-
Complainants’ failure to meet the requirement of the California Labor Code, including but
not limited to, Section 3860, et. al., bars any and all of Cross-Complainants’ claims against
Cross-Defendant in this and/or any other related action.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a eighteenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the
answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that Cross-
Complainants/Defendants’ sole/exclusive remedy is under the worker’s compensation laws
of the State of California.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As an nineteenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the
answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that Civil Code
§3333.4 applies to this case.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a twentieth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the
answering Cross-Defendant alleges that because the Cross-Complaint herein is couched in
(6)
CROSS-DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTa
oon
conclusionary terms, the answering Cross-Defendant cannot fully anticipate all affirmative
defenses that may be applicable to the within action. Accordingly, the right to assert
additional affirmative defenses, if and to the extent that such affirmative defenses are
applicable, is hereby reserved.
WHEREFORE, the answering Cross-Defendant prays judgment as follows:
1. That Cross-Complainants take nothing by reason of this action;
2. For reasonable attorney's fees;
3. For costs of suit incurred herein;
4, For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: November {D. 2016 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BIARD
SQ 203674
BY: Ae
JOPE A. MONT.
Attorneys for Crgs-Defendant
WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS, LLC
CROSS-DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT20 em NU A HW Bw N
Esborg v. Comcast/Wavedivision Holdings, LLC, et al.
San Francisco County Superior Court # CGC-16-553614
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 am employed in the County of Walnut Creek, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years
and not a party to the above-captioned matter. My business address is 215 Lennon Lane, Suite 200 in
Walnut Creek, California 94598.
On this date, I served the foregoing CROSS-DEFENDANT WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS,
LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF PAUL H. LUI AND KAM T. LUI on the parties
below by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and served same on the parties/counsel,
addressed as follows:
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS AND
KARA ESBORG CROSS-COMPLAINANTS PAUL H. LUI
Christopher B, Nolan, Esq. AND KAM T, LUI (individually and as
Quinton B. Cutlip, Esq. Trustees of the PAUL HO-CHOW & KAM
Dolan Law Firm TAI LUI REVOCABLE TRUST
1438 Market Street James R. Picker, Esq.
San Francisco, CA 94102 Philip M. Anderson & Associates
T: (415) 421-2800 Employees of the Corporate Law Department
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT AND 6210 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 550
CROSS-COMPLAINANT COMCAST Pleasanton, CA 94588
OF CALIFORNIA III, INC. Tel: (925) 255-6838
Paul A. Bigley, Esq. Fax: (855) 732-8437
Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2080
San Francisco, CA 94104-6702
T: (415) 627-2627
F: (213) 615-7100
The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected:
X_ (BY REGULAR MAIL) by placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the
designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office's practice, whereby the mail is deposited
ina U.S. mailbox after the close of the day’s business.
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) by delivering by hand and leaving a true copy with the person and/or
secretary at the address shown above.
(BY FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL) by placing a true copy thereof into a facsimile machine
addressed to the person, address and telephone number shown above.
PROOF OF SERVICECm YN DR HW BF Bw
RYN RN YN NY KY NY HS Be Be eB Be ee eB Be
oe QO KFA BON SF 5S Ce NY AH BDH KE S
LZ, 2016.
I, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is true and correct and this document was executed at Walnut Creek, California on November
Cael yhucak.
CAROL PETRICH
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
Jose A. Montalvo, Esq. (SBN: 184484) LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BIARD 215 Lennon Lane, Suite 200 Walnut Creek, California 94598 Telephone No: (925) 945-4491 Facsimile No: (855) 668-5559 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant, Wavedivision Holdings, LLC ELECTRONICALLY FILED Supertor Court of Calffornia, County of San Francisco 11/21/2016 Clerk of the Court BY:DAVID YUEN Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO KARA L, ESBORG, Plaintiff, vs. COMCAST CORP.; COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA III, INC.; COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS, LLC; ALEKSANDR FRID and MARINA FRID, Individually and as Trustees of Their Revocable Trust; PAUL H. LUI and KAM T.LUL, Individually and as Trustees of Their Revocable Trust; and DOE | through DOE 100, inclusive, Defendants. PAUL H. LUI and KAM T. LUI, individually and As Trustees of the PAUL HO-CHOW & KAM TAI LUI REVOCABLE TRUST, Cross-Complainants, VS. COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA III, INC.; WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS, LLC; ALEKSANDER FRID & MARINA FRID, individually and as trustees of their revocable trust; and ROES 1-100, inclusive, Cross-Defendants. () Case No.: CGC-16-553614 CROSS-DEFENDANT WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY OF PAUL H. LUI AND KAM T. LUI Complaint filed: August 11, 2016 CROSS-DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTCross-Defendant WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS, LLC (“the answering Cross- Defendant”) hereby answer the unverified Cross-Complaint of Cross-Complainants PAUL H. LUI and KAM T. LUI as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §431.30, the answering Cross-Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in each cause of action of the Cross-Complaint and further deny that Cross-Complainants/ Defendants have been damaged. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a first and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaints, the answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainants/Defendants and/or their agents, servants, employees and independent contractors were actively careless and negligent in the matters alleged including, but not limited to, Cross-Complainants/Defendants’ failure to use diligent care, thereby proximately causing and contributing to any alleged injury or damage to Cross-Complainants/Defendants and that said active negligence and carelessness bars Cross-Complainants/Defendants’ right to recovery from the answering Cross-Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a second and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant alleges by way of a plea of comparative negligence that the Cross-Complainants/Defendants and/or their agents, servants, employees, and independent contractors were negligent in and about the matters and activities alleged in said Cross- Complaint, that said negligence contributed to and was a proximate cause of Cross- Complainants/Defendants’ alleged injuries and damages, if any, and that if the Cross- Complainants/Defendants are entitled to recover damages against the answering Cross- Defendant, this answering Cross-Defendant prays that said recovery be diminished by reason of the Cross-Complainants/Defendants’ actions in proportion to the degree of fault attributable to the Cross-Complainants/Defendants. Q) CROSS-DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTTHIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a third and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant alleges that Cross-Complainants/Defendants and/or their agents, servants, employees and independent contractors (excluding the answering Cross-Defendant) had knowledge of the risks and hazards involved in the activity at the time and place of said alleged accident leading to Cross-Complainants/Defendants’ alleged damages, and voluntarily engaged therein, and assumed the risks and hazards thereof, and that said assumption of the risks and hazards bar Cross-Complainants/Defendants’ right to recovery from this answering Cross-Defendant. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a fourth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that, if, in fact, Cross-Complainants/Defendants were damaged in any manner whatsoever, that said damage, if any, was a direct and proximate result of the intervening and superseding actions on the part of other parties, and not the answering Cross-Defendant, and that such intervening and superseding actions of said other parties bar recovery herein on behalf of Cross-Complainants/Defendants. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a fifth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the answering Cross- Defendant is entitled to indemnification by apportionment against all other parties and persons whose negligence contributed to the happening of the claimed accident or alleged injuries. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a sixth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the answering Cross- Defendant is entitled to a right of contribution from any entities and/or persons whose negligence proximately contributed to the happening of the claimed accident or alleged G) CROSS-DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTinjuries if said Cross~-Complainants/Defendants should receive a verdict against the answering Cross-Defendant. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Asa seventh and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that any and all mandatory duties imposed on the answering Cross-Defendant, and/or their agents or employees, the failure of which allegedly created the condition at the time and place which is the subject of this Cross-Complaint were exercised with reasonable diligence and therefore the answering Cross-Defendant is not liable to Cross-Complainants/Defendants for the alleged injuries. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As an eighth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that if this answering Cross-Defendant has any liability to Cross-Complainants/Defendants in this action, which is denied, it is only severally liable for Cross-Complainants/Defendants’ non-economic damages under Civil Code §1431.2, and therefore request a judicial determination of the percentage of their negligence, if any, which proximately contributed to the subject accident. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a ninth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that Cross- Complainants/Defendants had the capability and failed to mitigate damages. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Asa tenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint, including each and every purported cause of action therein, is barred under the equitable doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean hands. Mt (4) CROSS-DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As an eleventh separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint, including each and every purported cause of action therein, is barred under the equitable doctrine of laches, TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a twelfth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that the Cross- Complaints fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Asa thirteenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and therefore alleges that the Cross- Complaint is barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitations, which is/are contained in CCP §§335.1, 337, 337.1, 337.6, 337.15, 338, 339, 340 and 343, or other applicable statues. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a fourteenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that the conduct of the answering Cross-Defendant in regard to the matters alleged in the Cross- Complaint were justified, and by reason of the foregoing, Cross-Complainants/Defendants are barred from any recovery against the answering Cross-Defendant. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a fifteenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that the answering Cross-Defendant has appropriately, completely and fully performed and discharged any and all obligations and legal duties arising out of the matters alleged in the Cross-Complaint. Mh Mf () CROSS-DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTSIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a sixteenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that Cross- Complainants’ sole negligence and/or wilful misconduct caused its damages and/or the damages sustained by the Plaintiff in the underlying action, thus, any and all of Cross- Complainants’ claims against Cross-Defendant is barred in their entirety. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a seventeenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that Cross- Complainants’ failure to meet the requirement of the California Labor Code, including but not limited to, Section 3860, et. al., bars any and all of Cross-Complainants’ claims against Cross-Defendant in this and/or any other related action. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a eighteenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that Cross- Complainants/Defendants’ sole/exclusive remedy is under the worker’s compensation laws of the State of California. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As an nineteenth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that Civil Code §3333.4 applies to this case. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a twentieth and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, the answering Cross-Defendant alleges that because the Cross-Complaint herein is couched in (6) CROSS-DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTa oon conclusionary terms, the answering Cross-Defendant cannot fully anticipate all affirmative defenses that may be applicable to the within action. Accordingly, the right to assert additional affirmative defenses, if and to the extent that such affirmative defenses are applicable, is hereby reserved. WHEREFORE, the answering Cross-Defendant prays judgment as follows: 1. That Cross-Complainants take nothing by reason of this action; 2. For reasonable attorney's fees; 3. For costs of suit incurred herein; 4, For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: November {D. 2016 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BIARD SQ 203674 BY: Ae JOPE A. MONT. Attorneys for Crgs-Defendant WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS, LLC CROSS-DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT20 em NU A HW Bw N Esborg v. Comcast/Wavedivision Holdings, LLC, et al. San Francisco County Superior Court # CGC-16-553614 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 am employed in the County of Walnut Creek, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the above-captioned matter. My business address is 215 Lennon Lane, Suite 200 in Walnut Creek, California 94598. On this date, I served the foregoing CROSS-DEFENDANT WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS, LLC’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF PAUL H. LUI AND KAM T. LUI on the parties below by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and served same on the parties/counsel, addressed as follows: ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS AND KARA ESBORG CROSS-COMPLAINANTS PAUL H. LUI Christopher B, Nolan, Esq. AND KAM T, LUI (individually and as Quinton B. Cutlip, Esq. Trustees of the PAUL HO-CHOW & KAM Dolan Law Firm TAI LUI REVOCABLE TRUST 1438 Market Street James R. Picker, Esq. San Francisco, CA 94102 Philip M. Anderson & Associates T: (415) 421-2800 Employees of the Corporate Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT AND 6210 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 550 CROSS-COMPLAINANT COMCAST Pleasanton, CA 94588 OF CALIFORNIA III, INC. Tel: (925) 255-6838 Paul A. Bigley, Esq. Fax: (855) 732-8437 Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2080 San Francisco, CA 94104-6702 T: (415) 627-2627 F: (213) 615-7100 The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected: X_ (BY REGULAR MAIL) by placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office's practice, whereby the mail is deposited ina U.S. mailbox after the close of the day’s business. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) by delivering by hand and leaving a true copy with the person and/or secretary at the address shown above. (BY FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL) by placing a true copy thereof into a facsimile machine addressed to the person, address and telephone number shown above. PROOF OF SERVICECm YN DR HW BF Bw RYN RN YN NY KY NY HS Be Be eB Be ee eB Be oe QO KFA BON SF 5S Ce NY AH BDH KE S LZ, 2016. I, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct and this document was executed at Walnut Creek, California on November Cael yhucak. CAROL PETRICH PROOF OF SERVICE