Preview
ROBERT M. MALTZ, ESQ. — State Bar No. 143078
STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 258829, Oklahoma City, OK 73125-8829 FILED.
Fae Superior Court of California,
505 14th Street, Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94612-1913 paroay: a
Phone: (510) 457-3440 09/28/2015
Fax: (510) 238-8968 BY:VANESSA WU
Deputy Clerk
Attorney for Defendant,
WONG FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
QING MEI HUA, dba as HUA'S WORLD, Case No.: CGC-15-545627
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
Plaintiffs,
ASSIGNED TO FOR ALL PURPOSES:
vs. DEPT: Not Assigned
WONG FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, et al., ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Defendants.
COME NOW the Defendants, WONG FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, above named, and in
answer to the Complaint of Plaintiffs on file herein admit, deny and allege as follows:
1. Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, these
answering defendants deny each, every and all of the allegations of said Complaint, and the whole
thereof, and deny Plaintiffs have sustained damages in any sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum or
at all.
2. Further answering Plaintiffs’ Complaint on file herein, and the whole thereof, these
answering defendants deny that the Plaintiffs have sustained any injury, damages or loss, if any, by
reason of any act or omission of these answering defendants or their agents or employees.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 1FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That the Complaint and each of the alleged causes of action fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action against these answering defendants.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That all times mentioned in the Complaint, the Plaintiffs so carelessly, recklessly and negligently
conducted and maintained themselves so as to cause and contribute in some degree to the alleged
incident and to the damages and injuries, if any, alleged to have been sustained by said Plaintiffs and
therefore said negligence completely bars any recovery or in the alternative, it reduces the right of
recovery by that amount said negligence contributed to this incident as set forth under the doctrine of
comparative negligence.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That at all times mentioned in the Complaint, the Plaintiffs knowing the probable consequences
thereof, placed themselves in a position of danger and freely and voluntarily participated in all the
activities alleged herein, and thereby assumed all the risks attendant thereto.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That Plaintiffs are barred from asserting any causes of action by virtue of their consent to the
alleged acts or conditions.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That if there was any negligence and carelessness contributing to the damages and/or injuries, it
was the negligence and carelessness of some entity or individual other than these answering Defendants.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That Plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to mitigate any damages sustained
by reason of defendants’ alleged acts. Therefore, any damages awarded to Plaintiffs shall be limited to
the damages Plaintiffs would have sustained had Plaintiffs mitigated their damages.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The complaint is barred by virtue of the terms and provisions of the Commercial Lease And
Deposit Receipt, which provides in paragraph 10 that lessor/defendant will not be liable for any damages
to lessee/plaintiff, or to any property, occurring on the premises. Further, “Lessee agrees to hold Lessor
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -2harmless from any claims for damages arising out of Lessee’s use of the premises, and to indemnify
Lessor for any expense incurred by Lessor in defending any such claims.”
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery as to these answering defendants, in that any
damage proven to have been sustained by Plaintiffs was the direct and proximate result of the
independent and superseding action of Plaintiffs and other persons or parties, and not due to any act or
omission on the part of these defendants.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That the Complaint and each alleged cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action in that said complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by the
statute of limitations as stated in Part Two, Title II, Chapter 3, of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
beginning with Section 335, and continuing through section 349.4 and, more particularly, but not
limited, to Sections 337, 337.1, 337.15, 337.5, 338, 339, 340, 343 and to California Business and
Professions Code 117208.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That Plaintiffs have waived and/or released their right to maintain the action filed in this case.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, these answering Defendants allege
that Plaintiffs are estopped by action of law or by conduct from maintaining the action filed in this case,
including, but not limited to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, these answering Defendants allege
that the action filed in this case is not maintainable under the equitable doctrine of laches.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, these answering Defendants allege
that Plaintiffs in this case are barred from recovery in this case under the doctrine of unclean hands.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT = 325
To the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, these answering Defendants allege
that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which attorneys’ fees can be awarded.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, these answering Defendants allege
that the actions complained were made without malice or wrongful intent on the part of defendants and
in a reasonable and good faith belief of their legal right to perform the actions complained of.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That prior to the commencement of this action these answering Defendants allege duly
performed, satisfied and discharged all duties and obligations they may have owed to the Plaintiffs
arising out of any and all agreements, representations, or contracts made by or on behalf of these
answering Defendants and this action is therefore barred by the provisions of California Civil Code
Section 1473.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That Plaintiffs violated material covenants and conditions of the rental agreement, including the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the obligation to maintain property damage insurance
insuring both lessee and lessor, thereby terminating and extinguishing the duties allegedly owed by these|
answering Defendants allege, or reducing or abating the amount of damages to which Plaintiffs are
entitled, if any.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That if any damages are awarded to Plaintiffs, the amount of damages should be offset by the
amounts, if any, owed to defendants pursuant to the terms of the rental agreement.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That at all times herein relevant that all alleged efforts to recover possession of the premises are
privileged pursuant to the litigation privileges pursuant to Civil Code Sec. 47(b).
WHEREFORE, defendants pray as follows:
1, That Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of their said Complaint;
2. That these Defendants be dismissed hence with prejudice;
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 43. For defendants’ costs, including attorneys’ fees, costs, and expert witness fees incurred in
defense of this action;
4. For such other, further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
NOTICE
By placing the following statement in the answer, neither these defendants nor their counsel
waives any privilege or objection regarding the admissibility of the following statement (or the existence
of insurance coverage for the defendant), and requests that this statement be redacted as may be
necessary and appropriate to protect the defendants.
All attorneys and staff of the office of Stratman, Patterson & Hunter are employees of Farmers
Insurance Exchange, a Member of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, and not a partnership.
DATED: September > & 2015 STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER
ed EE oe ee
<
BY:
ROBERT M. MALTZ, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant,
WONG FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 5Re: Hua y. Wong Family Revocable Trust, et al.
Case Number: CGC-15-545627
PROOF OF SERVICE
Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1013a, 2015.5
Tam a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to ind
within action. My business address is 505 14th Street, Suite 400, Oakland, CA 94612-1913. On
September 2 § , 2015, I served the following document(s):
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope, addressed as set forth
,/ below, and placing the envelope for collection and mailing in the place designated for
such in our offices, following ordinary business practices.
By transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set
forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
By causing a true copy thereof to be personally delivered to the person(s) at the
address(es) set forth below.
By electronically serving the document(s) described above via a Court approved File
& Serve vendor on those recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on
the vendor’s Website.
By electronically serving the document(s) to the electronic mail address set forth
below on this date before 5:00 p.m. pursuant to the signed stipulation of the parties
and consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(2).
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
Jam readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for
mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with U.S.
Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I
am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or
postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
and correct.
Executed on cet 7
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 6Re: Hua v. Wong Family Revocable Trust, et al.
Case Number: CGC-15-545627
SERVICE LIST
Emmanuel Enyinwa, Esq.
Law Office of Emmanuel Enyinwa
445 Washington Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Attorney for, QING MEI HUA, DBA AS HUA'S WORLD
Phone: (415) 956-6100
Fax: (415) 956-6111
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -7
Preview
ROBERT M. MALTZ, ESQ. — State Bar No. 143078 STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER Mailing Address P.O. Box 258829, Oklahoma City, OK 73125-8829 FILED. Fae Superior Court of California, 505 14th Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612-1913 paroay: a Phone: (510) 457-3440 09/28/2015 Fax: (510) 238-8968 BY:VANESSA WU Deputy Clerk Attorney for Defendant, WONG FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO QING MEI HUA, dba as HUA'S WORLD, Case No.: CGC-15-545627 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION Plaintiffs, ASSIGNED TO FOR ALL PURPOSES: vs. DEPT: Not Assigned WONG FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, et al., ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Defendants. COME NOW the Defendants, WONG FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, above named, and in answer to the Complaint of Plaintiffs on file herein admit, deny and allege as follows: 1. Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, these answering defendants deny each, every and all of the allegations of said Complaint, and the whole thereof, and deny Plaintiffs have sustained damages in any sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum or at all. 2. Further answering Plaintiffs’ Complaint on file herein, and the whole thereof, these answering defendants deny that the Plaintiffs have sustained any injury, damages or loss, if any, by reason of any act or omission of these answering defendants or their agents or employees. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 1FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That the Complaint and each of the alleged causes of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering defendants. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That all times mentioned in the Complaint, the Plaintiffs so carelessly, recklessly and negligently conducted and maintained themselves so as to cause and contribute in some degree to the alleged incident and to the damages and injuries, if any, alleged to have been sustained by said Plaintiffs and therefore said negligence completely bars any recovery or in the alternative, it reduces the right of recovery by that amount said negligence contributed to this incident as set forth under the doctrine of comparative negligence. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That at all times mentioned in the Complaint, the Plaintiffs knowing the probable consequences thereof, placed themselves in a position of danger and freely and voluntarily participated in all the activities alleged herein, and thereby assumed all the risks attendant thereto. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That Plaintiffs are barred from asserting any causes of action by virtue of their consent to the alleged acts or conditions. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That if there was any negligence and carelessness contributing to the damages and/or injuries, it was the negligence and carelessness of some entity or individual other than these answering Defendants. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That Plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to mitigate any damages sustained by reason of defendants’ alleged acts. Therefore, any damages awarded to Plaintiffs shall be limited to the damages Plaintiffs would have sustained had Plaintiffs mitigated their damages. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The complaint is barred by virtue of the terms and provisions of the Commercial Lease And Deposit Receipt, which provides in paragraph 10 that lessor/defendant will not be liable for any damages to lessee/plaintiff, or to any property, occurring on the premises. Further, “Lessee agrees to hold Lessor ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -2harmless from any claims for damages arising out of Lessee’s use of the premises, and to indemnify Lessor for any expense incurred by Lessor in defending any such claims.” EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery as to these answering defendants, in that any damage proven to have been sustained by Plaintiffs was the direct and proximate result of the independent and superseding action of Plaintiffs and other persons or parties, and not due to any act or omission on the part of these defendants. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That the Complaint and each alleged cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that said complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by the statute of limitations as stated in Part Two, Title II, Chapter 3, of the California Code of Civil Procedure, beginning with Section 335, and continuing through section 349.4 and, more particularly, but not limited, to Sections 337, 337.1, 337.15, 337.5, 338, 339, 340, 343 and to California Business and Professions Code 117208. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That Plaintiffs have waived and/or released their right to maintain the action filed in this case. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, these answering Defendants allege that Plaintiffs are estopped by action of law or by conduct from maintaining the action filed in this case, including, but not limited to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, these answering Defendants allege that the action filed in this case is not maintainable under the equitable doctrine of laches. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, these answering Defendants allege that Plaintiffs in this case are barred from recovery in this case under the doctrine of unclean hands. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT = 325 To the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, these answering Defendants allege that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which attorneys’ fees can be awarded. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, these answering Defendants allege that the actions complained were made without malice or wrongful intent on the part of defendants and in a reasonable and good faith belief of their legal right to perform the actions complained of. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That prior to the commencement of this action these answering Defendants allege duly performed, satisfied and discharged all duties and obligations they may have owed to the Plaintiffs arising out of any and all agreements, representations, or contracts made by or on behalf of these answering Defendants and this action is therefore barred by the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1473. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That Plaintiffs violated material covenants and conditions of the rental agreement, including the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the obligation to maintain property damage insurance insuring both lessee and lessor, thereby terminating and extinguishing the duties allegedly owed by these| answering Defendants allege, or reducing or abating the amount of damages to which Plaintiffs are entitled, if any. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That if any damages are awarded to Plaintiffs, the amount of damages should be offset by the amounts, if any, owed to defendants pursuant to the terms of the rental agreement. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That at all times herein relevant that all alleged efforts to recover possession of the premises are privileged pursuant to the litigation privileges pursuant to Civil Code Sec. 47(b). WHEREFORE, defendants pray as follows: 1, That Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of their said Complaint; 2. That these Defendants be dismissed hence with prejudice; ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 43. For defendants’ costs, including attorneys’ fees, costs, and expert witness fees incurred in defense of this action; 4. For such other, further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. NOTICE By placing the following statement in the answer, neither these defendants nor their counsel waives any privilege or objection regarding the admissibility of the following statement (or the existence of insurance coverage for the defendant), and requests that this statement be redacted as may be necessary and appropriate to protect the defendants. All attorneys and staff of the office of Stratman, Patterson & Hunter are employees of Farmers Insurance Exchange, a Member of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, and not a partnership. DATED: September > & 2015 STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER ed EE oe ee < BY: ROBERT M. MALTZ, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant, WONG FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 5Re: Hua y. Wong Family Revocable Trust, et al. Case Number: CGC-15-545627 PROOF OF SERVICE Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1013a, 2015.5 Tam a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to ind within action. My business address is 505 14th Street, Suite 400, Oakland, CA 94612-1913. On September 2 § , 2015, I served the following document(s): ANSWER TO COMPLAINT By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope, addressed as set forth ,/ below, and placing the envelope for collection and mailing in the place designated for such in our offices, following ordinary business practices. By transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. By causing a true copy thereof to be personally delivered to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. By electronically serving the document(s) described above via a Court approved File & Serve vendor on those recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the vendor’s Website. By electronically serving the document(s) to the electronic mail address set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. pursuant to the signed stipulation of the parties and consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(2). SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST Jam readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on cet 7 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 6Re: Hua v. Wong Family Revocable Trust, et al. Case Number: CGC-15-545627 SERVICE LIST Emmanuel Enyinwa, Esq. Law Office of Emmanuel Enyinwa 445 Washington Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Attorney for, QING MEI HUA, DBA AS HUA'S WORLD Phone: (415) 956-6100 Fax: (415) 956-6111 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -7