Preview
ATCC
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jan-10-2012 11:26 am
Case Number: CGC-11-515542
Filing Date: Jan-05-2012 11:25
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03446941
ANSWER
IDA CHRISTINA FUA CRUZ VS. JOEL ENRIQUE ANDINO SANCHEZ eiat
001003446941
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.4
Neier
Thomas P. Gmelich, Esq., State Bar No. 166562
igmelich@bglawyers.com
Kathryn Canale. Esq., State Bar No. 195907
kcanale@bglawyers.com
BRADLEY & GMELICH
700 North Brand Boulevard, 10" Floor
Glendale, California 91203-1422
Telephone: (818) 243-5200
Facsimile: (818) 243-5266
Attomeys for Defendants, JOEL ENRIQUE
ANDINO SANCHEZ, SAN FRANCISCO
INDEPENDENT TAXI ASSOCIATION,
YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC., and
TAXI EQUIPMENT LEASING, LLC
wat
San LE. Court
JAN X5 2012
CLERK OF ge COURT
By: puty Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA,
Plaintiff,
VS.
JOEL ENRIQUE ANDINO SANCHEZ, an
Individual; CAROLINE MILLER, an
Individual; TAXT EQUIPMENT LEASING
LLC, a Limited Liability Company; SAN
FRANCISCO INDEPENDENT TAXI
ASSOCIATION, a Corporation; YELLOW
CAB COOPERATIVE, INC., a Corporation;
and DOES | through 50, Inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. CGC-11-515542
DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB
COOPERATIVE, INC.’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ
FUA’S COMPLAINT FOR
NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENCE PER SE;
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
(Assigned to the Hon. Tomar Mason,
Department 610)
Complaint Filed: 10/31/2011
Discovery Cutoff; None Set
Motion Cutoff, None Set
Trial Date: None Set
Pursuant to Sections 431.10, et seq., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, defendant,
YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC. (“defendant”) answers the Complaint of plaintiff, IDA
CRISTINA CRUZ FUA (“plaintiff”). Defendant denies, both generally and specifically, each and
every allegation of the Complaint and denies that plaintiff, is entitled to any relief whatsoever.
‘it
ity
DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRU? FUAPS
Ne ars pene ceeGweuici
Bravos
a & WwW HN
ny
‘
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant pleads the following separate defenses. Defendant reserves the right to assert
additional affirmative defenses that discovery indicates are proper.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Claim)
1. As a separate and first affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to the purported
causes of action set forth therein, defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient
to constitute a cause of action.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Apportionment of Fault)
2. As a separate and second affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff's damages, if any, were caused
by the negligence and/or acts or omissions of parties other than the defendant, whether or not
parties to this action. By reason thereof, plaintiff's damages, if any, as against the defendant, must
be reduced by the proportion of fault attributable to such other parties, and to the extent that this is
necessary, defendant may be entitled to partial indemnity from others on a comparative fault basis.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Assumption of Risk)
3. As a separate and third affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff, and/or the persons and/or
entities acting on plaintiff's behalf, assumed the risk of all conduct of the plaintiff or her agents.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Authorization)
4. As a separate and fourth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that by virtue of the acts of the plaintiff,
and/or the persons and/or entities acting on her behalf, plaintiff is barred from prosecuting the
purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of authorization,
fil
2
DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPE,
NAR ETT at
NSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’SMUELICH
x
A
©)
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Fault)
5. As a separate and fifth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiffs damages, if any, were caused
by the primary negligence and/or acquiescence in the acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint
by the plaintiff, and plaintiff's agents, employees, representatives, relatives, heirs, assigns,
attomeys, and/or any others acting on plaintiff’s behalf. By reason thereof, plaintiff is not entitled
to damages or any other relief whatsoever as against defendant.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Compliance with the Law)
6. As a separate and sixth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that the actions taken by defendant were in
full compliance with the law.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Consent)
7. As a separate and seventh affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred from prosecuting the
purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint because plaintiff, and/or the persons and/or
entities acting on her behalf, consented to and acquiesced in the subject conduct.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
({Fstoppel)
8. As a separate and eighth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from
prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of estoppel.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)
9. As a separate and ninth affirmative defense to the Compiaint and each purported
cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff's claims, if. any, are barred for
3
DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATI
FAR ADL ature t,
NSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’SGamiict
Brapuny
Cc -
co °
her failure, and/or the failure of the persons and/or entities acting on his behalf, to mitigate any
purported damages.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Timely File Complaint)
10. Asa separate and tenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that each cause of action is barred because
plaintiff failed to timely file her Complaint after recording her mechanic’s lien,
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Intervening and Superseding Cause)
11. Asa separate and eleventh affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that if plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss,
damage or injury as alleged in the Complaint, such loss, damage or injury was legally caused or
contributed to by the negligence or wrongful conduct of other parties, persons or entities, and that
their negligence or wrongful conduct was an intervening and superseding cause of the loss,
damage or injury of which plaintiff complains.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)
12. Asa separate and twelfth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from
prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of laches.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Proximate Cause - Other Persons)
13. Asa separate and thirteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that the damages alleged to have
been suffered by plaintiff in the Complaint were proximately caused or contributed to by acts or
failures to act of persons other than this answering defendant, which acts or failures to act
constitute an intervening and superseding cause of the damages alleged in the Complaint.
/df
4
DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.”’S ANSWER TO LA:
COMP AINT CAD werpieminre 1
» IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’SGa. ICH
Brapury
wn
Cem WN
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Proximate Cause — plaintiff)
14, Asa separate and fourteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and cach
purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that the injuries and damages
alleged in the Complaint by plaintiff occurred, were proximately caused by and/or were
contributed to by plaintiff's own acts or failures to act and that plaintiff's recovery, if any, should
be reduced by an amount proportionate to the amount by which said acts caused or contributed to
said alleged injury or damages.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
15. Asa separate and fifteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that the purported causes of action asserted in
the Complaint are barred by such statutes of limitation as may be applicable, including, but not
limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 335, 335.1, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 340.5,
340.9, 343, 344 and 474,
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
16. Asa separate and sixteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred in whole or in
part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of
unclean hands.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)
17. Asa separate and seventeenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred in whole or in
part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of
waiver.
ify
5
DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’S
COMP! AINT POR NEC ICcace ureprer ramine nee neGosice
Brapiey
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver and Estoppel)
18. Asa separate and eighteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that as a result of her own acts
and/or omissions, plaintiff has waived any right which she may have had to recover, and/or is
estopped from recovering, any relief sought against defendant.
WHEREFORE, defendant prays for relief as follows:
1, That the Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice and in its entirety;
2. That plaintiff take nothing by reason of this Complaint and that judgment be
entered against plaintiff and in favor of defendant:
3. That defendant be awarded its attomeys’ fees and costs incurred in defending this
action;
4. That defendant be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.
Dated: January 4, 2012 BRADLEY & GMELICH
Thomas?. Gmétich 5
Kathryn Canale
Attorneys for Defendants, JOEL ENRIQUE
ANDINO SANCHEZ, SAN FRANCISCO
INDEPENDENT TAXI ASSOCIATION,
YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC., and
TAXI EQUIPMENT LEASING, LLC
6
DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.*S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’S
CARADT ATT CAN ures: pene< :
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2
Defendant, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC. hereby demands trial of this
3
matter by jury.
4
Dated: January 4, 2012 BRADLEY & GMELICH
§
6
7 Pb boone A
8 "Thomas P. Gineli }
Kathryn Canale eS
9
10 Attorneys for Defendants, JOEL ENRIQUE
ANDINO SANCHEZ, SAN FRANCISCO
Ml INDEPENDENT TAXI ASSOCIATION,
YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC., and
& 12 TAXI EQUIPMENT LEASING, LLC
13
gq 14
5
Zi 15
ea
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’S
TORADI ATNIT OAD AIP Im rete tees teGaeicn
Br ADLEY
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. [ am
employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 700 North
Brand Boulevard, 10th Floor, Glendale, California 91203.
On January 4, 2012, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA
CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENCE PER SE;
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL on the interested parties in this action as follows:
Todd P. Emanuel, Esq
Law Offices of Todd P. Emanuel
702 Marshall Street, Suite 400
Redwood City, CA 94063
Telephone: 650-369-8900
Facsimile: 650-369-8999
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Ida Cristina Cruz Fua
BY MAIL: | 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
mailing, following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with Bradley &
Gmelich’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day
that the correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course
of business with the United States Postal Service, ina sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
[declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 4, 2012, at Glendale, California.
LObrbene Abkes-
Lorraine Jones
DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIV!
NSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’S
Preview
ATCC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jan-10-2012 11:26 am Case Number: CGC-11-515542 Filing Date: Jan-05-2012 11:25 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03446941 ANSWER IDA CHRISTINA FUA CRUZ VS. JOEL ENRIQUE ANDINO SANCHEZ eiat 001003446941 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.4 Neier Thomas P. Gmelich, Esq., State Bar No. 166562 igmelich@bglawyers.com Kathryn Canale. Esq., State Bar No. 195907 kcanale@bglawyers.com BRADLEY & GMELICH 700 North Brand Boulevard, 10" Floor Glendale, California 91203-1422 Telephone: (818) 243-5200 Facsimile: (818) 243-5266 Attomeys for Defendants, JOEL ENRIQUE ANDINO SANCHEZ, SAN FRANCISCO INDEPENDENT TAXI ASSOCIATION, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC., and TAXI EQUIPMENT LEASING, LLC wat San LE. Court JAN X5 2012 CLERK OF ge COURT By: puty Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA, Plaintiff, VS. JOEL ENRIQUE ANDINO SANCHEZ, an Individual; CAROLINE MILLER, an Individual; TAXT EQUIPMENT LEASING LLC, a Limited Liability Company; SAN FRANCISCO INDEPENDENT TAXI ASSOCIATION, a Corporation; YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC., a Corporation; and DOES | through 50, Inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CGC-11-515542 DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENCE PER SE; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Assigned to the Hon. Tomar Mason, Department 610) Complaint Filed: 10/31/2011 Discovery Cutoff; None Set Motion Cutoff, None Set Trial Date: None Set Pursuant to Sections 431.10, et seq., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, defendant, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC. (“defendant”) answers the Complaint of plaintiff, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA (“plaintiff”). Defendant denies, both generally and specifically, each and every allegation of the Complaint and denies that plaintiff, is entitled to any relief whatsoever. ‘it ity DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRU? FUAPS Ne ars pene ceeGweuici Bravos a & WwW HN ny ‘ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant pleads the following separate defenses. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses that discovery indicates are proper. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim) 1. As a separate and first affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to the purported causes of action set forth therein, defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Apportionment of Fault) 2. As a separate and second affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff's damages, if any, were caused by the negligence and/or acts or omissions of parties other than the defendant, whether or not parties to this action. By reason thereof, plaintiff's damages, if any, as against the defendant, must be reduced by the proportion of fault attributable to such other parties, and to the extent that this is necessary, defendant may be entitled to partial indemnity from others on a comparative fault basis. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Assumption of Risk) 3. As a separate and third affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff, and/or the persons and/or entities acting on plaintiff's behalf, assumed the risk of all conduct of the plaintiff or her agents. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Authorization) 4. As a separate and fourth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that by virtue of the acts of the plaintiff, and/or the persons and/or entities acting on her behalf, plaintiff is barred from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of authorization, fil 2 DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPE, NAR ETT at NSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’SMUELICH x A ©) FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Fault) 5. As a separate and fifth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiffs damages, if any, were caused by the primary negligence and/or acquiescence in the acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint by the plaintiff, and plaintiff's agents, employees, representatives, relatives, heirs, assigns, attomeys, and/or any others acting on plaintiff’s behalf. By reason thereof, plaintiff is not entitled to damages or any other relief whatsoever as against defendant. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Compliance with the Law) 6. As a separate and sixth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that the actions taken by defendant were in full compliance with the law. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Consent) 7. As a separate and seventh affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint because plaintiff, and/or the persons and/or entities acting on her behalf, consented to and acquiesced in the subject conduct. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ({Fstoppel) 8. As a separate and eighth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of estoppel. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate) 9. As a separate and ninth affirmative defense to the Compiaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff's claims, if. any, are barred for 3 DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATI FAR ADL ature t, NSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’SGamiict Brapuny Cc - co ° her failure, and/or the failure of the persons and/or entities acting on his behalf, to mitigate any purported damages. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Timely File Complaint) 10. Asa separate and tenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that each cause of action is barred because plaintiff failed to timely file her Complaint after recording her mechanic’s lien, ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Intervening and Superseding Cause) 11. Asa separate and eleventh affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that if plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss, damage or injury as alleged in the Complaint, such loss, damage or injury was legally caused or contributed to by the negligence or wrongful conduct of other parties, persons or entities, and that their negligence or wrongful conduct was an intervening and superseding cause of the loss, damage or injury of which plaintiff complains. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) 12. Asa separate and twelfth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of laches. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Proximate Cause - Other Persons) 13. Asa separate and thirteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that the damages alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff in the Complaint were proximately caused or contributed to by acts or failures to act of persons other than this answering defendant, which acts or failures to act constitute an intervening and superseding cause of the damages alleged in the Complaint. /df 4 DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.”’S ANSWER TO LA: COMP AINT CAD werpieminre 1 » IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’SGa. ICH Brapury wn Cem WN FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Proximate Cause — plaintiff) 14, Asa separate and fourteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and cach purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that the injuries and damages alleged in the Complaint by plaintiff occurred, were proximately caused by and/or were contributed to by plaintiff's own acts or failures to act and that plaintiff's recovery, if any, should be reduced by an amount proportionate to the amount by which said acts caused or contributed to said alleged injury or damages. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 15. Asa separate and fifteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that the purported causes of action asserted in the Complaint are barred by such statutes of limitation as may be applicable, including, but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 335, 335.1, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 340.5, 340.9, 343, 344 and 474, SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 16. Asa separate and sixteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of unclean hands. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) 17. Asa separate and seventeenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of waiver. ify 5 DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’S COMP! AINT POR NEC ICcace ureprer ramine nee neGosice Brapiey EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver and Estoppel) 18. Asa separate and eighteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that as a result of her own acts and/or omissions, plaintiff has waived any right which she may have had to recover, and/or is estopped from recovering, any relief sought against defendant. WHEREFORE, defendant prays for relief as follows: 1, That the Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice and in its entirety; 2. That plaintiff take nothing by reason of this Complaint and that judgment be entered against plaintiff and in favor of defendant: 3. That defendant be awarded its attomeys’ fees and costs incurred in defending this action; 4. That defendant be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: January 4, 2012 BRADLEY & GMELICH Thomas?. Gmétich 5 Kathryn Canale Attorneys for Defendants, JOEL ENRIQUE ANDINO SANCHEZ, SAN FRANCISCO INDEPENDENT TAXI ASSOCIATION, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC., and TAXI EQUIPMENT LEASING, LLC 6 DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.*S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’S CARADT ATT CAN ures: pene< : 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 Defendant, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC. hereby demands trial of this 3 matter by jury. 4 Dated: January 4, 2012 BRADLEY & GMELICH § 6 7 Pb boone A 8 "Thomas P. Gineli } Kathryn Canale eS 9 10 Attorneys for Defendants, JOEL ENRIQUE ANDINO SANCHEZ, SAN FRANCISCO Ml INDEPENDENT TAXI ASSOCIATION, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC., and & 12 TAXI EQUIPMENT LEASING, LLC 13 gq 14 5 Zi 15 ea 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’S TORADI ATNIT OAD AIP Im rete tees teGaeicn Br ADLEY PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. [ am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 700 North Brand Boulevard, 10th Floor, Glendale, California 91203. On January 4, 2012, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENCE PER SE; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL on the interested parties in this action as follows: Todd P. Emanuel, Esq Law Offices of Todd P. Emanuel 702 Marshall Street, Suite 400 Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: 650-369-8900 Facsimile: 650-369-8999 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Ida Cristina Cruz Fua BY MAIL: | 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 mailing, following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with Bradley & Gmelich’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that the correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, ina sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. [declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 4, 2012, at Glendale, California. LObrbene Abkes- Lorraine Jones DEFENDANT, YELLOW CAB COOPERATIV! NSWER TO PLAINTIFF, IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA’S