Preview
IOC
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Sep-15-2008 12:56 pm
Case Number: CGC-08-479247
Filing Date: Sep-15-2008 12:51
Juke Box: 001 Image: 02250796
GENERAL DENIAL
WAYNE DERMAN VS. M.KARKORI CONSTRUCTION, INC., A PURPORATED et al
001002250796
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.PLD-050
TRTIORNEY OR PAAT
‘GEORGE W. WOLFF (81126); LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE W. WOLFF
655 MONTGOMERY ST., #1050; P.O.BOX 26749
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94126-6749
ATTORNEY FOR (Nemel:’ Defend
TAME OF COURT: San Francisco Supertor Court
STREET ADDRESS:
Wy WITHOUT ATTORNEY Panna Stove Ser mere’, and soareesh TELEPHONE HO. FOR COURT USE OMY
ED
rior Court
Sepenyetsan renclaco
ae Tee reisce, CA 54102 SEP 15 2008 ¥
BRANCH NAME:
GORDON-PARICLI, Clerk
PLAINTIFF: Wayne Derman BY: aoe sie
DEFENDANT: M. Karkorl Construction, Ine. and Mostafa Karkori
a WV
GENERAL DENIAL
CGC-08-479247
You MUST use this form for your general denial ifthe
$1000 or less.
You MAY use this form if
1, The complaint fs not verified, OR
2. The comptaint is verified, and the action is subject to the economic litigation procedures of the municipal and justice courts,
EXCEPT
You MAY NOT use this form if the complaintis verified and involves a claim for more than $1000 that has been assigned to a third
party for colfection.
(See Code of Civil Procedure sections 90-100, 434.30, and 431.40).
amount asked for in the compiaint or the value of the property involved is
4, DEFENDANT (name); M, Karkori Construction, Tac., and Mostafa Karkori
generally denies each and every allegation of plaintiff's complaint.
2. EX] DEFENDANT states the following FACTS as separate affirmative defenses to plaintiffs complaint (attach additional
pages if necessary):
See Attachment.
Date: September 12, 2008
L/” {SIGNATURE OF DEFENDANT OR ATTORNEY)
Ifyou have a claim for damages or other relief against the plaintiff, the Taw may require you to state your claim in a special pleading
called a cross-complaint or you may lose your claim. (See Code of Civil Procedure sections 426.10-426.40.)
The original of this General Denial rust be filed with the clerk of this court with proof that a copy was served on each plaintiffs
attomey and on each plaintiff not represented by an attomey. (See tha other side for a proof of service.)
Fa ere Cane GENERAL DENIAL
General Denial 9-12-08.maxPLD-050
PLAINTIFF (name): Wayne Derman
DEFENDANT (name): M, Karkori Construction, Inc, and Mostafa Karkori
PROOF OF SERVICE
(<1 Personal Service [1] Mail
A General Denial may be served by anyone al least 18 years of age EXCEPT you or any ‘other party to this legal
action. Service is made in one of the following ways:
(1) Personally delivering a copy to the attorney for the other party or, ifna attomey, to the other party.
OR
(2) Mailing 8 copy, postage prepaid, to the last known address of the attomey for the other party or, if
no attomey, to the other party.
Be sure whoever serves the General Denial fills out and signs a proof of service. File the proof of service with the
court as soon as the General Denial Is served.
4. Atthe fime of service | was atleast 18 years of age and nota party to this legal action.
2. served a copy of the General Denial as follows (check either a orb):
a. [EX] Personal service.1 personally delivered the General Denial as foltows:
(1) Name of person served: JEFFREY SKYES
(2) Address where served: 235 MONTGOMERY STREET 17711 FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
(3) Date served: September 15,2008 ,
(4) Time served:
b. [] Mail. Ideposited the General Denial in the United States mail, ina sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. The
envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: .
(1) Name of person served: .
(2) Address:
(3) Date of mailing:
(4) Place of mailing (city and state):
(5) lamaresident ‘of or employed in the county where the General Deniat was mailed.
c. My residence or business address Is (specify):
655 Montgomery Street, suite 1050. San Francisco, CA 94111
d. My phone number Is (specify): (415)788-1881
Idectare under penalty of perjury under the taws of the Stale of California that the foregoing is tue and correct.
Date: SEPTEMBER 15, 2008
"Jennifer Yu...
fase oF PURsON Wai0 SEINE
one
Fab aso Fv. deny 12007} GENERAL DENIAL Pose ote
(Proof of Service}
General Denial 9-12-08.maxCc
Plaintiff could have mitigated the damages they allegedly suffered; but Plaintiff filed and refused,
and continue to fail and refuse, to exercise reasonable efforts to mitigate the damages.
SECOND
ATTACHMENT TO GENERAL DENIAL
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(FAILURE TO MITIGATE)
Defendants believe and thereupon allege that by the exercise of reasonable effort,
C
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(FAILURE TO
constitute a cause of action against this
THIRD
California Code of Civil Procedure.
persons and entities not parties to this
Defendants believe and thereupon allege that the Plaintiff fail to state facts sufficient to
AF A DEFENSE
(BARRED BY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)
Defendants believe and thereupon allege that the cause of action, if any, attempted to be
stated and set forth in Plaintiff complaint, is barred by the Statute of Limitations, as found in the
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)
Defendants believe and thereupon allege that if Plaintiff was injured in the manner set
forth in the complaint, Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff was
negligent in those matters set forth in the complaint, and negligently conducted themselves in a
manner so as to result in injuries. Said negligent conduct of Plaintiff proximately caused and
contributed to the alleged injuries and damages, if any, alleged by Plaintiff.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE. DEFENSE
(NEGLIGENCE OF OTHER CROSS-DEFENDANTS)
Defendants believe and thereupon allege that other parties in this lawsuit, as well as other.
alleged damages. This Defendants request that their liabilities, if any, be assessed in proportion to
STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION)
answering Defendants.
FIRMATIVE
FFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
lawsuit, were themselves responsible, for the Plaintif?
Page 1 of 4 ‘Attachment to General Denial. Cc C
the liability of other parties in this action and persons and entities who are not parties to this
action, and that this Defendants be required to pay only for his proportionate share of fault, ifany
there be.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
(CIVIL CODE SECTION 1431 (PROP 51))
Defendants believe and thereupon allege that their liabilities for damages, if any, should
be reduced pursuant to the provisions of Califomia Civil Code section 1431, et seq.
SEVENTH AFFIRMA IVE DEFENSE
(ASSUMPTION OF RISK)
Defendants believe and thereupon allege that Plaintiff freely and voluntarily assumed the
risk of injury and damage alleged in this action with full knowledge and appreciation .of the
magnitude thereof.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(LACHES)
Defendants believe and thereupon allege that Plaintiff has unreasonably delayed in. the
bringing of this action without good cause therefore. Said delay has directly resulted in prejudice
to this Defendants, and this action is, therefore, barred by the Doctrine of Laches.
TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(INTERVENING ACTIONS)
Defendants believe and thereupon allege that any damages or injuries suffered by
Plaintiff was proximately caused by the intervening and superseding actions on the part of other
persons or entities, and not the answering Defendants, and that such intervening and superseding
actions on the part of other persons and entities bar recovery herein against the answering
Defendants.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(ESTOPPEL)
Page 2 of 4 Attachment to General DenialDefendants believe and thereupon allege that Plaintiff was responsible for the acts and
damages of which they claim herein, and by reason thereof are estopped fromobtaining any
damages as a result thereof.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(SPOILATION OF.EVIDENCE)
Defendants believe and thereupon allege that the Plaintiff, either intentionally or
negligently, has failed to preserve the primary evidence relevant to this litigation, thus failing to
give Defendants an opportunity to inspect said evidence, thereby severely damaging and
prejudicing a defense. Plaintiff, therefore, should be barred from introducing secondary or lesser
evidence, and any recovery should be diminished accordingly.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(NOPROPERTY DAMAGE)
Defendants believe and thereupon allege that Plaintiff is barred from recovering any sums
whatsoever under the holding in Aas v. Superior Court (William Lyon Co.) (2000) 24 CaL4th
627 where no property damage exist.
THI AFFIRMATIVE DE E
Defendants believe and thereupon allege that this matter is barred in whole or in part by
the Litigation Privilege.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants believe and thereupon allege that all such claims and disputes are required to
be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to the terms of the contract between the parties.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(DEFENSES UNKNOWN)
Defendants believe and thereupon allege that Defendants presently have insufficient
knowledge or information on which to form belief as to whether Defendants may have
additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendants reserve herein the right to assert
Page 3 of 4 Attachment to General Denial’ C C
additional defenses in the event discovery indicates that it would be appropriate.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows:
1. That this matter be ordered to binding arbitration per the contract between the parties and
this action stayed per Code Civil Proc. § 1281.4;
2. That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of the complaint on file herein;
3. For attomeys fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and
4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
10 || Dated: September 15, 2008 Respectfully submitted
11
12
George W. Wol!
13 Attorney for Defendants M. Karkori Construction,
Inc, and Mostafa Karkori
Page 4 of 4 Attachment to General Denial
Preview
IOC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Sep-15-2008 12:56 pm Case Number: CGC-08-479247 Filing Date: Sep-15-2008 12:51 Juke Box: 001 Image: 02250796 GENERAL DENIAL WAYNE DERMAN VS. M.KARKORI CONSTRUCTION, INC., A PURPORATED et al 001002250796 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.PLD-050 TRTIORNEY OR PAAT ‘GEORGE W. WOLFF (81126); LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE W. WOLFF 655 MONTGOMERY ST., #1050; P.O.BOX 26749 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94126-6749 ATTORNEY FOR (Nemel:’ Defend TAME OF COURT: San Francisco Supertor Court STREET ADDRESS: Wy WITHOUT ATTORNEY Panna Stove Ser mere’, and soareesh TELEPHONE HO. FOR COURT USE OMY ED rior Court Sepenyetsan renclaco ae Tee reisce, CA 54102 SEP 15 2008 ¥ BRANCH NAME: GORDON-PARICLI, Clerk PLAINTIFF: Wayne Derman BY: aoe sie DEFENDANT: M. Karkorl Construction, Ine. and Mostafa Karkori a WV GENERAL DENIAL CGC-08-479247 You MUST use this form for your general denial ifthe $1000 or less. You MAY use this form if 1, The complaint fs not verified, OR 2. The comptaint is verified, and the action is subject to the economic litigation procedures of the municipal and justice courts, EXCEPT You MAY NOT use this form if the complaintis verified and involves a claim for more than $1000 that has been assigned to a third party for colfection. (See Code of Civil Procedure sections 90-100, 434.30, and 431.40). amount asked for in the compiaint or the value of the property involved is 4, DEFENDANT (name); M, Karkori Construction, Tac., and Mostafa Karkori generally denies each and every allegation of plaintiff's complaint. 2. EX] DEFENDANT states the following FACTS as separate affirmative defenses to plaintiffs complaint (attach additional pages if necessary): See Attachment. Date: September 12, 2008 L/” {SIGNATURE OF DEFENDANT OR ATTORNEY) Ifyou have a claim for damages or other relief against the plaintiff, the Taw may require you to state your claim in a special pleading called a cross-complaint or you may lose your claim. (See Code of Civil Procedure sections 426.10-426.40.) The original of this General Denial rust be filed with the clerk of this court with proof that a copy was served on each plaintiffs attomey and on each plaintiff not represented by an attomey. (See tha other side for a proof of service.) Fa ere Cane GENERAL DENIAL General Denial 9-12-08.maxPLD-050 PLAINTIFF (name): Wayne Derman DEFENDANT (name): M, Karkori Construction, Inc, and Mostafa Karkori PROOF OF SERVICE (<1 Personal Service [1] Mail A General Denial may be served by anyone al least 18 years of age EXCEPT you or any ‘other party to this legal action. Service is made in one of the following ways: (1) Personally delivering a copy to the attorney for the other party or, ifna attomey, to the other party. OR (2) Mailing 8 copy, postage prepaid, to the last known address of the attomey for the other party or, if no attomey, to the other party. Be sure whoever serves the General Denial fills out and signs a proof of service. File the proof of service with the court as soon as the General Denial Is served. 4. Atthe fime of service | was atleast 18 years of age and nota party to this legal action. 2. served a copy of the General Denial as follows (check either a orb): a. [EX] Personal service.1 personally delivered the General Denial as foltows: (1) Name of person served: JEFFREY SKYES (2) Address where served: 235 MONTGOMERY STREET 17711 FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 (3) Date served: September 15,2008 , (4) Time served: b. [] Mail. Ideposited the General Denial in the United States mail, ina sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: . (1) Name of person served: . (2) Address: (3) Date of mailing: (4) Place of mailing (city and state): (5) lamaresident ‘of or employed in the county where the General Deniat was mailed. c. My residence or business address Is (specify): 655 Montgomery Street, suite 1050. San Francisco, CA 94111 d. My phone number Is (specify): (415)788-1881 Idectare under penalty of perjury under the taws of the Stale of California that the foregoing is tue and correct. Date: SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 "Jennifer Yu... fase oF PURsON Wai0 SEINE one Fab aso Fv. deny 12007} GENERAL DENIAL Pose ote (Proof of Service} General Denial 9-12-08.maxCc Plaintiff could have mitigated the damages they allegedly suffered; but Plaintiff filed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to exercise reasonable efforts to mitigate the damages. SECOND ATTACHMENT TO GENERAL DENIAL FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (FAILURE TO MITIGATE) Defendants believe and thereupon allege that by the exercise of reasonable effort, C AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (FAILURE TO constitute a cause of action against this THIRD California Code of Civil Procedure. persons and entities not parties to this Defendants believe and thereupon allege that the Plaintiff fail to state facts sufficient to AF A DEFENSE (BARRED BY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS) Defendants believe and thereupon allege that the cause of action, if any, attempted to be stated and set forth in Plaintiff complaint, is barred by the Statute of Limitations, as found in the FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE) Defendants believe and thereupon allege that if Plaintiff was injured in the manner set forth in the complaint, Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff was negligent in those matters set forth in the complaint, and negligently conducted themselves in a manner so as to result in injuries. Said negligent conduct of Plaintiff proximately caused and contributed to the alleged injuries and damages, if any, alleged by Plaintiff. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE. DEFENSE (NEGLIGENCE OF OTHER CROSS-DEFENDANTS) Defendants believe and thereupon allege that other parties in this lawsuit, as well as other. alleged damages. This Defendants request that their liabilities, if any, be assessed in proportion to STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION) answering Defendants. FIRMATIVE FFIRMATIVE DEFENSE lawsuit, were themselves responsible, for the Plaintif? Page 1 of 4 ‘Attachment to General Denial. Cc C the liability of other parties in this action and persons and entities who are not parties to this action, and that this Defendants be required to pay only for his proportionate share of fault, ifany there be. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, (CIVIL CODE SECTION 1431 (PROP 51)) Defendants believe and thereupon allege that their liabilities for damages, if any, should be reduced pursuant to the provisions of Califomia Civil Code section 1431, et seq. SEVENTH AFFIRMA IVE DEFENSE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK) Defendants believe and thereupon allege that Plaintiff freely and voluntarily assumed the risk of injury and damage alleged in this action with full knowledge and appreciation .of the magnitude thereof. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (LACHES) Defendants believe and thereupon allege that Plaintiff has unreasonably delayed in. the bringing of this action without good cause therefore. Said delay has directly resulted in prejudice to this Defendants, and this action is, therefore, barred by the Doctrine of Laches. TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (INTERVENING ACTIONS) Defendants believe and thereupon allege that any damages or injuries suffered by Plaintiff was proximately caused by the intervening and superseding actions on the part of other persons or entities, and not the answering Defendants, and that such intervening and superseding actions on the part of other persons and entities bar recovery herein against the answering Defendants. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (ESTOPPEL) Page 2 of 4 Attachment to General DenialDefendants believe and thereupon allege that Plaintiff was responsible for the acts and damages of which they claim herein, and by reason thereof are estopped fromobtaining any damages as a result thereof. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SPOILATION OF.EVIDENCE) Defendants believe and thereupon allege that the Plaintiff, either intentionally or negligently, has failed to preserve the primary evidence relevant to this litigation, thus failing to give Defendants an opportunity to inspect said evidence, thereby severely damaging and prejudicing a defense. Plaintiff, therefore, should be barred from introducing secondary or lesser evidence, and any recovery should be diminished accordingly. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (NOPROPERTY DAMAGE) Defendants believe and thereupon allege that Plaintiff is barred from recovering any sums whatsoever under the holding in Aas v. Superior Court (William Lyon Co.) (2000) 24 CaL4th 627 where no property damage exist. THI AFFIRMATIVE DE E Defendants believe and thereupon allege that this matter is barred in whole or in part by the Litigation Privilege. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants believe and thereupon allege that all such claims and disputes are required to be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to the terms of the contract between the parties. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (DEFENSES UNKNOWN) Defendants believe and thereupon allege that Defendants presently have insufficient knowledge or information on which to form belief as to whether Defendants may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendants reserve herein the right to assert Page 3 of 4 Attachment to General Denial’ C C additional defenses in the event discovery indicates that it would be appropriate. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows: 1. That this matter be ordered to binding arbitration per the contract between the parties and this action stayed per Code Civil Proc. § 1281.4; 2. That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of the complaint on file herein; 3. For attomeys fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and 4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. 10 || Dated: September 15, 2008 Respectfully submitted 11 12 George W. Wol! 13 Attorney for Defendants M. Karkori Construction, Inc, and Mostafa Karkori Page 4 of 4 Attachment to General Denial