Answer: BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                MOAT

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Nov-14-2011 3:01 pm

Case Number: CGC-08-478453
Filing Date: Nov-14-2011 3:01
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03384381
ANSWER

sEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING Lt

001003384381

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Cc we NA nH FF WN

sasinen sana t te atin he TI RN

)

~
wo

Christian P. Lucia, Esq. (SBN - 203567)

Denae M. Olivieri, Esq. (SBN - 209130)

SELLAR HAZARD MANNING FICENEC & LUCIA

A Professional Law Corporation

1800 Sutter Street, Suite 460

Concord, CA 94520

Telephone: (925) 938-1430

Facsimile: (925) 256-7508

Email: clucia@sellarlaw.com; dolivieri@sellarlaw.com

Attorneys for:

Cupertino Electric, Inc.; Creative Masonry, Inc.; Carefree
Toland Pools, Inc.; J.W. McClenahan, Inc.; Van-Mulder
Sheet Metal, Inc.; N.V. Heathorn, Inc.; Critchfield
Mechanical, Inc.; Blue's Roofing Company; West Coast
Protective Coatings; Allied Fire Protection; F. Rodgers
Corporation fik.a F. Rodgers Insulation Interior; Western
Roofing Service

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY Case No.: CGC08-478453

ASSOCIATION
F, RODGERS CORPORATION fka F.

Plaintiff, RODGERS INSULATION INTERIOR’S
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF
v. WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC;
WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC.; WEBCOR
CATRLLUS THIRD AND KING, LLC, et al. CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba WEBCOR
BUILDERS on its own behalf and
Defendants, erroneously sued as WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR
/ BUILDERS

WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC.; WEBCOR
BUILDERS, INC.; WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION,

INC. dba WRBCOR BUILDERS on its own behalf BY FAX
and erroneously sued as WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS

Cross-Complainant,
Vv,

SHOOTER & BUTTS, INC.; CAREFREE
TOLAND POOLS, INC.; CREATIVE MASONRY,
INC.; POMA CORPORATION; VAN-MULDER
SHEET METAL, INC.; BLUE’S ROOFING
COMPANY: ROOFING CONSTRUCTORS, INC.

-1-

F, RODGERS CORPORATION fka F. RODGERS INSULATION INTERIOR’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION, INC., WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC. WECOR CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba WEBCOR BUILDERS on its own.
behalf and erroneously sued as WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS
91387.doc Case No, CGC08-478453@)
{

dba WESTERN ROOFING SERVICE, WEST
COAST PROTECTIVE COATINGS, INC; F.
RODGERS INSULATION RESIDENTIAL; F.
RODGERS CORPORATION; N.V, HEATHORN,
INC.; ARCHITECTURAL GLASS &
ALUMINUM CO,, INC.; ANNING-JOHNSON
COMPANY; ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION; J.W.
MCCLENAHAN CO.; CRITCHFIELD
MECHANICAL, INC.; CUPERTINO ELECTRIC,
INC.: and ROES ! to 50 inclusive

Cross-Defendant F, RODGERS CORPORATION fka F. RODGERS INSULATION

INTERIOR (hereinafter referred to as "this answering Cross-Defendant"), answering for itself alone,

Co own nun Fk YW NY

hereby answers the Cross-Complaint of Defendant and Cross-Complainant WEBCOR

°

CONSTRUCYION, INC.; WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC.; WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba

-

WEBCOR BUILDERS on its own behalf and erroneously sued as WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION LP

N

dba WEBCOR BUILDERS , (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant and Cross-Complainant”), as

wo

follows:

-
BR

GENERAL DENIAL

vA

Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, this answering Cross-

-
a

Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in each cause of

_

action of the Cross-Complaint and further denies that Defendant and Cross-Complainant has been

oO

damaged in any sums whatsoever, or at all,

—
o

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

BRS

y
a

1. The Cross-Complaint in its entirety and each and every cause of action therein, fails to

21

» slate facts sufficient {o constitute a cause of action against this answering Cross-Defendant.

3 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24 2. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering

95 Cross-Defendant alleges that any damage or injury allegedly suffered by Defendant and Cross-

26 Complainant was proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence or fault of Defendant and

2 Cross-Complainant’s agents, representatives and/or employees and this answering Cross-Defendant is
7 2.

28 c

F. RODGERS CORPORATION fka F. RODGERS INSULATION INTERIOR’S ANSWER TO. CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION, FNC.; WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC.; WECOR CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba WEBCOR BUILDERS on its own
behalf and erroncously sued as WEBCOR CON STRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS
91387.doc Case No. CGC08-478453)

informed and believes and thereon alleges that said party was careless and negligent. Thus, if
Defendant and Cross-Complainant is entitled to recover at all for any damages alleged, such recovery
must be diminished to the extent that said damages are attributable to the negligence of Defendant and
Cross-Complainant’s agents, representatives and/or employces.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

3. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that any injuries and damages suffered by Defendant and Cross-Complainant,
other parties, or any of them, was caused or contributed to by the negligence or fault of persons or
entities other than this answering Cross-Defendant, thereby entitling this answering Cross-Defendant
to an appropriate pro-ration of damages in accordance with the provisions of the law applicable
thereto.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4, As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that the injuries and damages alleged and for which Defendant and Cross-
Complainant seeks recovery were the result of causes independent of any purported acts or omissions
on the part of this answering Cross-Defendant, thereby eliminating or reducing the alleged liability of
this answering Cross-Defendant.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that any and all of the injuries and damages asserted by Defendant and Cross-
Complainant were caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, by the negligence or fault of Defendant
and Cyoss-Comp!ainant or others, and said acts and omissions entitic this answering Cross-Defendant
to contribution from said individuals and entities, and each of them.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering

Cross-Defendant alleges that if this answering Cross-Defendant is found to have been negligent or

-3-

F. RODGERS CORPORATION {ka F. RODGERS INSULATION INTERIOR’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION, INC., WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC; WECOR CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba WEBCOR BUILDERS on its own
bchalf and erroneously sued as WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS

91387.doc Case No. CGC08-478453~
~~

O

liable in any manner, such conduct was passive and secondary, while the negligence of Defendant and
Cross-Complainant or others were active and primary, and such conduct bars, in whole or in part, the

recovery requested or any recovery at all, against this answering Cross-Defendant.

. wn

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

—————_—E————oO

w

7. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that the negligence of Defendant and Cross-Complainant or other parties or
entities constitutes an intervening and superseding cause of injuries and damages, if any, thereby
barring or reducing Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s recovery herein.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8. ‘As a further and scparate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint on file herein is barred in whole or in part by reason
of Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s inequitable conduct and/or unclean hands, and the court should
not give Defendant and Cross-Complainant relief based upon the facts alleged.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering

Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein is

barred under the doctrine of waiver.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10, Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that Defendant and Cross-Complainant, and each purported cause of action
stated therein, are barred by the doctrine of laches.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

11. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein is
barred under the doctrine of estoppel.

Hl

-4-

F. RODGERS CORPORATION fka F. RODGERS INSULATION JNTERIOR’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION, INC.; WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC., WECOR CONSTRUCTION, INC. dea WEBCOR BUILDERS on its own
behalf and erroneously sued as WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS
91387.doc Case No. CGCO8-478453Oo
©)

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Eee

12, Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint , and each purported cause of action stated therein,
are barred as a result of the Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s and Defendant and Cross-
Complainant’s failure to mitigate their damages, if any were suffered, and by their gratuitously
incurring expenses that were not justified.

‘THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13. As a further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges by way of a plea of comparative negligence that the Defendant and Cross-
Complainant was negligent in and about the matters and activities alleged in said Cross-Complaint ,
that said negligence contributed to and was a proximate cause of Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s
alleged injuries and damages, if any, and that if the Defendant and Cross-Complainant is entitled to
recover damages against this answering Cross-Defendant, this answering Cross-Defendant prays that
said recovery be diminished by reason of the Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s actions in proportion
to the degree of fault attributable to Defendant and Cross-Complainant.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that this answering Cross-Defendant
is entitled to the right of indemnification by apportionment against all other parties and persons whase
negligence contributed to the alleged damages.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

15, Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering

Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that any and all mandatory duties

imposed on this answering Cross-Defendant, and/or its 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

F. RODGERS CORPORATION fka F. RODGERS INSULATION INTERIOR’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION, INC.; WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC; WECOR CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba WEBCOR BUILDERS on its own
behalf and erroncously sued ws WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS
91387.doc Case No. CGC08-478453

noe et mer AAA A ATTN OS~ ~
—s

exercised with reasonable diligence and therefore, this answering Cross-Defendant is not liable for the
alleged damages.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that this answering Cross-Defendant

is not vicariously liable for the damages, if any, alleged in Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s Cross-

x1 Dw

Complaint, caused by the acts or omissions of the other Defendants.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the injuries and damages
complained of by the Defendant and Cross-Complainant, if there were any, are properly attributable to
a modification, alteration or other change in some manner to the installed work of improvement for
which the Defendant and Cross-Complainant herein seeks to hold this answering Cross-Defendant
legally responsible, which modification, alteration or change was not performed by or participated in
or consented to or approved by this answering Cross-Defendant, or any agent, servant or employee of
this answering Cross-Defendant. Accordingly, any recovery against this answering Cross-Defendant
should be barred or otherwise diminished.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the Cross-Complaint is barred by
the applicable statute of limitations contained in Code of Civil Procedures sections 337(1), 3373),
337.1, 337.15, 338(a), 338(b), 338(c), 338(d), 339, 340 and 343, among others.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Defendant and Cross-

Complainant or others failed to perform to the degree of maintenance on the work of improvement

-6-

F, RODGERS CORPORATION fka F. RODGERS INSULATION INTERIOR’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION, INC.; WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC., WECOR CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba WEBCOR BUILDERS on its own
behalf and erroneously sued as WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS
91387.doc Case No. CGC08-478453~ _
—

performed on the property that is the subject matter of this action, necessary to protect such work of
improvement from deterioration from the elements. Such failure to maintain the said work of
improvement bars or otherwise diminishes the claim or recovery of Defendant and Cross-Complainant.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that this 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 .

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that at the times and places mentioned
in the Cross-Complaint, the Defendant and Cross-Complainant or others failed to exercise the quality
and quantity of care and caution which a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would
have exercised for the protection of themselves and their property, said failure and negligence by the
Defendant and Cross-Complainant or others proximately caused and contributed to the damages, if
any, sustained by the Defendant and Cross-Complainant. Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s
recovery, therefore, if any, should be reduced by an amount proportionate to the amount by which
Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s or other’s negligence contributed to the happening of the alleged
accident, injury, damage and/or loss.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the Defendant and Cross-
Complainant was already in breach of their alleged contractual relationships, if any, at or before the
time of the matters alleged to have arisen from acts or omissions by this answering Cross-Defendant
and, therefore, no act or omission of this answering Cross-Defendant was a direct or proximate cause

of any of the matters alleged in the Cross-Complaint.

-7-

FE. RODGERS CORPORATION fka I’, RODGERS INSULATION INTERIOR’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION, INC; WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC.; WECOR. CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba WEBCOR BUILDERS on its own
behalf and crroncously sued as WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS

91387.doc Case No. CGC08-478453~ ~
— —

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

yy ———e_EEEeE—————E—EEe

23. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that it performed each of its
obligations pursuant to any and all contracts and agreements described in the Cross-Complaint , if any
there were, except those obligations this answering Cross-Defendant was prevented and/or excused
from performing by the acts and/or omissions of Defendant and Cross-Complainant, and/or other
individuals or entities not named as Defendants in the Cross-Complaint herein.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that if it is determined that this answering Cross-Defendant did not perform
one or more obligations under any contract or agreement, this answering Cross-Defendant contends
that Defendant and Cross-Complainant did not perform its obligations under each contract or
agreement as aforesaid, and that those obligations were a condition precedent to any performance by
this answering Cross-Defendant in each instance.

WENTY-FIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that the acts or omissions alleged to have been committed by this answering
Cross-Defendant was justified as part of the regular course of business and the fulfillment of its own
contractual obligations.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

26. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges thal a valid contractual relationship, of the nature and scope alleged by the
Defendant and Cross-Complainant, did not exist between this answering Cross-Defendant and the
Defendant and Cross-Complainant and that the absence of such a contractual relationship acts to bar
any recovery by the Defendant and Cross-Complainant against this answering Cross-Defendant.

it

-8-

F. RODGERS CORPORATION fka F. RODGERS INSULATION INTERIOR’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION, INC.; WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC.; WECOR CONSTRUCTION, INC. doa WEBCOR BUILDERS on its own
behalf and crroneously sued as WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION LP dba WERCOR BUILDERS

91387.doc Case No. CGC0B-478453j

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Yh a ——e——_——————ee

27. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that any damages or injuries sustained by the Defendant and Cross-
Complainant, was a part of the business risk assumed by the Defendant and Cross-Complainant upon
entering into its alleged contractual relationships.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

28. As a further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, these
Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant and Cross-Complainant lacks
standing to the claims alleged in the Cross-Complaint.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

29. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint, and each alleged cause of action therein, is
absolutely barred by the provisions of Civil Code Sections 1474, 1475, 1476, 1477, and each of them.

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

30. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that the Defendant and Cross-Complainant is barred by the following
provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code: Sections 1201(25)(c), 2601, 2602(1), 25 13(1)(3),
2510(1), 2605(1)(a) and (b), 2606(1)(a) and (b), 2607, 2715(2Xa), and 271903).

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

31. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that the Defendant and Cross-Complainant is barred by the provisions of
California Civil Code Sections 2782-2784.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

32. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Compiaint, this answering

Cross-Defendant alleges that the Defendant and Cross-Complainant, and each alleged cause of action

-9-

F. RODGERS CORPORATION fka F, RODGERS INSULATION INTERIOR’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION, INC.; WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC,; WECOR CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba WEACOR BUILDERS on its own
behalf and erroneously sued as WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS

91387.doc Case No, CGCOB-478453~
wt

-~
—

therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for indemnity or contribution when
based on strict liability, breach of contract, rescission, fraud, or negligent misrepresentation.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

33. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that the Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s recovery, if any, is forbidden or
otherwise limited by the application of the anti-deficiency statutes.

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

34. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that by the terms of its contract, this answering Cross-Defendant is not
responsible for defects and/or errors in the plans, specifications, or other contract documents.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFERMATIVE DEFENSE

35. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that the Defendant and Cross-Complainant and/or others may have altered the
product involved, proximately causing the events and damages, if any there were, and recovery is
therefore barred or proportionately reduced accordingly.

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

36. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to said Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that the Defendant and Cross-Complainant either intentionally or negligently
failed to preserve the primary evidence relevant to this litigation, thus failing to give this answering,
Cross-Defendant an opportunity to inspect said evidence and thereby damaging and prejudicing a
defense. Defendant and Cross-Complainant, therefore, should be barred from introducing secondary
or lesser evidence, and any recovery should be diminished accordingly.

Wt
Mt
Mt

Mt

-10-

F, RODGERS CORPORATION fka F. RODGERS INSULATION INTERIOR’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION, INC.; WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC; WECOR CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba WEBCOR BUILDERS on its own
behalf and erroneously sued as WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS

91387.doc Case No, CGC08-478453LETT AAS.

-_ a
ww a

WHEREFORE, this answering Cross-Defendant prays as follows:

1. That Defendant and Cross-Complainant takes nothing by reason of its Cross-Complaint,
2. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED; November 10, 2011 SELLAR HAZARD MANNING FICENEC & LUCIA
t
\

DENAE M. OLIVIERI, ESQ.

Attorney For Cupertino Electric, Inc.; Creative Masonry,
Inc.; Carefree Toland Pools, Inc.; J.W. McClenahan, Inc.;
Van-Mulder Sheet Metal, Inc.; N.V. Heathorn, Inc.;
Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.; Blue's Roofing Company;
West Coast Protective Coatings; Allied Fire Protection; F.
Rodgers Corporation; Western Roofing Service

-ll-

F, RODGERS CORPORATION fka F. RODGERS INSULATION INTERIOR’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR

CONSTRUCTION, INC.; WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC., WECOR CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba WEBCOR BUILDERS on its own
behalf and erroneously sued as WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS

91387.doc Case No. CGC08-478453)
QO

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Amanda Pikman, declare:

1 am employed in the County of Contra Costa, California in the offices of a member of the Bar
of this Court, at whose direction this service was made. My business address is 1800 Sutter Street,
Suite 460, Concord, California. 1 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action, On
the date given, I served the following document(s):

F, RODGERS CORPORATION fka F, RODGERS INSULATION INTERIOR’S. ANSWER TO
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC.; WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC;
WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba WEBCOR BUILDERS on its own behalf and erroneously
sued as WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS

oo fe ND HW RF YN

In the case entitled: Beacon Residential v. Catellus Third and King, et al., San Francisco Superior

Court, Case No, CGC08-478453, on all interested parties through their attorneys of record by placing a

true and correct copy thereof addressed as shown on the attached service list, as designated below
(SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST)

BY FIRST CLASS MAIL (C.C.P. 881013A, ct sea.):

I caused said document(s) to be deposited in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope with
postage fully prepaid at Concord, California, following the ordinary practice at my place of
business of collection and processing of mail on the same day as shown on this declaration.

XX_ BY FACSIMILE (C.C-P. §§1012.5, ct sea.)
I served such document(s) by fax to the fax number(s) provided by each of the parties in this
litigation at Concord, California. I received a confirmation sheet indicating said fax was
transmitted completely.

____ OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

21 I caused such envelope to be delivered to the addresses identified on the attached service list by
2» means of an overnight delivery scrvice pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1013
23
BY PERSONAL SERVICE

I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee.
Messenger Service: ONE HOUR DELIVERY

BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE (C.C.P. 8187):
I caused said document to be served using LexisNexis File & Serve/One Legal File & Serve.

-l-

PROOF OF SERVICH
91454.doc Case No. CGC08-478453~
—

I declare under the penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the above is true
and correct.

DATED: November 14, 2011 (ula Pebrv~

Amanda Pikman

-2-

PROOF OF SERVICE
91454.doc Case No. CGC08-478453Bw Nh

Co eran

ww

~
wT

Case Name: Beacon Residential v. Catellus Third and King, et al.

Case No.: San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC08-478453
Ann Rankin Attorney For:
Law Offices of Ann Rankin Plaintiff

3911 Harrison Street
Oakland, CA 94611

Mark J. D'Argenio

Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP
1001 Galaxy Way, Suite 308
Concord, CA. 94520

James Castle

Robles, Castle & Meredith
The Arlington Building
492 Ninth Street, Suite 200
Oakland. CA 94607

Steven M. Cvitanovic

Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
71 Stevenson Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2981

Peter J. Laufenberg

Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean
1111 Broadway, 24th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607

Sandy Kaplan

Gordon & Rees

275 Battery St., Ste. 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111

John A. Koeppel

Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley
201 Spear Streei, Suite 1000

San Francisco. CA 94105

Kevin P, McCarthy
McCarthy & McCarthy, LLP
The Arlington Building

492 Ninth Street, Suite 220
Oakland. CA 94607

Telephone: (510) 653-8886
Facsimile: (510) 653-8889

Attorney For:

Catellus Commercial Development
Telephone: (925) 356-8221
Facsimile: (925) 356-8250

Attorney For:

Skidmore Owings & Merrill, LLP
Telephone: (415) 743-9300
Facsimile: (415) 743-9305

Attorney For:

Centurion Partners, LLC; Mission Place, LLC
Telephone: (415) 546-7500

Facsimile: (415) 546-7505

Attorney For: Mission Place Holdings, LLC;
Mission Place Mezzanine, LLC; and Mission
Place Partners, LLC

Mission Place, LLC; Centurion Real Estate
Partners, LLC; Mission Place Mezz Holdings,
LLC;

Telephone: (510) 834-6600

Facsimile: (510) 808-4660

Attorney For:

Webcor Builders, Inc.
Telephone: (415) 986-5900
Facsimile: (415) 986-8054

Attorney For:

Catellus Commercial Development Corporation
Telephone: (415) 543-4800

Facsimile: (415) 972-6301

Attorney For:

Window Solutions, Inc.
Telephone: (510) 839-8100
Facsimile: (510) 839-8108

-3-

91454.doc

PROOF OF SERVICE.

Case No. CGC08-478453)

Steven H, Schwartz

Schwartz & Janzen, LLP

12100 Wilshire Blvd,, Suite 1125
Los Angeles. CA 90025

David S. Webster

Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP
1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700
Concord, CA 94520-7982

Randel J. Campbell

Lynch, Gilardi & Grummer
170 Columbus Ave., 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94133

Adam Brezine

Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105

William H. Staples
Archer Norris

P.O. Box 8035

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Hon, Ronald M, Sabraw
JAMS

Two Embarcadero Center
Suite 1500

San Francisco, CA 94111

Sung Shim, Esq.
Katzoff & Riggs

1500 Park Ave #300
Emeryville. CA 94608

Attorney For:

HKS, Inc. and dba HKS Architects, Inc.
Telephone: (310) 979-4090

Facsimile: (310) 207-3344

Attorney For:

Catellus Residential Construction, Cross-
Complainant, Webcor

Telephone: (925) 356-8200

Facsimile: (925) 356-8250

Attorney For:

Architectural Glass & Aluminium Co. Inc.

Telephone: (415) 397-2800
Facsimile: (415) 397-0937

Attorney For:

Solutia, Inc.

Telephone: (415) 268-2000
Facsimile: (415) 268-1999

Attorney For:

Anning Johnson
Telephone: (925) 930-6600
Facsimile: (925) 930-6620

Attorney For:
Special Master
Telephone: (415) 774-2609
Facsimile: (415) 982-5287

Attorney For:

Plaintiff

Telephone: (510) 653-8886
Facsimile: (510) 597-0295

-4-

PROOF OF SERVICE.

91454,doc Case No. CGC08-478453