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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                OOOO

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Nov-14-2011 2:54 pm

Case Number: CGC-08-478453
Filing Date: Nov-14-2011 2:53
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03384359
ANSWER

,EACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LL

001003384359

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.9)

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 oy
Concord, CA 94520 oo
Telephone: (925) 938-1430

Facsimile: (925) 256-7508

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

Pp WN

wv

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 £k.a F, Rodgers Insulation Interior; Western
Roofing Service

Ce YN DH

10

M1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

12 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

13 || BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY Case No.: CGC08-478453

ASSOCIATION

14 ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION’S
Plaintiff, ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF
15 WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC.;
ve WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC.; WEBCOR
16 CONSTRUCTION, INC, dba WEBCOR
CATELLUS THIRD AND KING, LLC, et al. BUILDERS on its own behalf and
17 erroneously sued as WEBCOR
Defendants, CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR
18 BUILDERS
/
19
WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC.; WEBCOR
20 |] BUILDERS, INC.; WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, BY FAX
INC, dba WEBCOR BUILDERS on its own behalf
21 |{ and erroncously sued as WEBCOR

» CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS

Cross-Complainant,
23

24
25

v.

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

-l-

26

27

ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION’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
91447.doc Case No. CGCO8-478453

28~~ ae

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 1 to 50 inclusive

Cross-Defendant ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION (hereinafter referred to as "this answering
Cross-Defendant”), answering for itself alone, hereby answers the Cross-Complaint of Defendant and
Cross-Complainant 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 , (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant
and Cross-Complainant”), as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, this answering Cross-
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
damaged in any sums whatsoever, or al all.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

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

state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering Cross-Defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
Cross-Defendant alleges that any damage or injury allegedly suffered by Defendant and Cross-
Complainant was proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence or fault of Defendant and

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

informed and believes and thereon alleges that said parly was careless and negligent. Thus, if
-2-

ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC.; WEBCOR
BUJLDERS, INC.; WECOR CONSTRUCTION, INC, dba WEBCOR BUILDERS on its own behalf and erroneously sued as WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS

91447.doc Cuse No, CGCO8-478453-~
— xe

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 employees.
TYIRD 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

10 |} thereto.

i FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12 4, As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
13 |] Cross-Defendant alleges that the injuries and damages alleged and for which Defendant and Cross-
14 |] Complainant seeks recovery were the result of causes independent of any purported acts or omissions
15 |} on the part of this answering Cross-Defendant, thereby eliminating or reducing the alleged liability of
16 ]} this answering Cross-Defendant.

17 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18 5. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
19 ll Cross-Defendant alleges that any and all of the injuries and damages asserted by Defendant and Cross-
20 | Complainant were caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, by the negligence or fault of Defendant
21 and Cross-Complainant or others, and said acts and omissions entitle this answering Cross-Defendant
22 || to contribution from said individuals and entities, and each of them.

23 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24 6. ‘As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, this answering
25 ll Cross-Defendant alleges that if this answering Cross-Defendant is found to have been negligent or
26 |) liable in any manner, such conduct was passive and secondary, while the negligence of Defendant and
27 3.

28 ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INCs WEBCOR

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

91447.doc Case No. CGC08-478453Cross-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.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
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 separate 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.
Mt

Mt

-4-

ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION’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

91447. doc Case No. CGCO8-478453Nea *

TWELETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

—E—_— rr ———ee

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. Asa 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 whose
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

-5-

ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION’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:

91447.doc. Case No, CGC08-478453or ”

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-
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 employce of
this answering Cross-Defendant. Accordingly, any recovery against this answering Cross-Delendant

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), 337(3),
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-

ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION’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.

91447.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 éxercised 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-

ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION’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 1.P dba WEBCOR BUILDERS

91447.doc Case No, CGC08-478453— a

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

IWENT 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.

TWENTY-FIETH AF¥YIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25. Asa 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 that 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.

M

-8-

ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION’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

91447.doc Case No, CGCO8-478453ht

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

27, Asa 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 AFFIRMATLVE 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)@),
2510(1), 2605(1)(a) and (b), 2606(1)(a) and (b), 2607, 2715(2)(a), and 2719(3).
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-Complaint, this answering

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

-9-

ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION’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

91447.doc Case No. CGC08-478453therein, 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-CHIRD 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 AFFIRMATIVE 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 cither 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.

it

MH

ut

it

-10+
ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION’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.
91447.doc Case No. CGC08-478453WHEREFORE, this answering Cross-Defendant prays as follows:
lL. 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 14, 2011 SELLAR HAZARD MANNING FICENEC & LUCIA

DENAE M. OLIVIERI, ESQ.

Attorney For Cupertino Electric, Inc.; Creative Masonry,
Inc.; Carefree Toland Pools, Inc.; J.W. McClenahan, Inc.;
Van-Mulder Shect 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

-l-

ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION’S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC., WEBCOR,
BUILDERS, INC.; WECOR CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba WEBCOR BUILDERS an its own behalf and erroncously sued as WEBCOR
CONSTRUCTION LP dba WEBCOR BUILDERS

91447. doc. Case No, CGCO8B-478453PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Amanda Pikman, declare:

Tam 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. I am over the age of cighteen years and not a party to this action, On
the date given, I served the following document(s):

ALLIED FIRE PROTECTION’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

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

13 || true and correct copy thereof addressed as shown on the attached service list, as designated below
14 (SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST)
15 BY FIRST CLASS MAIL (C.C.P. §§1013A. et seq.):
I caused said document(s) to be deposited in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope with
16 postage fully prepaid at Concord, California, following the ordinary practice at my place of
17 business of collection and processing of mail on the same day as shown on this declaration.
1g || XX_ BY FACSIMILE (C.C.P. §§1012.5, et sea.)
Tserved such document(s) by fax to the fax number(s) provided by each of the parties in this
19 litigation at Concord, California. I received a confirmation sheet indicating said fax was
transmitted completely.
20
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
21 L caused such envelope to be delivered to the addresses identified on the attached service list by
2 means of an overnight delivery service pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1013
23
_____. BY PERSONAL SERVICE
24 I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee.

Messenger Service: ONE HOUR DELIVERY
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE (C.C.P. §187):

I caused said document to be served using LexisNexis File & Serve/One Legal File & Serve.

-L-

PROOF OF SERVICE
91483.dec Case No. CGC08-478453ww

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 (howka Cds wer

Amanda Pikman

-2-

PROOE OF SERVICE
91483.doc Case No, CGC08-478453Case Name: Beacon Residential v. Catellus Third and King, et al.
Case No.: San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC08-478453

Ann Rankin

Law Offices of Ann Rankin
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 Street, Suite 1000

San Francisco. CA 94105

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

492 Ninth Street, Suite 220
Oakland. CA 94607

Attorney For:

Plaintiff

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, L1.C; 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-

91483.doc

PROOF OF SERVICE

Case No. CGC0B-478453no

Rw

oo WDA

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28

Steven H. Schwartz

Schwartz & Janzen, LLP

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

David S. Webster

Attorney For:

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

Facsimile: (310) 207-3344

Attorney For:

Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP Catellus Residential Construction, Cross-

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.
Katzolf & Riggs

1500 Park Ave #300
Emeryville, CA 94608

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-

91483.doc

PROOF OF SERVICE
Case No, CGC08-478453