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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                AION

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Dec-13-2011 9:56 am

Case Number: CGC-08-478453
Filing Date: Nov-30-2011 9:53
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03417562
ANSWER

3EACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LL

001003417562

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Steven M. Cvitanovic (Bar No. 168031
HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP

Telephone: 510.834.6600
es 510.834.1928

2171 Stevenson Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-2981
3 Telephone: 415.546.7500 sn
Facsimile: 415.546.7505 ‘an Francisco County Superior Gourt
4 ono
Charles A. Hansen (Bar No. 76679) Nov 39 ZOn
5 | Peter J. Laufenberg (Bar No. 172979) cL
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK & DEAN LLP ERK OF TH COURT
6} 1111 Broadway, 24th Floor ey
Oakland, California 94607-4036 ‘Deputy Cier
7
8
9

Attorneys for Defendants Mission Place LLC; Mission Place Mezz
Holding LLC; Mission Place Mezzanine LLC; Mission Place

10 | Partners LLC; Centurion Real Estate Investors IV, LLC; and
Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC (sued in its own name and

11 erroneously sued as Centurion Partners LLC)

12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

13 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

14 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION

15 | BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ) Case No. CGC 08-478453
ASSOCIATION,

16 DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO

Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT

vs.

CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC;
19 | CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION; CATELLUS
20 | COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORP.;CATELLUS OPERATING
21 | LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; CATELLUS
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
22 | CORPORATION; THIRD AND KING
INVESTORS LLC; PROLOGIS;
23 | MISSION PLACE LLC; MISSION
PLACE MEZZANINE LLC; MISSION
24 | PLACE MEZZ HOLDINGS LLC,
MISSION PLACE PARTNERS LLC;
25 | CENTURION REAL ESTATE
INVESTORS IV, LLC; CENTURION
26 | REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC,
CENTURION PARTNERS LLC;
| WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION INC,;
WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC.; WEBCOR
28 | CONSTRUCTION, INC. individually and
doing business as WEBCOR BUILDERS;

‘LAW OFFICES
HAIGHT, BROWN & 10000032 1
BONESTEEL. LLP. | 2U29-00 TRIGCUIED TA DT ATINTIER'S THIRD AMENDED COMPT.AINTWEBCOR CONSTRUCTION LP
individually and doing business as
WEBCOR BUILDERS; SKIDMORE
OWINGS & MERRILL LLP; HKS, INC;
HKS ARCHITECTS, INC; HKS, INC,
individually and doing business as HKS
ARCHITECTS, INC., and DOES 1 through

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

Defendants Mission Place LLC; Mission Place Mezz Holding LLC; Mission Place
Mezzanine LLC; Mission Place Partners LLC; Centurion Real Estate Investors IV, LLC;
and Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC (sued in its own name and erroneously sued as
Centurion Partners LLC) (hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”) answer the THIRD
Amended COMPLAINT of Plaintiff as follows:

1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), these
answering Defendants deny the allegations of the COMPLAINT and each cause of action,
and every paragraph of each and every cause of action, and each and every part thereof,
including a denial that Plaintiff was damaged in the sum or sums alleged, or in any other
sum or sums whatsoever.

2. Defendants deny that by reason of any act or omission, fault, conduct or
liability on the part of Defendants, as alleged, or otherwise, Plaintiff was injured or
damaged in the amount or amounts alleged, or in any manner or amount whatsoever.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State Sufficient Facts)

3. Defendants allege that Plaintiff's COMPLAINT and its purported causes of

action therein fails to set forth facts sufficient to state a cause of action or claim for relief

against Defendants.

2
21128-0000032 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINTm

Co oN DA fF YH N

HAIGHT, BROWN &
EL, LLP.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)

4. Defendants are informed and believe and upon such information and belief
allege that Plaintiff is barred from recovery herein; that the alleged causes of action were
filed after the running of the statute of limitations, as set forth in California Code of Civil
Procedure beginning with § 335 and continuing through § 349.4 more particularly, but not
limited to, §§ 335.1, 337, 337.1, 337.15, 337.5, 338, 339, 340, and 343 and by §§ 2607
(3)(a), 2725 of the Uniform Commercial Code of the State of California.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Liability in Proportion to Fault)

5.  Ifit should be found that Defendants were in any way liable, which
Defendants expressly deny, the liability of Defendants for non-economic damages shall be
several only and shall not be joint. Defendants shall be liable for the amount of non-
economic damages, allocated to Defendants only in direct proportion to Defendants
percentage of fault.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)

6.  Allclaims against Defendants are waived, in whole or in part, by the conduct
of Plaintiff.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)

7. Defendants allege that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief in equity because

Plaintiff acted and reacted to the matters alleged in the COMPLAINT with unclean hands.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
({Laches)

8. Defendants allege that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed bringing this action

against Defendants and that such delay substantially prejudiced Defendants. Therefore,

this action is barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.

3
2029-0000032 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINTCo eo ND HN FF YH NY

PRM YN YN NNN BS Be Be Be Be Be Be Be ee
ao SD DN A BR WN KF OD Oo Oo HN DH F&F Ww NY KF OC

LAW OFFICES
HAIGHT, BROWN &

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
9. All claims against Defendants are barred, in whole or in part, by estoppel.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)

10. Plaintiff has failed to take reasonable action to mitigate its alleged damages,
in whole or in part, as required by law and, as a result of such failure and refusal to
undertake reasonable mitigation efforts, Defendants are therefore entitled to have any sum
to which Plaintiff is allegedly entitled reduced by the amount of damages attributable to
the failure of Plaintiff to make reasonable efforts to mitigate, minimize and avoid said
damages.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Intervening Acts)

11. Plaintiff's causes of action are barred in that any alleged act or omission was
intervened and/or superseded by the acts and omissions of others, named and unnamed,
including Plaintiff and/or their agents, which was the sole cause of injury, damage or loss,
if any, which Defendants expressly denied, to the Plaintiff herein.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Fault as to Others)

12. Defendants allege that the alleged incident and damages complained of by
Plaintiff, if any there actually were, said incident and damages being expressly denied by
Defendants were proximately caused by the negligence of firms, persons, corporations, or
entities other than Defendants, and said negligence comparatively reduces the percentage
of any fault, if it should be found that Defendants were at fault, which Defendants
expressly denied.

Mf
If
if

4
728-0000032 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINTOo ony HA vA FW NY

Sa
Bw NS oO

14

‘LAW OFFICES
HAIGHT, BROWN &

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Fault as to Plaintiff)

13. Defendants allege that if Plaintiff was injured or damaged in the manner
alleged, or otherwise, which Defendants denied, then Plaintiff was comparatively
negligent, and such comparative negligence proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries and
damages, if any; accordingly, Plaintiff's damages should be reduced in proportion to their
own fault.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Assumption of Risk)

14. Defendants allege that Plaintiff expressly, voluntarily, and knowingly
assumed all risks about which are complained in the COMPLAINT, and are therefore
barred either totally or to the extent of said assumption from any damages.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Provide Notice)

15. Defendants are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief

alleges, that Plaintiff is barred from relief because it failed to provide timely notice or

notification regarding their claims in accordance with contract provisions and/or applicable

law.
. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unforeseen Causes)

16. Defendants are informed and believe and on that basis allege that any and all
injuries, losses or damages, if any, was the direct and proximate result of an unavoidable
incident or condition and, as such, was an act of God and/or irresistible forces of nature
without fault or liability on the part of the Defendants.
if
if
It
it

5
nue, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINTLAW OFFICES

© wm NIN DAH F&F WN

ee
Nn RF Oo

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Excused Performance)

17. Defendants allege that their performance of any contract alleged in the
COMPLAINT and/or arising from the COMPLAINT was excused and/or prevented by the
action(s) of other parties, including, but not limited to Plaintiff.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Misuse or Modification of Property)

18. Defendants are informed and believe and based thereon alleges that if there
was any defect in the property referred to in the COMPLAINT at the time Plaintiff's
alleged damage arose, that such defect did not exist at the time said property left the
possession of Defendants and was caused by the misuse, abuse, changes, modifications and
alterations of others, including Plaintiff, and that any alleged damages was caused by such
misuse, abuse, changes, alteration and modifications.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Contribution)

19. Defendants allege that in the event they are held liable to Plaintiff, which
liability is expressly denied, and any co-defendants are likewise held liable, Defendants are
entitled to a percentage contribution of the total liability from said co-defendants in
accordance with the principles of equitable indemnity and comparative contribution.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Non-Compliance with Civil Code § 1375)
20. This action is barred as result of Plaintiff's failure to comply with Civil Code
§ 1375.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Reservation)
21. Defendants presently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to

form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet, unstated affirmative defenses

6
2029-0000032 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT1 | available. Defendants, therefore, reserve herein the right to assert additional defenses in

2 | the event that the discovery indicates they would be appropriate.
3 WHEREFORE, these answering Defendants pray:
4 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by its unverified COMPLAINT for damages and that
5 the same be dismissed;
6 2. That the comparative fault of Plaintiff and third parties for the injuries and
7 damages claimed by Plaintiff, if any, be ascertained and apportioned;
8 3. That Defendants be awarded their costs of suit herein incurred; and
9 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the
10 circumstances. C N
11 | Dated: November 28, 2011 HAI GHT BROWN, & BONESTEEL LLP
12
13 5
Steven M. Cvitafovic
14 Attorneys for Defendants >
Mission Place LLC; Mission Place Mezz
15 Holding LLC; Mission Place Mezzanine
LLC; Mission Place Partners LLC;
16 Centurion Real Estate Investors IV, LLC;
and Centurion Real Estate Partners, LLC
17 (sued in its own name and erroneously
13 sued as Centurion Partners LLC)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LAW OFFICES
HAIGHT, BROWN & | 56 snooo39 7
BONESTEEL, LLP. foe "ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINTCo wom Yt DUH F&F WN

Be Pe oe
nF Oo

13

LAW OFFICES

HAIGHT, BROWN &
LP.

PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION v. CATELLUS THIRD AND
KING LLC; CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CATELLUS COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORP.,;CATELLUS OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
CATELLUS URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; THIRD AND KING INVESTORS
LLC; PROLOGIS; MISSION PLACE LLC; MISSION PLACE MEZZANINE LLC;
MISSION PLACE MEZZ HOLDINGS LLC; MISSION PLACE PARTNERS LLC;
CENTURION REAL ESTATE INVESTORS IV

CGC 08-478453

Iam employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 71 Stevenson Street,
20th Floor, San Francisco, California 94105-2981.

On November 28, 2011, I served the within document(s) described as:

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

on the interested parties in this action as stated below:

Ann Rankin Charles A. Hansen, Esq.

Law Office of Ann Rankin Peter J. Laufenberg, Esq.

3911 Harrison Street Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, LLP

Oakland, CA 94611 1111 Broadway, 24" Floor
Oakland, CA 94607

Phone: 510.653.8886

Fax: 510.653.8889 Phone: (510) 834-6600

Fax: (510) 834-1928
Email: chansen@wendel.com,

laufenber: endel.com

Email: info@arankin.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Beacon Residential

Community Association Co Counsel for Defendants Mission Place
LLC;et al

Kenneth Katzoff John A. Koeppel, Esq.

Katzoff & Riggs Todd J. Wenzel, Esq.

1500 Park, No. 300 Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley

Emeryville, CA 94608 201 Spear Street, 10" Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 510.597.1990

Fax: 510.597.0295 Phone: (415) 543-4800
Fax: (415) 972-6301
kkatzoff@katzoffriggs.com Email: jkoeppel@ropers.com,

twenzel@ropers.com,
Co-counsel for Plaintiff Beacon Residential

Community Association Attorneys for Catellus Development
Corporation, Catellus Commercial

Development Corp., Catellus Operating

1
ZU29-0000032 >
3476916.1 Proof of Service1 Limited Partnership, Successor to Catellus
Development Corp., Catellus Third and
2 King LLC, and Third and King Investors,
LLC, ProLogis
3
4 Steven H. Schwartz James P. Castles
Schwartz & Janzen, LLP Richard C. Young
5 12100 Wilshire Blvd. Robles Castles & Meridith
Ste 1125 492 Ninth Street, Suite 200
6 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Oakland, CA 94607
7 Phone: (310) 979-4090 Phone: (415) 743-9300
Fax: (310) 207-3344 Fax: (415) 743-9305
8 E-mail: sschwartz@sj-law.com E-mail: jim@rcemlawgroup.com
rick@remlawgroup.com
9 Attorneys for HKS, Inc. individually and
dba HKS Architects, Inc. Attorneys for Skidmore Owings & Merrill
10 LLP
11 Kevin P. McCarthy David S. Webster, Esq.
McCarthy & McCarthy Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP
12 505 14th Street, Ste. 1150 1401 Willow Pass Road, Ste. 700
B Oakland, Ca 94612 Concord, CA 94520
Phone: 510.839.8100 Phone: (925) 356-8200
14 Fax: 510.839.8109 Fax: (925) 356-8250
kmcarthy@mcarthyllp.com
15 Email: dwebster@wshblaw.com
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant Window Attorneys for Catellus Development
16 Solutions, Inc. Corporation, Catellus Commercial
Development Corp., Catellus Operating
17 Limited Partnership, Successor to Catellus
Development Corp., Catellus Third and
18 King LLC, and Third and King Investors,
LLC, ProLogi
19 Christian P. Lucia Adam Brezine
Denae M. Olivieri Julien E. Capers
20 Sellar Hazard Manning Ficenec & Lucia HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
1800 Sutter Street, Ste. 460 560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
21 Concord, CA 94520 San Francisco, CA 94105
22 Phone: 925.938.1430 Phone: 415.268.200
3 Fax: 925.256.7508 Fax: 415.268.1999
clucia@sellarlaw.com adam.brezine@hro.com
24 dolivieri@sellarlaw.com julien.capers@hro.com
25 Attomeys for Critchfield Mechanical, Inc. | Attorneys for Cross Defendant Solutia, Inc.
Cupertino Electric, Inc.; Creative Masonry,
26 Inc.; Carefree Toland Pools, Inc; J.W.
McClenahan, Inc; West Coast Protective
27 Coatings, Inc.; Western Roofing Services
Blue's Roofing Company; Allied Fire
28 Protection: Van-Mulder Sheet Metal. Inc.
LAW OFFICES: 2
BONESTERL, LLP. [| 2022-0000032

3476916.1 Proof of Service

San FranciscoOo eo ND HW FF YN

NbN YN NY NN ND BB ee ee ee Re
ont AA F&F BHF S Ce RAH BwWN FO

‘LAW OFFICES
HAIGHT, BROWN &

N.V. Heathom, Inc.; F. Rodgers
Corporation f.k.a. F. Rodgers Insulation
Interior
Sue McKillip S. Mitchell Kaplan
Aiken & Welch Gordon & Rees LLP
Depository Unit 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
One Kaiser Plaza, Ste. 275 San Francisco, CA 94111
Oakland, CA 94612
suem@aikenwelch.com Phone: (415) 986-5900
Fax: (415) 986-8054
(DEPOSITORY ONLY)
Webcor Construction, Inc. dba Webcor
Builders
Randel J. Campbell William H. Staples
Lynch Gilardi & Grummer Archer Norris
170 Columbus Ave., 5th Floor 2033 North Main Street, Ste. 800
San Francisco, CA 94133 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 415. 397.2800 Phone: 925.930.6600
Fax: 415.397.0937 Fax: 925.930.6620
Atte for ing-Johnson Co:

(ELECTRONIC MEANS) I caused such document(s) to be Electronically Served
through E-Mail for the above-entitled matter. This service complies with Code of
Civil Procedure §1010. The file transmission was reported as complete and a copy
oft the “Sent” page will be maintained with the file copy of the document(s) in our
olrice.

(OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I deposited in a box or other facility regularly
maintained by Federal Express, an express service carrier, or delivered to a courier
or driver authorized by said express service carrier to receive documents, a true
copy of the foregoing document in sealed envelopes or packages designated by the
express service carrier, addressed above, with fees for overnight delivery paid or
provided for.

Executed on November 28, 2011 at San Francisco, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct.

ZU29-0000032

RATEOLE 1

Ollye L. Robinson i
(Type or print name) (Signature)

3

Proof of Service