arrow left
arrow right
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                DOMME

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Oct-05-2011 11:43 am

Case Number: CGC-08-478453
Filing Date: Sep-30-2011 11:34
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03344968
CROSS COMPLAINT

sEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LL

001003344968

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.CLOUD & OLSEN

ISCOTT B. CLOUD (State Bar No. 142503)
400 Oceangate, Seventh Floor

Long Beach, CA 90802

Telephone: (562) 901-1102

Facsimile: (562) 901-1172

Attorneys for Defendant,

ICORPORATION”)

BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY )
ASSOCIATION, )

Plaintiff,

ICATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC;
ICATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION;
CATELLUS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

AND KING INVESTORS LLC; CATELLUS
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, LLC; SHOOTER &

COAST PROTECTIVE COATINGS, INC, F.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; THIRD }
)
)
)
)
)
)
}
RODGERS INSULATION RESIDENTIAL, INC.; }

5 )
SOLUTIONS, dba WINDOW SOLUTIONS, INC.,)
and Does 52-200, inclusive,

Defendants.

weer

¥ I

Superior

r Court of Califomia

‘Ounty of San Francisco

SEP 30

201

CLERK OFTHE
By bi Bastia
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Case No.: CGC-08-478453

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation (Erroncously named as “THYSSEN KRUPP ELEVATOR

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR

CORPORATION’S CROSS-
COMPLAINT

-1-

BY FAX

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION'S CROSS-COMPLAINTTHYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
}CORPORATION,

Cross-Complainant,

i

5 |BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
|ASSOCIATION; CATELLUS THIRD AND
|KING LLC; CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT
(CORPORATION; CATELLUS

7 |COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION; CATELLUS OPERATING

8 |LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; CATELLUS

]URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION;

9 | THIRD AND KING INVESTORS LLC,
|CATELLUS URBAN DEVELOPMENT, LLC;

'VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL, INC.;
IBLUE’S ROOFING CO.; ROOFING
CONSTRUCTORS, INC. dba WESTERN
13 ROOFING SERVICE; WEST COAST
PROTECTIVE COATINGS, INC.; F.
14 RODGERS INSULATION RESIDENTIAL,
JINC.; F. RODGERS CORPORATION; N.V.
IHEATHORN, INC.; ARCHITECTURAL
IGLASS & ALUMINUM CO., INC.; ANNING-
16 |JOHNSON COMPANY; TRACTEL, INC.;
ITHYSSEN KRUPP ELEVATOR

15

CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.; WINDOW
ISOLUTIONS, dba WINDOW SOLUTIONS,
IINC., and Moes 1-200, inclusive,

Cross-Defendants.

=
>
g
Zz
na
<
Zz
a
y
So
=
>
Q
3
:
2
9°
x 2
EEE—e——e—e—e_eeeeeOe

COMES NOW Cross-Complainant, ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, and for a cause of

| action against Cross-Defendants, and each of them, alleges as follows:

-2-

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION'S CROSS-COMPLAINTFIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against all Cross-Defendants)

1 The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or

otherwise, of Cross-Defendants MOES 1 through 200, inclusive, are presently unknown to this
\Cross-Complainant, who therefore sues said Cross-Defendants by such fictitious names, and Cross-
Complainant will ask leave of Court to amend this Cross-Complaint to insert the true names and

7 |lcapacities when the same are ascertained. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and thereon
8 llalleges that each of the Cross-Defendants designated by name, and/or as a MOE, is legally
responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and caused damages
10 proximately thereby to the Cross-Complainant as herein alleged.

2. Cross-Complainant is a corporation duly authorized to do and is doing business
yin the State of California.

3. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that

4. That at all times herein mentioned, each of the Cross-Defendants, was the agent
land/or employee of each of the remaining Cross-Defendants and was at all times acting in the course
land scope of said agency and employment.

5. That Plaintiff, BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,

| hereinafter “Plaintiff’] caused to be filed a Third Amended Complaint Complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, entitled, BEACON RESIDENTIAL
|COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION v. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC., et al; Case No. CGC-08-
24 1478453. Concurrently herewith, ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation has filed an answer to the
25 | Third Amended Complaint denying generally and specifically each and every allegation of the
26 [complain which is incorporated herewith.

6. Cross-Complainant has denied that Plaintiff herein have any valid cause of

-3-
THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION'S CROSS-COMPLAINT7. Cross-Complainant is incurring, has incurred and will continue to incur

attorneys’ fees, court costs, investigative costs and expenses and other costs and expenses in

|

lis unknown at this time. When the same have been ascertained, Cross-Complainant will seek leave

connection with defending against the Complaint on file herein. The exact amount of said expenses

FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against Cross-Defendant, Beacon Residential Community Association, and Moes 1-25)
8. Cross-Complainant refers to and incorporates herein by this reference each and

I every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 7 of this Cross-Complaint as though fully set forth at length

9. Cross-Complainant alleges on information and belief that, Cross-Complainant

21]

-4-

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION'S CROSS-COMPLAINT12. Asaresult of said breach by Cross-Defendants, and each of them, Cross-
(Complainant has incurred and will continue to incur attorneys fees, court costs, investigative costs
land other costs in connection with defending against the complaint, the exact amounts of which are
unknown at this time. When the same have been ascertained, Cross-Complainant will seek leave of
this Court to amend this Cross-Complaint to set forth the true nature and amount of said costs and

xpenses.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against Cross-Defendant, Beacon Residential Community Association, and Moes 1-25)

13. Cross-Complainant refers to and incorporates herein by this reference each and
every allegation of Paragraphs | through 12 of this Cross-Complaint as though fully set forth at
length herein.

14. On information and belief, said Elevator Maintenance Agreement also requires
ICross-Defendants to name Cross-Complainant as an additional insured on policies of insurance
affording coverage for claims alleged herein.

15. Cross-Complainant alleges on information and belief that, Cross-Defendants
breached the Agreement by failing to name Cross-Complainant as an additional insured on policies
lof insurance affording coverage for claims alleged herein.

16. Cross-Complainant has performed all the required services and further
performed all other conditions, covenants, and promises under the Agreement on its part to be -
performed.

17. - Asaresult of said breach by Cross-Defendants, and each of them, Cross-
(Complainant has incurred and will continue to incur attorneys fees, court costs, investigative costs
land other costs in connection with defending against the complaint, the exact amounts of which are
unknown at this time. When the same have been ascertained, Cross-Complainant will seek leave of
this Court to amend this Cross-Complaint to set forth the true nature and amount of said costs and
expenses.

Vit
vif

-5-

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION'S CROSS-COMPLAINTFOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against all Cross-Defendants)

18.  Cross-Complainant refers to and incorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 17, of this Cross-Complaint, as though fully set forth at
length herein.

19. If it is determined that Cross-Complainant is liable to Plaintiff in the underlying
laction for the loss, damage or injury alleged in the Complaint, Cross-Complainant ThyssenKrupp is

ntitled to recover as indemnity from said Cross-Defendants, and each of them, that portion of the
judgment in the underlying action attributable to the percentage of responsibility assessed or
accessible against said Cross-Defendants, and each of them.
FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against all Cross-Defendants)

20.  Cross-Complainant refers to and incorporates herein by this reference each and
every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Cross-Complaint as though fully set forth at
length herein.

21. Cross-Defendants have refused to defend, indemnify and hold Cross-
Complainant harmless in the action brought by Cross-Complainant herein. By reason of the refusal
lof Cross-Defendants, and each of them, to defend, indemnify, and hold Cross-Complainant harmless,
fa dispute has arisen and an actual controversy exists between Cross-Complainant and said Cross-
Defendants, and each of them, concerning their respective rights, duties and obligations to indemnify
Cross-Complainant. Cross-Complainant is therefore entitled to a declaration of the rights, duties,
and obligations of Cross-Defendants, and each of them, to Cross-Complainant herein.

WHEREFORE, this Cross-Complainant prays for judgment against Cross-Defendants,
land each of them, as follows:

1. That the Court determine the legal rights and duties that exist between Cross-
(Complainant and Cross-Defendants, and each of them;

Vii
vi/
-6-

“THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION'S CROSS-COMPLAINT27

28

2. ‘That if Cross-Complainant is held liable to Plaintiff and/or any other party in

ng action. then Cross-Complainant is entitled to indemnity trom Cre “Defendants, and

the underly

each of them, for the entire amount of such judgment rendered against Cross-Complainant, plus

costs, expenses, and attorney's fees incurred herein and/or for all amounts paid to Plaintiffs by or on
behalf of Cross-Complainant in settlement or compromise:

3. If Cross Defendants are found to be liable, Cross-

Complainant and Cro

Defendants, and each of them, in an amount

Complainant is entitled to have indemnity from Cre

ons of Cross-

necessary to reflect the percentage of fault attributable to the acts and om
Defendants, and cach of them:
4. For judgment in favor of Cross-Complainant in the sum to be proven at ial,

together with interest provided by law until paid:

3. For the costs of suit incurred herein:
6. For all reasonable attorney fees. costs and interest. and
7. For any further relief the Court deems just and proper.
DATED: September 30, 2011 CLOUD & OLSEN
th
fe OY
OUD ~~
“ross-Complainant

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation

-7-

NKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION'S CROSS~COMPLAIN I