Answer: ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                POOLE & SHAFFERY, LLP
445 SOUTH FIGUBROA STREET, SUITE 2520

FACSIMILE (213) 439.0183

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (213) 439.8390

ww SN mm lm

POOLE “ SHAFFERY, LLP
les W. Jenkins (Bar No. 134338)
Luiza Manuelian Bar No. 2331 4) ELECTRONICALLY
‘outh Figueroa treet, uite FILED
Los Angeles, California 90071 Superior Court of California,
(213) 439-5390 County of San Francisco
(213) 439-0183 Facsimile . JAN 19 2011
Attorneys for Defendant, H&C Investment Associates, Inc. oclerk of the Court
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS Case No. CGC-10-275731
Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT H&C
INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. TO
vs. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
C.C. MOORE & CO., ENGINEERS;

Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 attached
to the Summary Complaint herein, and DOES
1-8500, et al.

[ASBESTOS - PERSONAL INJURY]

Defendants.

eee eee

Defendant, H&C INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. (“DEFENDANT”), hereby
responds to the Complaint for Personal Injury (“Complaint”) of Plaintiffs, ROBERT ROSS and
JEAN ROSS (“PLAINTIFFS”), as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

Pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure §431.30, DEFENDANT generally
denies each and every material allegation contained in the Complaint, and further denies that
PLAINTIFFS have been damaged in any amount by DEFENDANT, or are entitled to any relief
from DEFENDANT.
dif
lit

-l-

F Clients 2 19iROSS v. CC MOORE (H&AC)PLEADINGS \Answer.wpd
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT H&C INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

i
|
i

/
|
|
|
/
|POOLE & SHAFFERY, LLP

2
&
8
&
an
ES.
> oO
aga
eEYS
2238
xox
BE ae
maga
<28e
oun
Bout Zong
asa
Sane
Shas
RQEO
Zn
nus
bak
82
ga
9
3
3

yD eka neat tah hahah
> 6 OB 3 A HW & |] MM SS

Oe

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Further, DEFENDANT alleges the following affirmative defenses to each alleged cause of
action, and hereby reserves its right to amend this Answer to allege additional affirmative defenses
that may later be ascertained during discovery:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced in that

neither the Complaint, nor any purported cause of action alleged therein, states facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action against DEFENDANT under any legal theory.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced in that the
Complaint, and cach purported cause of action, is uncertain and ambiguous as it relates to
DEFENDANT.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced in that the
Complaint, and each purported cause of action fails to state a cognizable claim for the recovery of
damages against DEFENDANT, including, but not limited to, recovery of punitive damages and
prejudgement interest.

FO Vv)

PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced in that the
Complaint, and/or each purported cause of action against DEFENDANT, is barred by the
applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure
§§ 335.1, 377.1, 338(a), 338(d), 339(1), 340.2, 361, 583.210 and 583.310.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced in that they
have failed to join all indispensable parties, and, therefore complete relief cannot be afforded to the
parties in this action and will result in prejudice in any future litigation.
it
it

2.

PACHents22MROSS v. CC MOORE (H&C)PLEADINGS Answer wpd
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT H&C INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINTPOOLE & SHAPPERY, LLP
445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 2520

FACSIMILE (213) 439-0183

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (213) 439-5390

Oo oS DA DT BR BD Nm

BN eka keh
oe TA a & YW NM eB SS SF Oe YE DH kh WD NN ™

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

_ PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred as to any non-economic damages
except those allocated te DEFENDANT in direct proportion to its percentage of fault, if any.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced to the

extent that PLAINTIFF has released, settled or entered into an accord and satisfaction or otherwise
compromised their claims, and, therefore said claims are barred by operation of law, or in the
alternative, PLAINTIFF has accepted payment for partial settlement, and therefore DEFENDANT
is entitled to a set-off.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced in that they
have failed to take reasonable actions to avoid or mitigate their alleged damages, if any.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished, or reduced by the

doctrine of laches in that PLAINTIFFS waited an unreasonable period of time to file this action
and that this prejudicial delay has worked to the detriment of DEFENDANT.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFES’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished, or reduced by virtue
of PLAINTIFF, and/or his agents, unlawful, careless, negligent, and other wrongful conduct, such

that PLAINTIFF is not entitled to any of the relief sought against DEFENDANT, under the

equitable doctrine of unclean hands.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished, or reduced in that
PLAINTIFF, and/or their agents, expressly or impliedly waived any rights they may have had by
their acts, conduct, and/or omissions.

Ut
Mi
Uf
3

FiiCliente2\2tMROSS v. CC MOORE (H&C)\PLEADINGS Answer. wpd
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT H&C INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

i
i
i
i
:
|
i
i
i
|
:
i
iPOOLE & SHAPFERY, LLP
445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 2520

FACSIMILE (213) 439-0183

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (213) 439-5390

ec Oe WR mR wm HN om

peek hak kak ak tak kta
we CS BA AR eh OW Ne OS

20

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished, or reduced to the
extent PLAINTIFF consented to the acts and/or omissions of DEFENDANT as alleged in the
Complaint.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced by the

doctrine of estoppel.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFFS’ claims against DEFENDANT are barred in whole or in part, by their own
contributory and/or comparative fault, because the damages, if any, were legally caused and are the
result, in whole or part, of their own carelessness, recklessness, negligent acts and/or omissions or
failure to act reasonably. Accordingly, any recovery by PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANT is
barred, or in the alternative, is comparatively reduced by PLAINTIFFS’ percentage of fault.

FFIRMATIY) F!

PLAINTIFFS’ claims against DEFENDANT are barred in whole or in part on the grounds
that PLAINTIFF or PLAINTIFF’S employers knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have
known the risk of the injuries or damages alleged in the Complaint, if any, and nevertheless did
freely and voluntarily assume said risk, and this undertaking proximately caused and contributed to
the losses, injuries or damages, if any alleged by PLAINTIFF.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFF is barred from recovery against DEFENDANT in that if PLAINTIFFS suffered

any loss or damage, such loss or damage was the direct and proximate cause of the misuse of the
product or equipment at issue by PLAINTIFFS or persons other than DEFENDANT, and said
misuse was unreasonable and not reasonably foreseeable at the time the product(s) or equipment
was sold.
up
ut
ut

4.

PACHentsz2 AROSE v. CC MOORE (H&CIPLEADINGS\Answer. wed
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT H&C INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

i
:
i
|
|
‘
:
i
|POOLE & SHAFFERY, LLP
445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 2520
FACSIMILE (213) 439.0183

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071,
TELEPHONE (213) 439-5390

SO GC “ER UR Ge

Bm teeta tak amt tek fk pk
eC MN Mh & & NM - DS SP GS YA HN & | NM Mm &

_ SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced to the

extent that the dangers, if any, associated with the product(s) or equipment referenced in the
Complaint were not unreasonable and/or constituted commonly known dangers.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFF is barred from recovery in that if they sustained any loss or damage, such loss
or damage was not directly or proximately caused by the acts or omissions of DEFENDANT.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced to the
extent that PLAINTIFF ever worked with, near or around any product(s) and/or equipment
supplied by DEFENDANT and therefore were not harmed by such product(s) and/or equipment.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced in that
other person(s) and/or entity(ies), whose true names and/or capacities are unknown to
DEFENDANT, are in some manner responsible for or at fault in proximately causing the damage
allegedly sustained by PLAINTIFES and/or PLAINTIFF, and therefore the damages, if any, should
be apportioned in proportion te the relative fault, if any, of each other person or entity.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced since

PLAINTIFF, as well as other individuals and/or entities, including their own, or PLAINTIFFS’
employer, whether or not parties to this action, were knowledgeable, informed, and sophisticated
concerning the use of the product(s) or equipment purchased from DEFENDANT, if any, and were
fully informed, knowledgeable, and sophisticated with respect to any alleged health risks posed by
said product(s) or equipment, if any.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced to the

extent that their alleged damages were caused by unforeseeable acts or omissions and
DEFENDANT exercised due care with respect to foreseeable acts and omissions.
5.

PiiClients2\2 AROS v. CC MOORE (H&C)PLEADINGS\VAnswer wpd
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT H&C INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINTPOOLE & SHAFFERY, LLP

2
8
&
&
ox
cs

2
Ze39
we8s
BESs
ROSS
ao >
BERS
Wat oe
2a88
gw
Rank a
geeo
Pane
Saag
EORO
ans
Bako
63
oF
%
=
>

wo ef SAO Hh me RN Mm

pach taht nk kkk fk
ee Se KO eR Rh WD Me DS

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced to the

extent the damages alleged in the Complaint were unavoidable.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced to the

extent the loss or injury suffered by PLAINTIFFS or PLAINTIFF, if any, was caused by an
idiosyncratic condition for which DEFENDANT could not have taken any steps to avoid.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced to the
extent their damages were proximately caused an act of God.
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced to the

extent that the dangers, if any, associated with the product(s) and/or equipment referenced in the
Complaint constitute an unavoidably unsafe product or piece of equipment.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS?’ recovery is barred, diminished or reduced to the extent that PLAINTIFF is

attempting to assert that DEFENDANT is liable as an agent, servant, employee and/or joint
venturer, or as successor, successor in business, successor in product line or a portion thereof,
assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line or a portion thereof,
parent, alter ego, subsidiary, whole or partial owner, wholly or partially owned entity, or member
of any group engaged in funding, researching, processing, constructing, analyzing, merchandising,
supplying, studying, testing, designing, labeling, manufacturing, distributing, marketing, warning,
warranting, rebranding, leasing, buying, selling, inspecting, or servicing of a certain substance, the
generic name of which is asbestos and/or products containing asbestos.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFF is barred from recovery against DEFENDANT by the exclusive remedy
provisions under the California Workers’ Compensation Act, including but not limited to Labor
Code § 3600, et seq.

6.

PACHents2IMROSS vi cc MOORE (H&CHPLEADINGS Answer. wpd
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT H&C INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT.

i
i
|
i
i

4
i
i
i
5
i
i
;
|POOLE & SHAFFERY, LLP
445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 2520
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (213) 439-5390
FACSIMILE (213) 439-0183

than nk kak tm kh tk
CS Oe WA HN RR HD NM me S&S

oe 6 WA HW & WB NM

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced to the

extent the PLAINTIFF received (or the estate will receive) Workers’ Compensation payments for
the injuries alleged in the Compliant. To the extent any such payments have been made,
DEFENDANT is entitled to an offset in the amount of all such benefits against any damages
awarded to PLAINTIFF.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced in that the
product(s) or equipment, if any, utilized by the PLAINTIFFS or PLAINTIFF were altered or
changed from the original condition of said product(s) or equipment at the time it left the
possession and control of DEFENDANT.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFFS” recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced to the
extent that there is no possibility of an alternate safer design for the product(s) or equipment
referenced in the Complaint, and that the risk of danger, if any, is inherent in said product(s) or
equipment.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
DEFENDANT denies the existence of the dangerous condition as set forth in the

Complaint. If, however, such dangerous condition did, in fact, exist, DEFENDANT had no
knowledge or adequate knowledge of it, having exercised reasonable care in inspecting its

product(s) or equipment.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

DEFENDANT alleges that the alleged condition of the product set forth in the Complaint

did not constitute substantial risk of injury; but if any risk of injury did exist, it constituted merely a

minor, frivial or insignificant risk which did not create a dangerous condition in its product(s) or
equipment, and therefore DEFENDANT is not liable for PLAINTIFFS’ alleged damages.
ut
Ut
~To

|
|
:
i

FiiClients22 1 9ROSS v. CC MOORE (H&C\PLEADINGS Answer. wpd
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT H&C INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINTPOOLE @ SHAPFERY, LLP
445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 2520

FACSIMILE (213) 439.0183

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (213) 439.8390

Oo 6S BW DR Hm Nm

Nn N NON NH N N NM OR Me kaha Sah fam ek al
2 RR HR EES SS SSA RHA EASE S

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery is barred diminished or reduced to the extent that PLAINTIFF

and/or PLAINTIFFS’ employer(s) were provided with and were aware of adequate warnings issued
by DEFENDANT and others for product(s) and/or equipment supplied to them. Further,
PLAINTIFF, and/or his employer(s) who received product(s) and/or equipment alleged to have
been supplied by DEFENDANT, were aware of the proper handling, care and risk of said products
or materials, and failed to heed said warnings and/or to advise his/their employees of the same. The
acts and omissions of PLAINTIFF, his employer(s), and others in this regard proximately caused
PLAINTIFFS? injuries, if any.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

DEFENDANT was a bulk manufacturer and/or supplier of the materials, products and
equipment that may have been supplied to PLAINTIFF and/or PLAINTIFFS’ employers and had
no duty to warn employees of such third parties, including PLAINTIFF, about potential dangers, if
any, of the product or products manufactured or supplied by third parties, or the processes used by
PLAINTIFF, and/or PLAINTIFFS’ employer. Further, DEFENDANT as a bulk manufacturer
and/or supplier, could neither foresee every conceivable downstream use of said materials,
products and equipment, nor control the subsequent manufacturer, packaging, labeling, use,
application, and/or removal of said materials, products, and/or equipment, nor control the means to
communicate warnings to an ultimate user. To the extent that DEFENDANT even had a duty to
provide warnings to PLAINTIFF, his employer(s), or others, it did so by providing adequate
warnings to others who subsequently manufactured, packaged, labeled, used and/or removed the
materials, product(s) and/or equipment that allegedly injured PLAINTIFF.

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFFS’ recovery is barred, diminished or reduced to the extent that neither they, nor
PLAINTIFFS’ employers, justifiably relied on any alleged misrepresentation of DEFENDANT,
nor did DEFENDANT influence subsequent purchase of, or use of product(s) and/or equipment
referred to in the Complaint.

Ht
-8-

PiClients22HAROSS v. CC MOGRE (H&CPLEADINGS Answer wpd
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT H&C INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINTPOOLE & SHAFFERY, LLP
445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 2520

FACSIMILE (213) 439.0183

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (213) 439-5390

Smt

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced on the

grounds that all conduct and activities of DEFENDANT alleged in the Complaint conformed to
statutes, government regulations, industry standards and the state of knowledge at the time all
times relevant in the Complaint.

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The product(s) or equipment referred to in PLAINTIFFS’ Complaint which may have been
manufactured or distributed by this DEFENDANT, were manufactured and/or distributed in
accordance with specifications and requirements supplied to this DEFENDANT by individuals or
entities including, but not limited to, the United States of America. The alleged defect, if any, in
said product(s) or equipment was, therefore, caused by said mandatory specifications and
requirements and the alleged defect was neither known to, nor discoverable by this DEFENDANT
with the exercise of reasonable care.

THIRTY- Al

PLAINTIFFS’ recovery against DEFENDANT is barred, diminished or reduced to the
extent the Complaint seeks recovery under the theory of “enterprise,” “industry-wide,” “alternate”
or “market share” (collectively referred to hereafter as “market share”) liability, and furthermore,
the essential elements of a cause of action premised on a market share theory of liability do not
exist between PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT.

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action based upon
market share liability and/or enterprise liability and therefore, violates the guarantees of due
process of law and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the United States and California
Constitutions, and such violations bar PLAINTIFFS’ recovery or judgment against DEFENDANT.

FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFFS’ recovery of punitive damages against this DEFENDANT violates the
California and United States Constitutions, including, but not limited to the due process clause
Mit

9.

P:iCtients22 ROSS v. CC MOORE (H&C)PLEADINGS Answer wpd
. ANSWER OF DEFENDANT H&C INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC, TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

i
|
1
'
/
/
|
)
|
/
|
i
|
i
i
i
\
i
iPOOLE & SHAFFERY, LLP
445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 2520

FACSIMILE (213) 439-0183

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
‘TELEPHONE (213) 439-5390

OO Ne Nt

RNa kk tam mk th
ec NK OH BR WN OO ODO ON OS

thereof. No act or omission of this DEFENDANT or any of its officers, directors, or managing
agents warrants the imposition of punitive damages.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery is barred, diminished or reduced to the extent that they have failed

to, and cannot identify the products(s) and/or equipment, and the toxins within said product(s)
and/or equipment, to which they, and PLAINTIFF was exposed.
FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery is barred, diminished or reduced to the extent that the benefits of

DEFENDANTS product(s) or equipment, if any, outweighed the risk of danger inherent in said
product or material.
FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery is barred, diminished or reduced to the extent that PLAINTIFF

cannot show that the product(s) or equipment supplied by DEFENDANT, if any, in all reasonable
medical probability, was a substantial factor in increasing the risk of bringing about the injuries or
damages complained of by PLAINTIFF with regard to PLAINTIFF.
FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery is barred, diminished or reduced in that DEFENDANT, as a

component and/or raw material supplier, is not liable to PLAINTIFF when the goods or material
DEFENDANT supplied were not inherently dangerous, DEFENDANT sold goods or materials in
bulk to a sophisticated buyer, the material was substantially changed during the manufacturing
process, and DEFENDANT had a limited role in developing and designing the end product.
FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The items which may have been manufactured or distributed by this DEFENDANT, was
manufactured and/or distributed in accordance with specifications and requirements supplied to
this DEFENDANT by individuals or entities including, but not limited to, the United States of
America. The alleged defect, in any, in said product was, therefore, caused by said mandatory
specifications and requirements and the alleged defect was neither known to nor discoverable by
this DEFENDANT with the exercise of reasonable care.

-10-

PiClents2\Z ROSS vy. CC MOORE (H&C)PLEADINGSVAnswer.wpd
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT H&C INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC, TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

|
|
|POOLE @ SHAFFERY, LLP
445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 2520

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (213) 439-5390
FACSIMILE (213) 439.0183

2 6 WD Hh RB wD om

10
11
iz
13
i4
15
16
17
18
19
26
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery is barred to the extent that PLAINTIFFS’ injuries occurred on a
federal enclave or while working under the direction of a federal officer.
-! IVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ recovery is barred to the extent that their claims arise under the Constitution,
treaties, laws of the United States, and/or admiralty or maritime law.

FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFFS’ recovery is barred to the extent that the venue is improper.
FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFFS?’ recovery is barred to the extent that the forum is improper.
FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFFS’ causes of action and claim are governed by the laws of another state.

FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFFS’ causes of action and claim are preempted by Federal Locomotive Boiler
Inspection Act (49 C.F.R. §§ 229.103-113; 229.46; and 229.49.)
WHEREFORE, DEFENDANT prays that:
1 PLAINTIFFS take nothing by the Complaint;
2. For cost of suit, including attorneys fees; and
3. For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.

DATED: January (8 » 2011 POOLE & SHAFFERY, LLP

Luiza Manuelian
Attorneys tor Defendant, H&C Investment
Associates, Inc.

«Ll.

PAiCHents22 AROSS v. CC MOORE (HACPLEADINGS Answer wpd
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT H&C INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINToe OD NY HD Ww RB WY mw»

Ny = &

13

PROOF OF SERVICE
(CCP. § 1013a and § 2015.5)

Robert Ross and Jean Ross v. C.C. Moore & Co. Engineers, et al
SFSC Case No.: CGC-10-275731

J am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; [ am over the age of 18 years and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520, Los Angeles, CA
90071.

On January 19, 2011, I served the foregoing document described as: DEFENDANT H&C
INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT on the interested parties
in said action addressed as follows:

seine

SEE LEXIS/NEXIS SERVICE LIST

week

B BY ELECTRONIC MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - I provided the document(s)
listed above electronically to the Lexis Nexis website by which all parties on the Lexis Nexis service list are
deemed served on the date indicated below, if the document(s) are provided to Lexis Nexis by 5:00 p.m.

a By Mail [State] I am readily familiar with Poole & Shaffery, LILP’s practice for the collection and
processing of mail with the United States Postal Service; such envelope will be deposited with the United
States Postal Service on the above date in the ordinary course of business at the business address shown
above; and such e nvelope was placed for collection and mailing on the above date according to Poole &
Shaffery, LLP’s ordinary business practices.

o I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by facsimile to each addressee set forth below on this date
before 5:00 p.m. The transmission of this document was complete and without error.

o I caused such envelope to delivered via overnight delivery to the party(ies) listed on the attached
mailing list.

Executed on January 19, 2011, at Los Angeles, California.

a [State] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of ‘California that the foregoing
is true and correct.
o [Federal] I declare that 1 am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose

direction this service was made.

Rebecca Ortega, Declarant

«le

PROOF OF SERVICE