Answer: COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC et al (PROVIDE ACCESS)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                AINA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet

Mar-11-2011 4:40 pm

Case Number: CGC-10-503332
Filing Date: Mar-09-2011 4:39
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03150471
ANSWER

INWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVI‘

001003150471

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

~ ~
we cw
FILED AnD Ener
a) é
JERRY Y. FONG, ESQ. (SBN 99673) eon LEERIOR aug
CAREY & CAREY aa
706 COWPER STREET

P.O. BOX 1040

PALO ALTO, CA 94302-1040
650/328-5510

650/853-3632 fax
jf@careyandcareylaw.com

appearing specially only for the purpose of filing this answer

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
COMMONWEALTH TITLE CASENO. CGC-10-503332
INSURANCE COMPANY,
DEFENDANT MELVIN EMERICH’S
Plaintiff, ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY
vs. COMMONWEALTH TITLE INS. CO.
FEDEX OFFICE & PRINTING
SERVICES, INC., et. al.,
Defendants.
)
Defendant Melvin Emerich hereby submits his answer to Plaintiff Commonwealth
Land Title Insurance Company’s First Amended Complaint:

1. Defendant Emerich denies each and every allegation contained in the First
Amended Complaint. Furthermore, he denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to any relief,
remedy, or damages whatsoever.

2. As a separate affirmative defense, Defendant Emerich alleges that each cause
of action in the First Amended Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action.

3. As a separate affirmative defense, Defendant Emerich alleges that each cause
of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

4. As a separate affirmative defense, Defendant Emerich alleges that each cause

a
DEF. EMERICH'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTof action is barred by the Plaintiff's (or its predecessor, representative, employee, or agent’s)

own wrongdoing so as to constitute laches, unclean hands, waiver, or estoppel (judicial or
otherwise).

5. AS a separate affirmative defense, Defendant Emerich alleges that each cause
of action is barred by the Plaintiff’s (or its predecessor, representative, employee, or agent’s)
negligence or intentional misconduct, which caused or contributed to any damages or harm
which the Plaintiff might have suffered. Accordingly, Plaintiff's recovery, if any, should be
reduced accordingly.

6. Asa separate affirmative defense, Defendant Emerich alleges that he maintains
offsetting claims against the Plaintiff (or its predecessor, representative, employee, or agent)
and that the damages to which Mr. Emerich is entitled to receive on these offsetting claims
will far exceed and extinguish any liability which Mr. Emerich might owe to the Plaintiff.

7. Asa separate affirmative defense, Defendant Emerich alleges that other parties
(individuals or entities) committed the wrongful acts or omissions alleged and that they, not
Mr. Emerich, are liable to the Plaintiff, if at all.

8. As a separate affirmative defense, Defendant Emerich alleges that Plaintiff
knowingly and willfully accepted or consented to the acts or omissions complained of and
cannot, therefore, now seek recovery of the same.

9. As a separate affirmative defense, Defendant Emerich alleges that the acts or
omissions complained of are protected by privileges or immunities and are not actionable.
Hit
Mit
Mit
Ai
Hit
Mie
AN

2
DEF. EMERICH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTc a

WHEREFORE, Defendant Melvin Emerich respectfully requests that the Court grant

the following relief:

1. That the Plaintiff take nothing from the First Amended Complaint;
2. That Mr. Emerich be awarded his litigation costs;
3. That the Court order any other relief it deems appropriate and proper.
DATED: February 23, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
CAREY & CAREY
I NG; appegrife spe
rpose of filing this dasWer for Defendaht
VIN EMERICH

3
DEF. EMERICH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTPROOF OF SERVICE
CCP 1013A/2015.5

Tam over the age of 18 years, employed in the County of Santa Clara, and not
a party to the within action; my business address is 706 Cowper Street, Palo Alto,
California 94301. On March 2, 2011 __ I served the within Defendant Melvin
Emerich’s Answer to Unverified First Amended Complaint by Commonwealth Title Ins.

Co. on the following parties in said action:

Edward A. Kunnes, Esq.
FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP
100 N. Wiget Lane, Ste 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94598

x (BY MAIL) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with
postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Palo Alto, California.

(EMAIL) I caused a copy of the document(s to be sent from email address
admin@careyandcareylaw.com to the persons at the email addresses listed
above.

(BY FAX) By transmitting by facsimile a true copy thereof to the fax number(s)
known or represented to me to be the receiving fax number for facsimile copy
transmission of the parties/persons/firms listed above. The transmission was
reported as complete and without error.

(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) By causing such document to be delivered by handy

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and

executed on ___ March 2, 2011 __, at Palo Alto, California.

JAN AJ TIMM