arrow left
arrow right
  • PRISCILLA CLARKE VS LEWIS WILKINS Contract/Warranty Breach - Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) (Limited Jurisdiction) document preview
  • PRISCILLA CLARKE VS LEWIS WILKINS Contract/Warranty Breach - Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) (Limited Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 11/14/2019 11:54 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by V. Sino-Cruz,Deputy Clerk 1 Curt R. Craton, SBN 122392 ccraton@cratonlaw.com 2 Robert E. Tokar, SBN 221725 rtokar@cratonlaw.com 3 CRATON, SWITZER & TOKAR LLP 100 Oceangate, Suite 1200 4 Long Beach, California 90802 Tel: (562) 628-5533 5 Fax: (562) 490-8604 6 Attorneys for defendant Lewis Wilkins 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT (LOS ANGELES) 10 11 PRISCILLA CLARKE, etc., Case No. 18STLC09925 12 Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT LEWIS WILKINS TO THE UN- 13 vs. VERIFIED AMENDED COM- PLAINT NUMBER ONE OF 14 LEWIS WILKINS, etc., et al., PLAINTIFF PRISCILLA CLARKE 15 Defendants. [By Fax] 16 Judge: Hon. Jon R. Takasugi 17 Filing Date: July 24, 2018 Trial Date: January 21, 2020 18 19 In answer to the unverified amended complaint number one (the “com- 20 plaint”) of plaintiff PRISCILLA CLARKE (the “plaintiff”), defendant LEWIS 21 WILKINS (the “defendant”), admits, denies, and alleges as follows: 22 GENERAL DENIAL 23 Defendant, LEWIS WILKINS, generally denies each and every allegation 24 in plaintiff's complaint. 25 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 26 1. Failure to State a Cause of Action. As a separate affirmative de- 27 fense it is hereby alleged that the claim does not state facts sufficient to consti- 28 tute a cause of action. 1 ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT NUMBER ONE