Preview
ORIGINAL
SCHUMANN ROSENBERG & AREVALO LLP F l L
supERIOR COURT ”5'1:
'-
ERIC AREVALO (CSB N0. 255725) c ALIFO
cguNTY 0F SAN BERNARmsgm \
Arevalo@SchumannRosenberg.com AN BERNARDINO
HISTRICT‘
MARLYS K. BRAUN (CSB No. 158343)
Braun@SchumannR0senberg.com FEB 2 3 2023
3 100 Bristol Street, Suite 100
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone (714) 850-0210 w_.m».g..MA.r/:Ez?’{r:
Facsimile (714) 850-0551 DEBRA PEUfl'déKfDEEJL‘H?
\OwflO‘NUIhOJNH
Attorneys for Defendants/Cross—Defendants, PRISCILLA HUNT, as Co-Trustee of the Donald G.
Hunt Living Trust; BESSEMER TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Co-Trustee 0f the Donald G. Hunt
Living Trust; and HUNT ENTERPRISES, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
B YFAX
LLP YOLANDA JUAREZ ALVAREZ, an Case No.: CIVDs 1916334
individual, Judge: Hon. Thomas S. Garza
Department: S-27
Plaintiff,
AREVALO
ANSWER BY DEFENDANTS, PRISCILLA
100
92626-7333 V. HUNT AND BESSEMER TRUST
SUITE
COMPANY, AS CO—TRUSTEES OF THE
& LAW
850-0210
HUNT PRISCILLA LIVING TRUST; CITY DONALD G. HUNT LIVING TRUST, AND
AT
OF FONTANA, and DOES 1 through 100, HUNT ENTERPRISES, INC., TO SECOND
STREET,
CALIFORNIA
(714)
inclusive AMENDED COMPLAINT
[Demand
ATTORNEYS
ROSENBERG
Defendants, for Jury Trial]
TELEPHONE:
BRISTOL
MESA,
-and- Date Action Filed: May31, 2019
3100
COSTA
Trial Date: July 31, 2023
JUAN HERNANDEZ, an individual,
mflamfimNHOOwQQUI£mNHO
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
SCHUMANN
Nominal Defendant.
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
HEREIN:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants, PRISCILLA HUNT and BESSEMER TRUST
fi
COMPANY, as Co-Trustees of the Donald G. Hunt Living Trust, and HUNT ENTERPRISES, INC.
(“Defendants”), hereby answer the Unverified Second Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) of
Plaintiff, YOLANDA IUAREZ ALVAREZ (“Plaintiff”), for themselves alone and for n0 other
defendant, and which admit, deny and allege as follows:
///
///
-1-
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
GENERAL DENIAL
1. Pursuant to the provisions of Code osz‘vz'l Procedure § 43 1 .30, Defendants deny,
hMN generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff‘s Complaint, and the
whole thereof, and each and every alleged cause of action therein, and deny that Plaintiff sustained
damages in the sum or sums alleged, or at all, by reason of any alleged act, breach or omission on
the part 0f Defendants.
WWQQUI
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Code 0f Civil Procedure § 128.7)
2. As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendants
10 allege that there is n0 justiciable controversy under the facts and law which existed at the time of
LLP
11 the filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint; that the Complaint was filed without reasonable cause and not in
12 good faith; that Plaintiff and her counsel know that the factual contentions concerning the alleged
AREVALO
13 dangerous 0r unsafe condition of property have n0 evidentiary support whatsoever and were never
100
92626-7333
SUITE 14 likely to have any evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for investigation or discovery;
& LAW
850-0210
AT
STREET,
(714)
15 and therefore Defendants are entitled t0 reimbursement of defense costs, including attorneys’ fees
CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEYS
16 incurred, and sanctions imposed against Plaintiff and her counsel, and all other relief to which
ROSENBERG
TELEPHONE:
BRISTOL
MESA,
17 Defendants are entitled pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure § 128.7.
3100
COSTA 18 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Failure to State a Cause of Action)
SCHUMANN
20 3. As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendants
21 allege that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails t0 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against
22 Defendants.
23 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Statute of Limitations)
25 4. As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense t0 the Complaint, Defendants
26 allege that the claims in the Complaint are all barred by the applicable Statutes of Limitation
27 including under Code ofCivz'l Procedure §§ 312, 335.1, 337-340 & 342-343, and Government Code
28 §§ 9] 1.2, 945.6 & 950.2.
-2-
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
ORIGINAL SCHUMANN ROSENBERG & AREVALO LLP F l L supERIOR COURT ”5'1: '- ERIC AREVALO (CSB N0. 255725) c ALIFO cguNTY 0F SAN BERNARmsgm \ Arevalo@SchumannRosenberg.com AN BERNARDINO HISTRICT‘ MARLYS K. BRAUN (CSB No. 158343) Braun@SchumannR0senberg.com FEB 2 3 2023 3 100 Bristol Street, Suite 100 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone (714) 850-0210 w_.m».g..MA.r/:Ez?’{r: Facsimile (714) 850-0551 DEBRA PEUfl'déKfDEEJL‘H? \OwflO‘NUIhOJNH Attorneys for Defendants/Cross—Defendants, PRISCILLA HUNT, as Co-Trustee of the Donald G. Hunt Living Trust; BESSEMER TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Co-Trustee 0f the Donald G. Hunt Living Trust; and HUNT ENTERPRISES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO B YFAX LLP YOLANDA JUAREZ ALVAREZ, an Case No.: CIVDs 1916334 individual, Judge: Hon. Thomas S. Garza Department: S-27 Plaintiff, AREVALO ANSWER BY DEFENDANTS, PRISCILLA 100 92626-7333 V. HUNT AND BESSEMER TRUST SUITE COMPANY, AS CO—TRUSTEES OF THE & LAW 850-0210 HUNT PRISCILLA LIVING TRUST; CITY DONALD G. HUNT LIVING TRUST, AND AT OF FONTANA, and DOES 1 through 100, HUNT ENTERPRISES, INC., TO SECOND STREET, CALIFORNIA (714) inclusive AMENDED COMPLAINT [Demand ATTORNEYS ROSENBERG Defendants, for Jury Trial] TELEPHONE: BRISTOL MESA, -and- Date Action Filed: May31, 2019 3100 COSTA Trial Date: July 31, 2023 JUAN HERNANDEZ, an individual, mflamfimNHOOwQQUI£mNHO NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH SCHUMANN Nominal Defendant. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants, PRISCILLA HUNT and BESSEMER TRUST fi COMPANY, as Co-Trustees of the Donald G. Hunt Living Trust, and HUNT ENTERPRISES, INC. (“Defendants”), hereby answer the Unverified Second Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff, YOLANDA IUAREZ ALVAREZ (“Plaintiff”), for themselves alone and for n0 other defendant, and which admit, deny and allege as follows: /// /// -1- ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT GENERAL DENIAL 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Code osz‘vz'l Procedure § 43 1 .30, Defendants deny, hMN generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff‘s Complaint, and the whole thereof, and each and every alleged cause of action therein, and deny that Plaintiff sustained damages in the sum or sums alleged, or at all, by reason of any alleged act, breach or omission on the part 0f Defendants. WWQQUI FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Code 0f Civil Procedure § 128.7) 2. As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendants 10 allege that there is n0 justiciable controversy under the facts and law which existed at the time of LLP 11 the filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint; that the Complaint was filed without reasonable cause and not in 12 good faith; that Plaintiff and her counsel know that the factual contentions concerning the alleged AREVALO 13 dangerous 0r unsafe condition of property have n0 evidentiary support whatsoever and were never 100 92626-7333 SUITE 14 likely to have any evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for investigation or discovery; & LAW 850-0210 AT STREET, (714) 15 and therefore Defendants are entitled t0 reimbursement of defense costs, including attorneys’ fees CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS 16 incurred, and sanctions imposed against Plaintiff and her counsel, and all other relief to which ROSENBERG TELEPHONE: BRISTOL MESA, 17 Defendants are entitled pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure § 128.7. 3100 COSTA 18 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Failure to State a Cause of Action) SCHUMANN 20 3. As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendants 21 allege that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails t0 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against 22 Defendants. 23 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Statute of Limitations) 25 4. As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense t0 the Complaint, Defendants 26 allege that the claims in the Complaint are all barred by the applicable Statutes of Limitation 27 including under Code ofCivz'l Procedure §§ 312, 335.1, 337-340 & 342-343, and Government Code 28 §§ 9] 1.2, 945.6 & 950.2. -2- ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT