On October 09, 2019 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Rancho Del Chino, Llc,
and
A&B Chino Hotels, Llc,
A&B Hotel Management Investment, Inc.,
Does 2 To 20,
Js Hotel Development, Inc.,
Maa Byu Hospitality, Llc,
Maa Byu Hospitality Llc,
Maru, Bharat "Brett",
Rancho Del Chino North, Llc,
for Other Civil Contracts
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Mar/13/2023 10:01 :55 AM L
'\ Léw Ofilces of Mark B. Plummer 714-970-3\ 21/24
F LE
| D
0F CALIFORNIA
UPERIOR
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
Mark B. Plumm'er, 'SBN 120098
LAW OFFICES 0F MARK B. PLUMMER, PC MAR 1 3 2023
18552 Oriente Drive
Yorba Linda, California 92886
Leanwbmgwfiflgmailgw
flmU'IbWNI—l
Tei: (714) 970-3131 Fax: (714) 970-3130
Attorney for Defendants,
A&B HOTEL MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT, INC..
And MAA BYU HOSPITALITY LLC (DOB 1)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO - SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
10 RANCHO DEL CHINO, LLC, a California CASE No. CIVDSI929675
By r m:
'
limited liability company,
ll
12 Plaintiff, ANSWER T0 THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT
13 vs.
l4
A&B HOTEL MANAGEMENT ( BY FAX )
15 INVESTMENT, INC., a California
corporation; MAA BYU HOSPITALITY
16 LLC (DOE 1); and DOES 2-20, inclusive,
17
Defendant.
18
19
20 A&B HOTEL MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT, INC., and MAA BYU
Defendant's,
21 HOSPITALITY LLC (DOE 1), in answer to the Third Amended Complaint of RANCHO DEL
22 CHl'NO, LLC.,
23 on file herein, admits, denies and alleges as follows:
24. These answering Defendants deny generallyand specifically each and every allegation
25 contained in the Complaint and each cause ofaction therein contained.
26 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 The Complaint on file herein, and each and every cause ofaction therein stated, fails to state
28 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering Defendants.
-1-
ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Mar/13/2023 10:01 :55 AM '-
;\ Jaw Offices Of Mark B. Plummer 714-970-3\ 22/24
SECOND AFFIRMATI‘VE DEFENSE
The invoicing and the provision of proof of the amount of actual expenses was a condition
precedent to any payment Defendants pursuant to Section 6.1 of the Contract. There was a failure of
said condition precedent, so no performance is due.
£0101wa
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Complainant's claimsare barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. Specifically,
Section 6.1 of the Contract, Plaintiff was obligated to provide an itemized statement within 120
days
of the close of each calendar year but failed to do so. Defendants requested the. itemization. but
Plaintiffis unable 'to
provide any documentation showing that that any qualifying expenses regarding
which reimbursement was owed had been paid.
10
ll
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The proximate cause of the damages complained of by way of the Complainant on fille herein
12
arose from acts and/or omissions of entities or individuals other than these answering Defendants.
l3
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
l4
Complainant's claims arc barred, in whole-or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel.
15
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
l6
COmplainant, by virtue of its conduct. has unclean hands in‘ relation to the transaction in
17
dispute, and .as -5uch, is barred from any recovery or any other relief as against-these answering
18
Defendants.
19
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20
Complainant, by virtue of it's conduct, has waived any right to claim thatthese answering
21
Defendants breached any ofthe obligations sued‘upon, or that Defendants owes any money to
22
Complainant by virtue of any of the causes o'f action alleged in the Complaint on file herein.
23.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24‘
Complainant failed, subsequent to the events and occurrences described in the Complaint on
25 file herein, to properly mitigate its damages, and is thereby precluded from recovering those damages
26 which reascmably could have been avoided by the exercise of due care on Complainant's part.
27
28
-2-
ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Document Filed Date
March 13, 2023
Case Filing Date
October 09, 2019
Category
Other Civil Contracts
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Mar/13/2023 10:01 :55 AM L '\ Léw Ofilces of Mark B. Plummer 714-970-3\ 21/24 F LE | D 0F CALIFORNIA UPERIOR COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO Mark B. Plumm'er, 'SBN 120098 LAW OFFICES 0F MARK B. PLUMMER, PC MAR 1 3 2023 18552 Oriente Drive Yorba Linda, California 92886 Leanwbmgwfiflgmailgw flmU'IbWNI—l Tei: (714) 970-3131 Fax: (714) 970-3130 Attorney for Defendants, A&B HOTEL MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT, INC.. And MAA BYU HOSPITALITY LLC (DOB 1) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO - SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT 10 RANCHO DEL CHINO, LLC, a California CASE No. CIVDSI929675 By r m: ' limited liability company, ll 12 Plaintiff, ANSWER T0 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 vs. l4 A&B HOTEL MANAGEMENT ( BY FAX ) 15 INVESTMENT, INC., a California corporation; MAA BYU HOSPITALITY 16 LLC (DOE 1); and DOES 2-20, inclusive, 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 A&B HOTEL MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT, INC., and MAA BYU Defendant's, 21 HOSPITALITY LLC (DOE 1), in answer to the Third Amended Complaint of RANCHO DEL 22 CHl'NO, LLC., 23 on file herein, admits, denies and alleges as follows: 24. These answering Defendants deny generallyand specifically each and every allegation 25 contained in the Complaint and each cause ofaction therein contained. 26 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 The Complaint on file herein, and each and every cause ofaction therein stated, fails to state 28 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering Defendants. -1- ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Mar/13/2023 10:01 :55 AM '- ;\ Jaw Offices Of Mark B. Plummer 714-970-3\ 22/24 SECOND AFFIRMATI‘VE DEFENSE The invoicing and the provision of proof of the amount of actual expenses was a condition precedent to any payment Defendants pursuant to Section 6.1 of the Contract. There was a failure of said condition precedent, so no performance is due. £0101wa THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Complainant's claimsare barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. Specifically, Section 6.1 of the Contract, Plaintiff was obligated to provide an itemized statement within 120 days of the close of each calendar year but failed to do so. Defendants requested the. itemization. but Plaintiffis unable 'to provide any documentation showing that that any qualifying expenses regarding which reimbursement was owed had been paid. 10 ll FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The proximate cause of the damages complained of by way of the Complainant on fille herein 12 arose from acts and/or omissions of entities or individuals other than these answering Defendants. l3 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE l4 Complainant's claims arc barred, in whole-or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel. 15 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE l6 COmplainant, by virtue of its conduct. has unclean hands in‘ relation to the transaction in 17 dispute, and .as -5uch, is barred from any recovery or any other relief as against-these answering 18 Defendants. 19 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 Complainant, by virtue of it's conduct, has waived any right to claim thatthese answering 21 Defendants breached any ofthe obligations sued‘upon, or that Defendants owes any money to 22 Complainant by virtue of any of the causes o'f action alleged in the Complaint on file herein. 23. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24‘ Complainant failed, subsequent to the events and occurrences described in the Complaint on 25 file herein, to properly mitigate its damages, and is thereby precluded from recovering those damages 26 which reascmably could have been avoided by the exercise of due care on Complainant's part. 27 28 -2- ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT