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
1 2020 2 14 36 PM aw Offces of Mark B Plummer 714 970 31 3 6
Sep
a o
ra auFo iA
i F f ic cau
c sr r ar r allo
o arJ r
f c s i
w r r a
1 Mar1 B Piummer SBN 120098
LAW OFFICES 4F MA tK B PLUMMER PC 2020
2
S
18SS2 Qriente Dr ve
Yorba Linda California 92856
3 lomb law ail v
com
T 7
Tel 71 9 0 3 3 ax 714 97Q 313 9r r
5 ttorney far Defendattts
A H0 MANA GEMENT INVESTMENT INC
And Iv1AA XU H SFITALITY LLC DOE 1
SUP RxOIt CUURT OF THE STATE QF ALIFO I IA
COiJNT Y OF SAN BERNARDINO S N BFRNARI INO DISTRYCT
9
10 R ANCI O DEL CHINO L C a California CASE NO CIVpSI929675
limited 1i bility company
Plaintiff ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
13 vs
19
A B HOTEL MANAGEMENT
BY F A
INVESTMENT INC a Calafar ia i
corporation MAA BYU HQSP TALITY
LLC DOE 1 and DQ S 2 20 inolusive
17
Defendant
8
19
Uc e dants t D HOTEL MANAGEMEN IN VESTNI NT INC y i11G1 MA A B YU
21 HOSPYTA ITY LLC DQ 1 in answer to the Complaint of 1tANCHO D L CHINO LLC
22 on i1e herein admits denies and alleges as tollows
23
24 These answering Defendants deny generally and s peci ioally each and every allegation
2g contained in the C omplaint and each caus of action therein contained
26
27
2
1
ANSWER TO COMPT A NT
u7 202 2 14 36 PM w Offces af Mark B Plummer 714 970 31 416
Sep
FTRST A Y7MATT UE NS
2 The Complaint on fil herein and each and v ry cause oI action therein stated fails to stat
3 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering Defendants
9
SECOND AF FIRMATIVE IyEFENSE
The invoicing nd the pravision of praof of th amount of actual expenses was a condition
precedent to any payment D fendants There was a faiIure of said candition precedent
g
THIRD AFF RMA TIVE DEF ENSE
9 Complainant s ciaims are barred in whale or in part by th dactrine o laci es
FOURT T A FIRMA IVE DEFENSE
The proximate cause of the damages complained of by way ofthe Complainant an file hcrein
arose from acts and or omissions of entities or individuals other than th se answering Defendants
F IFTH AF YTtMA V DEFENS
3
Con plainant s claims are barred in whol or i n part by the doctrine of stoppel
14
S XTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15
Caznplainant by virtue of its conduct has unclean hands iin relation to the transaction in
16
dispute and as such is barred frorn any recovery or any other relief as a ainst these answeriilg
17
Defendan ts
18
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE b F NS
19
Camplainant by virtue of iis canduc has waived any right to claim that these answering
20
TJefendants breached any of the pblig tlons sued upon or that Defendants owes any money ta
z1
Gomplainant hy virtue o any di the causes of action alleged in the Complaint on file herein
EYGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
z3
Cornplainant failed subsequent ta the events and occurrences described in the Cornplaint on
4
i1e herein to properly mitigate its damages and is thereby precluded from recovering hose dama es
25
which reasonably aauld have beet avo ded by the exercise of due care c n Complainant s p rt
26
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 The eontract sued upon was madified with he mutual co nsent of the parties thereto and is
therefore no longer enforc able with respect to tl e claims made in the Complaint on tile herein
2
ANSWER TO COMPZ AINT
Document Filed Date
September 17, 2020
Case Filing Date
October 09, 2019
Category
Other Civil Contracts
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
1 2020 2 14 36 PM aw Offces of Mark B Plummer 714 970 31 3 6 Sep a o ra auFo iA i F f ic cau c sr r ar r allo o arJ r f c s i w r r a 1 Mar1 B Piummer SBN 120098 LAW OFFICES 4F MA tK B PLUMMER PC 2020 2 S 18SS2 Qriente Dr ve Yorba Linda California 92856 3 lomb law ail v com T 7 Tel 71 9 0 3 3 ax 714 97Q 313 9r r 5 ttorney far Defendattts A H0 MANA GEMENT INVESTMENT INC And Iv1AA XU H SFITALITY LLC DOE 1 SUP RxOIt CUURT OF THE STATE QF ALIFO I IA COiJNT Y OF SAN BERNARDINO S N BFRNARI INO DISTRYCT 9 10 R ANCI O DEL CHINO L C a California CASE NO CIVpSI929675 limited 1i bility company Plaintiff ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 vs 19 A B HOTEL MANAGEMENT BY F A INVESTMENT INC a Calafar ia i corporation MAA BYU HQSP TALITY LLC DOE 1 and DQ S 2 20 inolusive 17 Defendant 8 19 Uc e dants t D HOTEL MANAGEMEN IN VESTNI NT INC y i11G1 MA A B YU 21 HOSPYTA ITY LLC DQ 1 in answer to the Complaint of 1tANCHO D L CHINO LLC 22 on i1e herein admits denies and alleges as tollows 23 24 These answering Defendants deny generally and s peci ioally each and every allegation 2g contained in the C omplaint and each caus of action therein contained 26 27 2 1 ANSWER TO COMPT A NT u7 202 2 14 36 PM w Offces af Mark B Plummer 714 970 31 416 Sep FTRST A Y7MATT UE NS 2 The Complaint on fil herein and each and v ry cause oI action therein stated fails to stat 3 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering Defendants 9 SECOND AF FIRMATIVE IyEFENSE The invoicing nd the pravision of praof of th amount of actual expenses was a condition precedent to any payment D fendants There was a faiIure of said candition precedent g THIRD AFF RMA TIVE DEF ENSE 9 Complainant s ciaims are barred in whale or in part by th dactrine o laci es FOURT T A FIRMA IVE DEFENSE The proximate cause of the damages complained of by way ofthe Complainant an file hcrein arose from acts and or omissions of entities or individuals other than th se answering Defendants F IFTH AF YTtMA V DEFENS 3 Con plainant s claims are barred in whol or i n part by the doctrine of stoppel 14 S XTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 Caznplainant by virtue of its conduct has unclean hands iin relation to the transaction in 16 dispute and as such is barred frorn any recovery or any other relief as a ainst these answeriilg 17 Defendan ts 18 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE b F NS 19 Camplainant by virtue of iis canduc has waived any right to claim that these answering 20 TJefendants breached any of the pblig tlons sued upon or that Defendants owes any money ta z1 Gomplainant hy virtue o any di the causes of action alleged in the Complaint on file herein EYGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE z3 Cornplainant failed subsequent ta the events and occurrences described in the Cornplaint on 4 i1e herein to properly mitigate its damages and is thereby precluded from recovering hose dama es 25 which reasonably aauld have beet avo ded by the exercise of due care c n Complainant s p rt 26 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 The eontract sued upon was madified with he mutual co nsent of the parties thereto and is therefore no longer enforc able with respect to tl e claims made in the Complaint on tile herein 2 ANSWER TO COMPZ AINT