Preview
A win
KEVIN J. GRAY, State Bar No. 142685
JIN IM, State Bar No. 266810 ELECTRONICALLY
HARRINGTON, FOXX, DUBROW & CANTER, LLP FILED
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 Superior Court of California,
San Francisco, California 94111 County of San Francisco
Telephone (415) 288-6600 04/14/2017
Facsimile (415) 288-6618 Clerk of the Court
BY:EDWARD SANTOS:
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Defendants
BETTY WEIR, SCOTT WEIR, JAKE WEIR
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ALVARO ELVIR RODRIGUEZ, Case No. CGC-17-556326
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS BETTY WEIR AND SCOTT
WEIR’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
vs.
JAKE WEIR, BETTY WEIR, SCOTT WEIR, and
DOES 1 to 10,
Defendants.
COMES NOW Defendants BETTY WEIR and SCOTT WEIR answering the Complaint on file
herein, alone and for no other defendant, answer plaintiff's complaint as follows:
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.31(d),
Defendants BETTY WEIR and SCOTT WEIR deny generally and specifically each, every and all of the
allegations contained in said unverified complaint, and deny that plaintiff was injured or damaged in any
amount or at all by reason of any act or omission on the part of this answering defendant.
FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE
TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
1. The pleadings, and each cause of action thereof, fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action against these defendants.
AAHIS225\Pleadings\Answer to Complaint - Betty and Scott 1
DEFENDANTS BETTY WEIR AND SCOTT WEIR’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTuw Rw
FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE
TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
2. To preserve all defenses and to allow meaningful discovery and investigation, defendants
allege that any alleged cause of action of plaintiff is barred and/or reduced by reason of comparative
fault.
FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE
TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
3. To preserve all defenses and to allow completion of defendants’ investigation and
discovery, defendant further alleges that if any acts or omissions of defendants, or any one or more of
them, are proved, that such acts or omissions were provoked by plaintiff, and done with the consent,
express or implied, of plaintiff.
FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE
TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
4. To preserve all defenses and to allow completion of defendants’ investigation and
discovery, defendants further allege that plaintiff fully, willingly, conscientiously and voluntarily
assumed the risk of the activity that allegedly caused the claimed injury and/or injuries.
FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE
TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
5. To preserve all defenses and to allow meaningful discovery and investigation, defendants
allege the comparative fault of each other party to the alleged incident which allegedly caused the injury,
including plaintiff's consent, express or implied, to the events giving rise to this litigation, including
plaintiff's voluntary participation therein which bars and/or reduces any alleged recovery herein.
Mt
MI
AAHI.5225\Pleadings\Answer to Complaint - Betty and Scott 2
DEFENDANTS BETTY WEIR AND SCOTT WEIR’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTFOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE
TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
6. The unverified complaint and each cause of action therein is barred and/or reduced by
reason of the limitation on joint and several liability established by Proposition 51, an initiative passed by
the People of California on June 3, 1986.
FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE
TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
ite To preserve all defenses and to allow meaningful discovery and investigation, defendants
further allege that any act or omissions of defendants were superseded by the acts and omissions of
others, including plaintiff, or any of them, which were the sole and proximate cause of any injury, loss or
damage to plaintiff, if any there were, either as alleged or otherwise.
FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE
TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
8. The acts and omissions of others, including plaintiff, were intervening, independent and
the proximate cause of any injury, damage or loss to plaintiff, either as alleged or otherwise, if any there
were.
FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE
TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
9. Plaintiff failed and neglected to use reasonable care to minimize and/or mitigate the losses
and damages complained of, if any there were.
FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE
TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF
PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
10. Plaintiff's claims and allegations are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
AAHI,5225\Pleadings\Answer to Complaint - Betty and Scott 3
DEFENDANTS BETTY WEIR AND SCOTT WEIR’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTI A WR WwW DN
Dated: April 14, 2017 HARRINGTON, FOXX, DUBROW & CANTER, LLP
By:
AAHL5225\Pleadings\Answer to Complaint - Betty and Scott 4
KEV Y
oL
JIN IM
Attomeys for Defendants
JAKE WEIR, BETTY WEIR, SCOTT WEIR.
DEFENDANTS BETTY WEIR AND SCOTT WEIR’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTCom YN DH PF Ww YD
RMN YN NY NY NY DDO mw ee
oI ann BON = SF 6 wm I AH PB YW YH SF SS
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action. My business address is 655 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100, San
Francisco, California 94111.
On April 14, 2017 I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANTS BETTY
WEIR AND SCOTT WEIR’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on all interested parties in this action by
placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached service list:
[X]_ BY MAIL - I deposited such envelope in the mail at San Francisco, California. The envelope
was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily familiar” with the firm's practice of
collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited
with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San
Francisco, California in the ordinary course of business, I am aware that on motion of the party
served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than
one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
BY PERSONAL SERVICE - I caused such envelope to be delivered by a process server
employed by ProLegal Attomey Services.
VIA FACSIMILE- I faxed said document, to the office(s) of the addressee(s) shown above, and
the transmission was reported as complete and without error.
BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - I transmitted a PDF version of this document by
electronic mail to the party(s) identified on the attached service list using the e-mail address(es)
indicated.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - | deposited such envelope for collection and delivery by
Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided for in accordance with ordinary business
practices. 1 am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing packages
for overnight delivery by Federal Express. They are deposited with a facility regularly
maintained by Federal Express for receipt on the same day in the ordinary course of business.
(State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
(Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at
whose direction the service was made.
Executed on April 14, 2017, at San Francisco, California.
F\casesfaahi.5225\pos\master proof of service.docx
PROOF OF SERVICESERVICE LIST
Alvaro Elvir Rodriguez v Jake Weir, Betty Weir, Scott Weir and Does I to 10
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No.: CGC 17-556326
Shawn Ridgell, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN RIDGELL
2128 Broadway
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: 510-986-1300
Fax: 510-986-1301
F.\casesftaahi.5225\pos\master proof of service.docx
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
A win KEVIN J. GRAY, State Bar No. 142685 JIN IM, State Bar No. 266810 ELECTRONICALLY HARRINGTON, FOXX, DUBROW & CANTER, LLP FILED 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 Superior Court of California, San Francisco, California 94111 County of San Francisco Telephone (415) 288-6600 04/14/2017 Facsimile (415) 288-6618 Clerk of the Court BY:EDWARD SANTOS: Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendants BETTY WEIR, SCOTT WEIR, JAKE WEIR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ALVARO ELVIR RODRIGUEZ, Case No. CGC-17-556326 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS BETTY WEIR AND SCOTT WEIR’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT vs. JAKE WEIR, BETTY WEIR, SCOTT WEIR, and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants. COMES NOW Defendants BETTY WEIR and SCOTT WEIR answering the Complaint on file herein, alone and for no other defendant, answer plaintiff's complaint as follows: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.31(d), Defendants BETTY WEIR and SCOTT WEIR deny generally and specifically each, every and all of the allegations contained in said unverified complaint, and deny that plaintiff was injured or damaged in any amount or at all by reason of any act or omission on the part of this answering defendant. FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE: 1. The pleadings, and each cause of action thereof, fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these defendants. AAHIS225\Pleadings\Answer to Complaint - Betty and Scott 1 DEFENDANTS BETTY WEIR AND SCOTT WEIR’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTuw Rw FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE: 2. To preserve all defenses and to allow meaningful discovery and investigation, defendants allege that any alleged cause of action of plaintiff is barred and/or reduced by reason of comparative fault. FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE: 3. To preserve all defenses and to allow completion of defendants’ investigation and discovery, defendant further alleges that if any acts or omissions of defendants, or any one or more of them, are proved, that such acts or omissions were provoked by plaintiff, and done with the consent, express or implied, of plaintiff. FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE: 4. To preserve all defenses and to allow completion of defendants’ investigation and discovery, defendants further allege that plaintiff fully, willingly, conscientiously and voluntarily assumed the risk of the activity that allegedly caused the claimed injury and/or injuries. FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE: 5. To preserve all defenses and to allow meaningful discovery and investigation, defendants allege the comparative fault of each other party to the alleged incident which allegedly caused the injury, including plaintiff's consent, express or implied, to the events giving rise to this litigation, including plaintiff's voluntary participation therein which bars and/or reduces any alleged recovery herein. Mt MI AAHI.5225\Pleadings\Answer to Complaint - Betty and Scott 2 DEFENDANTS BETTY WEIR AND SCOTT WEIR’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTFOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE: 6. The unverified complaint and each cause of action therein is barred and/or reduced by reason of the limitation on joint and several liability established by Proposition 51, an initiative passed by the People of California on June 3, 1986. FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE: ite To preserve all defenses and to allow meaningful discovery and investigation, defendants further allege that any act or omissions of defendants were superseded by the acts and omissions of others, including plaintiff, or any of them, which were the sole and proximate cause of any injury, loss or damage to plaintiff, if any there were, either as alleged or otherwise. FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE: 8. The acts and omissions of others, including plaintiff, were intervening, independent and the proximate cause of any injury, damage or loss to plaintiff, either as alleged or otherwise, if any there were. FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE: 9. Plaintiff failed and neglected to use reasonable care to minimize and/or mitigate the losses and damages complained of, if any there were. FOR A SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE: 10. Plaintiff's claims and allegations are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. AAHI,5225\Pleadings\Answer to Complaint - Betty and Scott 3 DEFENDANTS BETTY WEIR AND SCOTT WEIR’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTI A WR WwW DN Dated: April 14, 2017 HARRINGTON, FOXX, DUBROW & CANTER, LLP By: AAHL5225\Pleadings\Answer to Complaint - Betty and Scott 4 KEV Y oL JIN IM Attomeys for Defendants JAKE WEIR, BETTY WEIR, SCOTT WEIR. DEFENDANTS BETTY WEIR AND SCOTT WEIR’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTCom YN DH PF Ww YD RMN YN NY NY NY DDO mw ee oI ann BON = SF 6 wm I AH PB YW YH SF SS PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 655 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, California 94111. On April 14, 2017 I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANTS BETTY WEIR AND SCOTT WEIR’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on all interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached service list: [X]_ BY MAIL - I deposited such envelope in the mail at San Francisco, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily familiar” with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Francisco, California in the ordinary course of business, I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. BY PERSONAL SERVICE - I caused such envelope to be delivered by a process server employed by ProLegal Attomey Services. VIA FACSIMILE- I faxed said document, to the office(s) of the addressee(s) shown above, and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - I transmitted a PDF version of this document by electronic mail to the party(s) identified on the attached service list using the e-mail address(es) indicated. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - | deposited such envelope for collection and delivery by Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided for in accordance with ordinary business practices. 1 am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing packages for overnight delivery by Federal Express. They are deposited with a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express for receipt on the same day in the ordinary course of business. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on April 14, 2017, at San Francisco, California. F\casesfaahi.5225\pos\master proof of service.docx PROOF OF SERVICESERVICE LIST Alvaro Elvir Rodriguez v Jake Weir, Betty Weir, Scott Weir and Does I to 10 San Francisco County Superior Court Case No.: CGC 17-556326 Shawn Ridgell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN RIDGELL 2128 Broadway Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: 510-986-1300 Fax: 510-986-1301 F.\casesftaahi.5225\pos\master proof of service.docx 2 PROOF OF SERVICE