On September 30, 2021 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Miller, Benjamin,
Neil Alan Miller And Zenaida G. Miller,
and
Carland, Jerry L.,
Does 1 Through 100,
Florentina Roman, Santa Marbella,
Matsushita Electric,
Nissan North America, Inc,
Panasonic Corporation Of North America,
Riverside Nissan,
for Auto PI/PD/WD Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
F I L E [9"
SUPERIOR COURT 0F C‘AL F
ogumx 0F SAN eenmr’ztgrggm
KLEIN THOMAS & LEE mm ammnowo msmcw‘
H. Franklin Hostetler, ||| (SBN: 147014)
Email: frank.hostetler@kleinthomaslaw.com AUG 1a 2022
OOmVOUI-hQJNA
Gregory P. Gilmer (SBN: 212067)
Email: greg.gilmer@kleinthomaslaw.com
1920 Main Street, Suite 230
Irvine,
Tel: (949)
CA 92614
676-4570
BY
M
, M
J?SSA PEREZ. DEPUTY
for Defendants NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. and
Attorne
RIVER IDE METRO PARTNERS, LLC dba RIVERSIDE NISSAN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
NEIL ALAN MILLER and ZENAIDA G. CASE NO.: CIVSBZ1 28144
MILLER as Conservators of BENJAMIN
MILLER; EMILY LERNER as Guardian Ad
Assigned to: Hon. Michael A. Sachs
Litem to BENJAMIN MILLER,
Department: "$28"
Plaintiffs,
DEFENDANT RIVERSIDE METRO
vs. PARTNERS, LLC dba RIVERSIDE
NISSAN'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'
SANTA MARBELLA FLORENTINA vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY
’
ROMAN; NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,
|NC.; RIVERSIDE NISSAN; PANASONIC DEMAND
CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA;
and MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC, and DOES Action Filed: September 30, 2021
1 through 100, Inclusive,
Trial: None set
Defendants.
NNNNNNNNNAAAAA-x-xgéé
mflmmth—‘Otomflamhmki‘
Defendant Riverside Metro Partners, LLC dba Riverside Nissan ("Riverside
Nissan"), for itself alone, and for no other parties, answers Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint as follows:
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431 .30, Riverside Nissan denies each
ofthe allegations contained in the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs and every
cause of action in it, and further denies that Plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum or
sums, or at all.
///
-1-
DEFENDANT RIVERSIDE METRO PARTNERS, LLC dba RIVERSIDE NISSAN'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State Cause of Action)
1. Neither the First Amended Complaint nor any of the causes of action stated
in it allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Riverside Nissan.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
O(OQVGU'l-thA
(Comparative Fault)
2. Riverside Nissan is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that
Plaintiffs, and others whose conduct is imputable to Plaintiffs, were at fault for the matters
and things alleged in the First Amended Complaint and that fault contributed directly and
proximately to the happening of the incident and to Plaintiffs' damages, if any, so that
Plaintiffs' recovery, if any, shall be diminished by the proportion of said fault.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEF_ENSE
(Assumption of Risk)
3. Riverside Nissan is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that
Plaintiffs, and others whose conduct is imputable to Plaintiffs, at the time and place
alleged in their First Amended Complaint, knowingly, voluntarily, and freely placed
themselves in an unsafe and dangerous position, and therefore assumed all resulting
risks of injuries.
NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
mVOthN‘OOmNkaWNA
(Third Party Liability)
4. Riverside Nissan is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that
the damages which Plaintiffs allege, if any, were either wholly or partially caused or
contributed to by the persons, firms, corporations, or entities other than Riverside Nissan
either named or unnamed, and Riverside Nissan is entitled to an apportionment among
all such parties according to their responsibilities for such injuries and damages, if any,
sustained by Plaintiffs.
///
///
-2-
DEFENDANT RIVERSIDE METRO PARTNERS, LLC dba RIVERSIDE NISSAN'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Preview
F I L E [9" SUPERIOR COURT 0F C‘AL F ogumx 0F SAN eenmr’ztgrggm KLEIN THOMAS & LEE mm ammnowo msmcw‘ H. Franklin Hostetler, ||| (SBN: 147014) Email: frank.hostetler@kleinthomaslaw.com AUG 1a 2022 OOmVOUI-hQJNA Gregory P. Gilmer (SBN: 212067) Email: greg.gilmer@kleinthomaslaw.com 1920 Main Street, Suite 230 Irvine, Tel: (949) CA 92614 676-4570 BY M , M J?SSA PEREZ. DEPUTY for Defendants NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. and Attorne RIVER IDE METRO PARTNERS, LLC dba RIVERSIDE NISSAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO NEIL ALAN MILLER and ZENAIDA G. CASE NO.: CIVSBZ1 28144 MILLER as Conservators of BENJAMIN MILLER; EMILY LERNER as Guardian Ad Assigned to: Hon. Michael A. Sachs Litem to BENJAMIN MILLER, Department: "$28" Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT RIVERSIDE METRO vs. PARTNERS, LLC dba RIVERSIDE NISSAN'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' SANTA MARBELLA FLORENTINA vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY ’ ROMAN; NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, |NC.; RIVERSIDE NISSAN; PANASONIC DEMAND CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; and MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC, and DOES Action Filed: September 30, 2021 1 through 100, Inclusive, Trial: None set Defendants. NNNNNNNNNAAAAA-x-xgéé mflmmth—‘Otomflamhmki‘ Defendant Riverside Metro Partners, LLC dba Riverside Nissan ("Riverside Nissan"), for itself alone, and for no other parties, answers Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint as follows: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431 .30, Riverside Nissan denies each ofthe allegations contained in the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs and every cause of action in it, and further denies that Plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum or sums, or at all. /// -1- DEFENDANT RIVERSIDE METRO PARTNERS, LLC dba RIVERSIDE NISSAN'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State Cause of Action) 1. Neither the First Amended Complaint nor any of the causes of action stated in it allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Riverside Nissan. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE O(OQVGU'l-thA (Comparative Fault) 2. Riverside Nissan is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that Plaintiffs, and others whose conduct is imputable to Plaintiffs, were at fault for the matters and things alleged in the First Amended Complaint and that fault contributed directly and proximately to the happening of the incident and to Plaintiffs' damages, if any, so that Plaintiffs' recovery, if any, shall be diminished by the proportion of said fault. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEF_ENSE (Assumption of Risk) 3. Riverside Nissan is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that Plaintiffs, and others whose conduct is imputable to Plaintiffs, at the time and place alleged in their First Amended Complaint, knowingly, voluntarily, and freely placed themselves in an unsafe and dangerous position, and therefore assumed all resulting risks of injuries. NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE mVOthN‘OOmNkaWNA (Third Party Liability) 4. Riverside Nissan is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the damages which Plaintiffs allege, if any, were either wholly or partially caused or contributed to by the persons, firms, corporations, or entities other than Riverside Nissan either named or unnamed, and Riverside Nissan is entitled to an apportionment among all such parties according to their responsibilities for such injuries and damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiffs. /// /// -2- DEFENDANT RIVERSIDE METRO PARTNERS, LLC dba RIVERSIDE NISSAN'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND