On February 26, 2021 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Diaz, Antonio,
and
Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive,
Fca Us, Llc,
Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram Fiat Of Ontario,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN: 240424)
shugret@grsm.com
HAILEY ROGERSON (SBN: 31 1918) F I L E D
hrogersongaigrsmfiom SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
GREG GRUZMAN COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
(SBN: 245701) SAN BERNARDINQ DISTRICT
ggruzmangaggrsm£om
GURPREET SANDHU (SBN: 335906) JUL 9 2021
gsandhu@grsm.com
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI. LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 BY
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1
EAMAN'THA NEUMUER. oepuw
Telephone: (41 5) 875-3 93 l
Facsimile: (41 5) 986-8054
Attorneys for Defendants
FCA US LLC and JEEP CHRYSLER
DODGE RAM FIAT OF ONTARIO
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
11
LLP COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
12
2000
ANTONIO DIAZ. Case No. CIV SB 2105157
94111
Mansukhani,
13
Suite '
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S
CA
14
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
Street,
vs. COMPLAINT
Scully Francisco,
15
FCA US, LLC; JEEP CHRYSLER DODGE
Rees
Battery
16
RAM FIAT OF ONTARIO; and DOES 1
Vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Complaint Filed: February 26, 2021
San through 10, inclusive, Trial Date: None set
275
17
Gordon
Defendants. #Vss-w r/ SC‘UW-Wéry
18
19 u‘
Defendant FCA fig LLC (“FCA”). for itself alone and for n0 other parties, hereby
20
answers Plaintiff ANTONIO DIAZ’s (“Plaintiff") Complaint as follows:
21
Under the provision of section 43 l .30(d) 0fthe California Code ofCivil Procedure, FCA
22
denies each and every allegation. both specifically and generally. of each cause of action
23
contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint on file herein and the whole thereof, and denies Plaintiff was
24
damaged in any sum or sums, 0r at all.
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
-1-
DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF‘S COMPLAINT
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure t0 State Cause 0f Action)
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause 0f action
against FCA.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
2. FCA is informed and believes, and 0n that bases alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims
are, in whole 0r in part, barred by estoppel.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Laches)
3. FCA is informed and believes, and 0n that basis alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims are,
LLP
2000
12 in whole or in part, barred by the equitable doctrine 0f laches.
11
Mansukhani,
Suite
941
13 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
CA
Street,
14 (Waiver)
Scully Francisco,
15 4. FCA is infomed and believes. and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims are,
Battery
Rees
16 in whole 0r in part. barred by waiver.
San
275
Gordon
17 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Mitigation of Damages)
19 5. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff has made
20 no efforts t0 attempt t0 mitigate any damages 0r protect the value of the subject vehicle, and as
21 such, any damages awarded would be reduced accordingly.
22 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Arbitration Agreement)
24 6. FCA is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that
25 this dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement with Plaintiff such that this matter is properly
26 brought before a qualified arbitrator rather than in the instant court.
27 //
28 //
-2-
DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF‘S COMPLAINT
Document Filed Date
July 09, 2021
Case Filing Date
February 26, 2021
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN: 240424) shugret@grsm.com HAILEY ROGERSON (SBN: 31 1918) F I L E D hrogersongaigrsmfiom SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA GREG GRUZMAN COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO (SBN: 245701) SAN BERNARDINQ DISTRICT ggruzmangaggrsm£om GURPREET SANDHU (SBN: 335906) JUL 9 2021 gsandhu@grsm.com GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI. LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 BY San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 EAMAN'THA NEUMUER. oepuw Telephone: (41 5) 875-3 93 l Facsimile: (41 5) 986-8054 Attorneys for Defendants FCA US LLC and JEEP CHRYSLER DODGE RAM FIAT OF ONTARIO 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 11 LLP COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO 12 2000 ANTONIO DIAZ. Case No. CIV SB 2105157 94111 Mansukhani, 13 Suite ' Plaintiff, DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S CA 14 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S Street, vs. COMPLAINT Scully Francisco, 15 FCA US, LLC; JEEP CHRYSLER DODGE Rees Battery 16 RAM FIAT OF ONTARIO; and DOES 1 Vvvvvvvvvvvvvv Complaint Filed: February 26, 2021 San through 10, inclusive, Trial Date: None set 275 17 Gordon Defendants. #Vss-w r/ SC‘UW-Wéry 18 19 u‘ Defendant FCA fig LLC (“FCA”). for itself alone and for n0 other parties, hereby 20 answers Plaintiff ANTONIO DIAZ’s (“Plaintiff") Complaint as follows: 21 Under the provision of section 43 l .30(d) 0fthe California Code ofCivil Procedure, FCA 22 denies each and every allegation. both specifically and generally. of each cause of action 23 contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint on file herein and the whole thereof, and denies Plaintiff was 24 damaged in any sum or sums, 0r at all. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 -1- DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF‘S COMPLAINT FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 State Cause 0f Action) 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause 0f action against FCA. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 2. FCA is informed and believes, and 0n that bases alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims are, in whole 0r in part, barred by estoppel. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Laches) 3. FCA is informed and believes, and 0n that basis alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims are, LLP 2000 12 in whole or in part, barred by the equitable doctrine 0f laches. 11 Mansukhani, Suite 941 13 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CA Street, 14 (Waiver) Scully Francisco, 15 4. FCA is infomed and believes. and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff’s claims are, Battery Rees 16 in whole 0r in part. barred by waiver. San 275 Gordon 17 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Mitigation of Damages) 19 5. FCA is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff has made 20 no efforts t0 attempt t0 mitigate any damages 0r protect the value of the subject vehicle, and as 21 such, any damages awarded would be reduced accordingly. 22 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Arbitration Agreement) 24 6. FCA is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that 25 this dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement with Plaintiff such that this matter is properly 26 brought before a qualified arbitrator rather than in the instant court. 27 // 28 // -2- DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF‘S COMPLAINT