On December 02, 2021 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
La Casa Development Llc,
Sievers, Jeffrey,
Sievers, Raechelle,
and
Does 1 To 100,
Gurrola, Daniel R.,
Gurrola, Olga I.,
Kocaya Jr., Thomas John,
Kocaya, Sharon Lee,
Ostby, Kevin J.,
Ostby, Pamela D.,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
1 Edwin J. Richards (SBN 43855)
Kevin J. Grochow (SBN 288586) F
2 KUTAK ROCK LLP SUPEmoRC E D
5 Park Plaza, suite 1500 C&“Aj‘gggfgm 3E§§ké$9§8m
A’D‘NO Dtsrmcr
3 Irvine,CA 92614—8595
Telephone: (949) 41 7-0999 MAY 1 9 2022
4 Facsimile: (949) 417—5394
5
Email: kevin.gr0ch0w@kutakrock.com
Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants
By‘A
w
LMA VALLEJO
I
GAR A DEPUTY
,
4
’4
.
6 DANIEL R. GURROLA and OLGA I. GURROLA
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
JEFFREY SIEVERS and RAECHELLE Case N0. CIVSB21 33321
'
‘0: ‘
12 SIEVERS 2013 TRUST DATED OCTOBER fifigfidy ggjlllipsujfosfs
r pa 00
LT:
21 2013, and as members 0f LA CASA ‘
,
Department 325
13
DEVELOPMENT LLC,
plaintiffs.
DEFENDANTS DANIEL R. GURROLA
14
'
AND OLGA I. GURROLA’S ANSWER TO
V.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
KEVIN J, OSTBY and PAMELA D.
16
OSTBY, individually and as Trustees 0f DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
THE OSTBY FAMILY TRUST, DATED ,
17 Cqmplamt filed: December 2021
DECEMBER 5’ 2007; THOMAS JOHN 2,
Trial Datei Not set
18
KOCAYA, JR., and SHARON LEE
KOCAYA, individually and as Trustees of
$ 8.70
¢
'
19
THE KOCAYA FAMILY TRUST;
DANIEL R. GURROLA and OLGA I. #SC, 202
20
GURROLA; and DOES t0 100, 1
3% 3 z l
" 0/
Defendants.
2]
a
22 Defendants DANIEL R. GURROLA and OLGA I. GURROLA (“Defendants”) hereby
23 answers Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages (“Complaint”) 0n file herein as follows:
24 1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431 .30(d), the answering
25 Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in the Complaint
26 and all causes of action contained therein, and deny Plaintiffs sustained the damages alleged, 0r at
27 breach or omission on the part 0f the answering Defendants, their agents,
all, by reason of any act,
- -
28 1
KUTAK ROCK LLP DEFENDANTS DANIEL R. GURROLA AND OLGA GURROLA’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
I. FIRST
“mmmmuw AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
IRVINE
4882-0609-5 36.1 1
262 1 7‘ 25
l
or employees.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure t0 State Facts)
2. The Complaint, and each cause 0f action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause 0f action against Defendants.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State Facts — Private Nuisance)
3. The cause of action for private nuisance fails t0 state facts sufficient t0 constitute a
cause 0f action against Defendants.
10 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Failure t0 State Facts — Negligent Trespass)
12 4. The cause of action for negligent trespass fails to state facts sufficient t0 constitute
13 a cause of action against Defendants.
14 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Failure t0 State Facts — Negligence)
16 5. The cause 0f action for negligence fails t0 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
17 0f action against Defendants.
18 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Statutes 0f Limitations)
20 6. The Complaint and each cause of action therein is barred by the applicable statutes
21 of limitations, including, but not limited t0, Code ofCivil Procedure Sections 335.1, 337, 337.2,
22 338. and 339.
23 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Causation)
25 7. Any and all events and happenings, injuries and damages, if any, alleged in said
26 Complaint, were proximately caused and contributed to by Plaintiffs’ negligence/fault.
27 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28 (Assumptkfll-of Risk)
KUTAK ROCK LLP DEFENDANTS DANIEL R. GURROLA AND OLGA GURROLA’S ANSWER TO
I. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
IRVINE
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
4882-0609-5 [36,]
262l7—125
Document Filed Date
May 19, 2022
Case Filing Date
December 02, 2021
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
1 Edwin J. Richards (SBN 43855) Kevin J. Grochow (SBN 288586) F 2 KUTAK ROCK LLP SUPEmoRC E D 5 Park Plaza, suite 1500 C&“Aj‘gggfgm 3E§§ké$9§8m A’D‘NO Dtsrmcr 3 Irvine,CA 92614—8595 Telephone: (949) 41 7-0999 MAY 1 9 2022 4 Facsimile: (949) 417—5394 5 Email: kevin.gr0ch0w@kutakrock.com Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants By‘A w LMA VALLEJO I GAR A DEPUTY , 4 ’4 . 6 DANIEL R. GURROLA and OLGA I. GURROLA 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 JEFFREY SIEVERS and RAECHELLE Case N0. CIVSB21 33321 ' ‘0: ‘ 12 SIEVERS 2013 TRUST DATED OCTOBER fifigfidy ggjlllipsujfosfs r pa 00 LT: 21 2013, and as members 0f LA CASA ‘ , Department 325 13 DEVELOPMENT LLC, plaintiffs. DEFENDANTS DANIEL R. GURROLA 14 ' AND OLGA I. GURROLA’S ANSWER TO V. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES KEVIN J, OSTBY and PAMELA D. 16 OSTBY, individually and as Trustees 0f DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL THE OSTBY FAMILY TRUST, DATED , 17 Cqmplamt filed: December 2021 DECEMBER 5’ 2007; THOMAS JOHN 2, Trial Datei Not set 18 KOCAYA, JR., and SHARON LEE KOCAYA, individually and as Trustees of $ 8.70 ¢ ' 19 THE KOCAYA FAMILY TRUST; DANIEL R. GURROLA and OLGA I. #SC, 202 20 GURROLA; and DOES t0 100, 1 3% 3 z l " 0/ Defendants. 2] a 22 Defendants DANIEL R. GURROLA and OLGA I. GURROLA (“Defendants”) hereby 23 answers Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages (“Complaint”) 0n file herein as follows: 24 1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431 .30(d), the answering 25 Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in the Complaint 26 and all causes of action contained therein, and deny Plaintiffs sustained the damages alleged, 0r at 27 breach or omission on the part 0f the answering Defendants, their agents, all, by reason of any act, - - 28 1 KUTAK ROCK LLP DEFENDANTS DANIEL R. GURROLA AND OLGA GURROLA’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ I. FIRST “mmmmuw AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES IRVINE 4882-0609-5 36.1 1 262 1 7‘ 25 l or employees. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure t0 State Facts) 2. The Complaint, and each cause 0f action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause 0f action against Defendants. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State Facts — Private Nuisance) 3. The cause of action for private nuisance fails t0 state facts sufficient t0 constitute a cause 0f action against Defendants. 10 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Failure t0 State Facts — Negligent Trespass) 12 4. The cause of action for negligent trespass fails to state facts sufficient t0 constitute 13 a cause of action against Defendants. 14 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Failure t0 State Facts — Negligence) 16 5. The cause 0f action for negligence fails t0 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause 17 0f action against Defendants. 18 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Statutes 0f Limitations) 20 6. The Complaint and each cause of action therein is barred by the applicable statutes 21 of limitations, including, but not limited t0, Code ofCivil Procedure Sections 335.1, 337, 337.2, 22 338. and 339. 23 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Causation) 25 7. Any and all events and happenings, injuries and damages, if any, alleged in said 26 Complaint, were proximately caused and contributed to by Plaintiffs’ negligence/fault. 27 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28 (Assumptkfll-of Risk) KUTAK ROCK LLP DEFENDANTS DANIEL R. GURROLA AND OLGA GURROLA’S ANSWER TO I. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST ATTORNEYS AT LAw IRVINE AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 4882-0609-5 [36,] 262l7—125