Preview
1 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. HAUSER
By: LAURIE J. ELZA (284903)
2 One Pointe Drive, 6th Floor,
3 Brea, CA 92821
Phone: (714) 571-0407 / Fax: (877) 369-5799
4 Direct Line: (714) 371-2311
E-Mail: laurie.elza@thehartford.com
5 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2282, Brea, CA 92822-2282
6
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, NTN PROPERTIES LLC
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
11
LOUIS MONTANO, JR.; LOUIE CASE NO. 21CV003635 [LEAD]
12 MONTANO III; and MICHAEL [c/w 22CV002531; 22CV003206; 22CV003261;
MONTANO, 22CV003443; and 22CV003598]
13
Plaintiffs, JUDGE: Hon. Carrie M. Panetta
14 DEPT.: 14
vs.
15
CITY OF SALINAS; GINO'S DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S
16 RESTAURANT, INC.; GINO'S FINE ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1
ITALIAN FOOD, INC.; BLFA AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT OF
17 ROBERT ROSSETT
PROPERTIES LLC; NTN PROPERTIES
18 LLC; NGOCHAO THI NGUYEN; RALPH
BOZZO; ROSAURA ARCOS PANIAGUA; Date Lead Action Filed: 11/16/2021
19 AUSTIN ALARCON; and DOES 1-35, Trial Date: N/A
20
Defendants.
21 ____________________________________
ROBERT ROSSETT, an individual,
22
23 Plaintiff,
vs.
24
GINO'S FINE ITALIAN FOOD, INC, a
25 California Corporation, dba GINO'S,
26 GINO’S RESTAURANT, INC, a California
Corporation, BLFA PROPERTIES, LLC,
27 NTN PROPERTIES, LLC, NGOCHAO THI
NGUYEN CITY OF SALINAS, AUSTIN
28
1
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO
COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT
1 ALARCON, an individual, ARTURO
MIRANDA ALARCON, an individual, and
2 DOES 1 Through 100, Inclusive,
3
Defendants.
4 ____________________________________
5 AND ALL RELATED CROSS AND
6 CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS
7
8 Defendant NTN PROPERTIES LLC admits, denies, and alleges as follows:
9 Under the provisions of Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, this
10 answering Defendant denies each and every and all of the allegations of Plaintiff’s DOE 1
11 Amendment to Complaint, and the whole thereof; and denies that Plaintiff sustained damages in
12 any sum or sums alleged, or any sum at all.
13 FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
14 This answering Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff is entitled to a joint judgment against
15 this answering Defendant and the remaining Defendants, and each of them, this answering
16 Defendant prays that this court order each of the judgment debtors to pay to Plaintiff their
17 proportionate share of joint judgment, the judgment debtor's proportionate share having been
18 determined by the trier of fact; and if this answering Defendant is required to pay to Plaintiff a
19 disproportionate share of each joint judgment, this answering Defendant prays leave of this court
20 to seek contribution by motion against any other judgment debtor not paying the proportionate
21 share allocated to any such Defendant by the trier of fact.
22 FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
23 This answering Defendant alleges that the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were
24 either wholly or in part negligently caused by persons, firms, corporations, or entities other than
25 this answering Defendant, and said negligence is either imputed to Plaintiff by reason of the
26 relationship of said parties to Plaintiff, and/or said negligence comparatively reduces the
27 percentage of negligence, if any, by this answering Defendant.
28 ///
2
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO
COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT
1 FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
2 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that if, in fact,
3 Plaintiff was damaged in any manner whatsoever, that said damage, if any, was a direct and
4 proximate result of the intervening and superseding actions, both criminal and non-criminal, on
5 the part of other parties, and not of this answering Defendant, and that such intervening and
6 superseding actions of said other parties bar recovery herein on behalf of Plaintiff.
7 FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
8 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that this
9 answering Defendant is entitled to a right of indemnification by apportionment against all other
10 parties and persons whose negligence contributed proximately to the happenings of the claimed
11 incident or alleged injuries.
12 FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
13 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that this
14 answering Defendant is entitled to a right of contribution from any person whose negligence
15 proximately contributed to the happenings of the claimed incident or alleged injuries, if said
16 Plaintiff should receive a verdict against this answering Defendant.
17 FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE;
18 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and
19 belief thereon alleges, that at the time and place alleged in the Complaint on file herein, Plaintiff
20 was aware of certain dangers and risks that were apparent; that Plaintiff did knowingly and
21 voluntarily assume and expose himself to said known risks which proximately caused and
22 contributed to the damages, and injuries, if any, referred to in said Complaint, and thereby should
23 be barred from recovery.
24 FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
25 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and based upon said information and
26 belief thereon alleges, that at the time of the incident described in said Complaint on file herein,
27 Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, with such failure causing and contributing to cause
28 further injury and damages.
3
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO
COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT
1 FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
2 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and
3 belief thereon alleges, that at the time and place alleged in the Complaint on file herein, that the
4 alleged defect or hazard made the basis of Plaintiff’s Complaint was an open and obvious
5 condition known to Plaintiff at and before the claimed incident.
6 FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
7 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and
8 belief thereon alleges, that at the time and place alleged in the Complaint on file herein, that
9 Defendant had no actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defect or hazard made the
10 basis of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and third party actors’ failure to use reasonable care and/or not
11 violate the law.
12 FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
13 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and
14 belief thereon alleges, that at the time and place alleged in the Complaint on file herein, that
15 Plaintiff’s respective injuries and damages, in whole or in part, were caused by pre-existing
16 conditions or injuries which were not exacerbated or caused by the claimed incident.
17 FOR AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
18 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and
19 belief thereon alleges, that at the time and place alleged in the Complaint on file herein, that
20 Plaintiff’s respective injuries and damages, in whole or in part, were caused by the criminal acts
21 of others over whom Responding Party exercised no control.
22 FOR AN TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
23 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and
24 belief thereon alleges, that Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Doe Amendment adding Defendant on
25 file herein fails to state facts supporting a cause of action and/or fails to plead a cause of action
26 against this Defendant.
27 WHEREFORE, having fully answered, this answering Defendant prays that Plaintiff
28 takes nothing by said Complaint, but that this answering Defendant have and recover judgment
4
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO
COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT
1 herein against Plaintiff for costs incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as this
2 court may deem just and proper.
3 Dated: September 1, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. HAUSER
4
BY: ___________________________
5 LAURIE J. ELZA
6 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant,
NTN PROPERTIES LLC
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO
COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
LOUIS MONTANO, JR.; et al. v. CITY OF SALINAS; et al.
2 Case No. 21CV003635 [LEAD]
[Consolidated w/Case Nos. 22CV002531; 22CV003206; 22CV003261; 22CV003443; and 22CV003598]
3
I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is:
4
Law Offices of John A. Hauser, One Pointe Drive, 6th Floor, Brea, CA 92821; email address:
5 maureen.merriles@thehartford.com.
6 On September 1, 2023, I served a true and correct copy of the following document(s), on
7 the interested party/parties identified on the attached Service List:
8 DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT
9
10 BY U.S. MAIL
I placed the subject document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
11 interested party/parties on the attached Service List with postage fully prepaid. I placed
the envelope for collection and mailing, following our firm’s ordinary business
12 practices. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice for collecting and processing
13 correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for
collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United
14 States Postal Service.
BY OVERNIGHT MAIL
15
I placed the subject document(s) in a sealed envelope or package provided by an
16 overnight delivery carrier addressed to the interested party/parties on the attached
Service List. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at a
17 regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
18 BY MESSENGER
I placed the subject document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
19 interested party/parties on the attached Service List and provided them to a professional
messenger service.
20 BY FACSIMILE to MAYR LAW FIRM *ONLY*
Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the
21
document(s) on the interested party/parties on the attached Service List. No error was
22 reported by the fax machine I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which
I printed, is attached.
23 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE
24 Based on applicable law or statute, including California Rule of Court 2.251(C)(3)
and/or Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6), or an agreement of the parties to accept
25 service by electronic transmission, I electronically served the document(s) on the
26 interested party/parties on the attached Service List.
27
28
6
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO
COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT
1 CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
I placed the subject document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
2 interested party/parties on the attached Service List with postage fully prepaid with a
3 return receipt requested to be signed by the addressee that the documents were received.
I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our firm’s ordinary business
4 practices. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice for collecting and processing
correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for
5
collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United
6 States Postal Service.
7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.
8
9 Date: September 1, 2023
10
11 __________________________________
MAUREEN MERRILES
12
13 For purposes of serving documents on the Law Offices of John A. Hauser, please use
14 the email address for the attorney of record (Laurie.Elza@thehartford.com) and
LawOfficesHauser@thehartford.com.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO
COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT
1 SERVICE LIST
LOUIS MONTANO, JR.; et al. v. CITY OF SALINAS; et al.
2 Case No. 21CV003635 [LEAD]
[Consolidated w/Case Nos. 22CV002531; 22CV003206; 22CV003261; 22CV003443; and 22CV003598]
3
Emily A. Ruby, Esq. Richard C. Alpers, Esq.
4 Sergio R. Cardenas, Esq. ALPERS LAW GROUP, INC.
5 GREENBERG AND RUBY INJURY P.O. Box 1540
ATTORNEYS, APC Aptos, CA 95001
6 6100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1170 T: 855-808-1174 / F: 855-870-1129
Los Angeles, CA 90048 E: rca@alperslawgroup.com
7 T: 323-782-0535 / F: 323-782-0543 Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs, LOUIS MONTANO,
E: eruby@caltrialpros.com; JR.; LOUIE MONTANO III; MICHAEL
8
scardenas@caltrialpros.com; MONTANO
9 kdobroth@caltrialpros.com;
records@caltrialpros.com
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, LOUIS MONTANO,
JR.; LOUIE MONTANO III; MICHAEL
11 MONTANO
12 Christopher A. Callihan, Esq. William R. Price, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY D. Scott Dodd, Esq.
13 200 Lincoln Ave. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM R. PRICE
Salinas, CA 93901 12636 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 400
14 T: 831-758-7256 / F: 831-758-7257 San Diego, CA 92130
E: chrisc@ci.salinas.ca.us T: 831-758-7256 / F:
15
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, E: wprice@williamrprice.com;
16 CITY OF SALINAS sdodd@williamrprice.com;
dhartsough@williamrprice.com;
17 obarnes@williamrprice.com
Co-Counsel for Defendant/Cross-Complainant,
18 CITY OF SALINAS
19 Cynthia Shambaugh, Esq. Rodney N. Mayr, Esq.
Chandrani Mandal, Esq. MAYR LAW FIRM
20 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH 1010 W. Taylor St.
LLP San Jose, CA 95126
21 2185 N. California Blvd., Ste. 300 T: 408-331-7606 / F: 669-266-5612
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 E: rodney@mayrlawfirm.com;
22
T: 925-357-3456 / F: 925-478-3260 emiliano@mayrlawfirm.com
23 E: cynthia.shambaugh@lewisbrisbois.com; Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Defendants,
joan.whipple@lewisbrisbois.com; ROSAURA ARCOS PANIAGUA and
24 chandrani.mandal@lewisbrisbois.com; AUSTIN ALARCON
izie.hudson@lewisbrisbois.com
25 Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Defendants, *SERVE VIA FACSIMILE ALSO –
26 GINO’S RESTAURANT, INC.; GINO’S FINE CONSISTENT PROBLEMS WITH THEIR
ITALIAN FOOD, INC. and NGOCHAO THI EMAIL*
27 NGUYEN
28
8
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO
COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT
1 Joseph J. Babich, Esq. Cornelo V. Dilag, Esq.
DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR,
2 CAMPORA, LLP LLP
3 20 Bicentennial Circle One World Trade Center, 27th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95826 Long Beach, CA 90831
4 T: 916-379-3500 / F: 916-379-3599 T: 562-983-2568/ F: 562-590-3571
E: jbabich@dbbwc.com; tstevens@dbbwc.com; E: cdilag@fwhb.com; jprado@fwhb.com;
5 DBBWC-ESERVICE@dbbwc.com rlrservice@fwhb.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff, MAIRA ARELLANO – Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant,
6 Monterey Superior Court, Case # 22CV002531; AUSTIN ALARCON– Monterey Superior
7 Maira Arellano vs. Austin Alarcon, et al. Court, 22CV002531; Maira Arellano vs. Austin
Alarcon, et al.
8
Neil P. Berman, Esq. Shahin “Shawn” Kahroba, Esq.
9 RUCKA, O'BOYLE, LOMBARDO & SHERIDAN & RUND, KAHROBA PC
10 MCKENNA 270 Coral Circle
245 W. Laurel Dr. El Segundo, CA 90245
11 Salinas, CA 93906 T: 310-640-1200 / F: 310-640-0200
T: 831-443-1051 / F: 831-443-6419 E: shawn@srlawyers.com
12 E: nberman@rolmlaw.com; Attorneys for Plaintiff, ROBERT ROSSETT –
spena@rolmlaw.com; janie@rolmlaw.com Monterey Superior Court, Case # 22CV003261;
13
Attorneys for Plaintiff, DIANE MIDDAUGH – Robert Rossett vs Austin Alarcon, et al.
14 Monterey Superior Court, Case # 22CV003206;
Diane Middaugh vs BLFA Properties LLC, et
15 al.
16 Robert D. Ponce, Esq. Owili K. Eison, Esq.
17 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT D. PONCE Yen-Yu “Renee” Liu, Esq.
400 Camino Aguajito, Ste. 100 BD&J, PC
18 Monterey, CA 93940 9701 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
T: 831-649-0515 / F: 831-649-3397 Beverly Hills, CA 90212
19 E: rponce@redshift.com T: 310-887-1818 / F: 310-887-1880
Attorney for Plaintiff, KEVIN SMITH – E: oe@bhattorneys.com; ryl@bhattorneys.com;
20
Monterey Superior Court, Case # 22CV003443; eservet1@bhattorneys.com;
21 Kevin Smith vs Gino's Fine Italian Food, Inc., et rrg@bhattorneys.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
al. DANIEL ORTEGA and YOSELYN GARCIA
22 – Monterey Superior Court, Case #
22CV003598; Daniel Ortega, et al. vs. Austin
23 Alarcon, et al.
24
25
26
27
28
9
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO
COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT
1 Gina D. Huettel, Esq.
WILLIAMS, PINELLI & CULLEN
2 1960 The Alameda, Ste. 195
3 San Jose, CA 95126
T: 408-288-3868 x 109 / F: 408-288-3860
4 E: ghuettel@wpclaw.com;
amagana@wpclaw.com
5 Attorneys for Defendant, BRYAN
CABALLERO TENA – Monterey Superior
6 Court, Case # 22CV003598; Daniel Ortega, et
7 al. vs. Austin Alarcon, et al.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO
COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT
Preview
1 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. HAUSER By: LAURIE J. ELZA (284903) 2 One Pointe Drive, 6th Floor, 3 Brea, CA 92821 Phone: (714) 571-0407 / Fax: (877) 369-5799 4 Direct Line: (714) 371-2311 E-Mail: laurie.elza@thehartford.com 5 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2282, Brea, CA 92822-2282 6 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, NTN PROPERTIES LLC 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY 10 11 LOUIS MONTANO, JR.; LOUIE CASE NO. 21CV003635 [LEAD] 12 MONTANO III; and MICHAEL [c/w 22CV002531; 22CV003206; 22CV003261; MONTANO, 22CV003443; and 22CV003598] 13 Plaintiffs, JUDGE: Hon. Carrie M. Panetta 14 DEPT.: 14 vs. 15 CITY OF SALINAS; GINO'S DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S 16 RESTAURANT, INC.; GINO'S FINE ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 ITALIAN FOOD, INC.; BLFA AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT OF 17 ROBERT ROSSETT PROPERTIES LLC; NTN PROPERTIES 18 LLC; NGOCHAO THI NGUYEN; RALPH BOZZO; ROSAURA ARCOS PANIAGUA; Date Lead Action Filed: 11/16/2021 19 AUSTIN ALARCON; and DOES 1-35, Trial Date: N/A 20 Defendants. 21 ____________________________________ ROBERT ROSSETT, an individual, 22 23 Plaintiff, vs. 24 GINO'S FINE ITALIAN FOOD, INC, a 25 California Corporation, dba GINO'S, 26 GINO’S RESTAURANT, INC, a California Corporation, BLFA PROPERTIES, LLC, 27 NTN PROPERTIES, LLC, NGOCHAO THI NGUYEN CITY OF SALINAS, AUSTIN 28 1 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT 1 ALARCON, an individual, ARTURO MIRANDA ALARCON, an individual, and 2 DOES 1 Through 100, Inclusive, 3 Defendants. 4 ____________________________________ 5 AND ALL RELATED CROSS AND 6 CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS 7 8 Defendant NTN PROPERTIES LLC admits, denies, and alleges as follows: 9 Under the provisions of Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, this 10 answering Defendant denies each and every and all of the allegations of Plaintiff’s DOE 1 11 Amendment to Complaint, and the whole thereof; and denies that Plaintiff sustained damages in 12 any sum or sums alleged, or any sum at all. 13 FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 14 This answering Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff is entitled to a joint judgment against 15 this answering Defendant and the remaining Defendants, and each of them, this answering 16 Defendant prays that this court order each of the judgment debtors to pay to Plaintiff their 17 proportionate share of joint judgment, the judgment debtor's proportionate share having been 18 determined by the trier of fact; and if this answering Defendant is required to pay to Plaintiff a 19 disproportionate share of each joint judgment, this answering Defendant prays leave of this court 20 to seek contribution by motion against any other judgment debtor not paying the proportionate 21 share allocated to any such Defendant by the trier of fact. 22 FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 23 This answering Defendant alleges that the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were 24 either wholly or in part negligently caused by persons, firms, corporations, or entities other than 25 this answering Defendant, and said negligence is either imputed to Plaintiff by reason of the 26 relationship of said parties to Plaintiff, and/or said negligence comparatively reduces the 27 percentage of negligence, if any, by this answering Defendant. 28 /// 2 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT 1 FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 2 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that if, in fact, 3 Plaintiff was damaged in any manner whatsoever, that said damage, if any, was a direct and 4 proximate result of the intervening and superseding actions, both criminal and non-criminal, on 5 the part of other parties, and not of this answering Defendant, and that such intervening and 6 superseding actions of said other parties bar recovery herein on behalf of Plaintiff. 7 FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 8 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that this 9 answering Defendant is entitled to a right of indemnification by apportionment against all other 10 parties and persons whose negligence contributed proximately to the happenings of the claimed 11 incident or alleged injuries. 12 FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 13 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that this 14 answering Defendant is entitled to a right of contribution from any person whose negligence 15 proximately contributed to the happenings of the claimed incident or alleged injuries, if said 16 Plaintiff should receive a verdict against this answering Defendant. 17 FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; 18 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and 19 belief thereon alleges, that at the time and place alleged in the Complaint on file herein, Plaintiff 20 was aware of certain dangers and risks that were apparent; that Plaintiff did knowingly and 21 voluntarily assume and expose himself to said known risks which proximately caused and 22 contributed to the damages, and injuries, if any, referred to in said Complaint, and thereby should 23 be barred from recovery. 24 FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 25 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and based upon said information and 26 belief thereon alleges, that at the time of the incident described in said Complaint on file herein, 27 Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, with such failure causing and contributing to cause 28 further injury and damages. 3 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT 1 FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 2 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and 3 belief thereon alleges, that at the time and place alleged in the Complaint on file herein, that the 4 alleged defect or hazard made the basis of Plaintiff’s Complaint was an open and obvious 5 condition known to Plaintiff at and before the claimed incident. 6 FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 7 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and 8 belief thereon alleges, that at the time and place alleged in the Complaint on file herein, that 9 Defendant had no actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defect or hazard made the 10 basis of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and third party actors’ failure to use reasonable care and/or not 11 violate the law. 12 FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 13 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and 14 belief thereon alleges, that at the time and place alleged in the Complaint on file herein, that 15 Plaintiff’s respective injuries and damages, in whole or in part, were caused by pre-existing 16 conditions or injuries which were not exacerbated or caused by the claimed incident. 17 FOR AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 18 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and 19 belief thereon alleges, that at the time and place alleged in the Complaint on file herein, that 20 Plaintiff’s respective injuries and damages, in whole or in part, were caused by the criminal acts 21 of others over whom Responding Party exercised no control. 22 FOR AN TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 23 This answering Defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and 24 belief thereon alleges, that Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Doe Amendment adding Defendant on 25 file herein fails to state facts supporting a cause of action and/or fails to plead a cause of action 26 against this Defendant. 27 WHEREFORE, having fully answered, this answering Defendant prays that Plaintiff 28 takes nothing by said Complaint, but that this answering Defendant have and recover judgment 4 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT 1 herein against Plaintiff for costs incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as this 2 court may deem just and proper. 3 Dated: September 1, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. HAUSER 4 BY: ___________________________ 5 LAURIE J. ELZA 6 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, NTN PROPERTIES LLC 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE LOUIS MONTANO, JR.; et al. v. CITY OF SALINAS; et al. 2 Case No. 21CV003635 [LEAD] [Consolidated w/Case Nos. 22CV002531; 22CV003206; 22CV003261; 22CV003443; and 22CV003598] 3 I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is: 4 Law Offices of John A. Hauser, One Pointe Drive, 6th Floor, Brea, CA 92821; email address: 5 maureen.merriles@thehartford.com. 6 On September 1, 2023, I served a true and correct copy of the following document(s), on 7 the interested party/parties identified on the attached Service List: 8 DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT 9 10 BY U.S. MAIL I placed the subject document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the 11 interested party/parties on the attached Service List with postage fully prepaid. I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our firm’s ordinary business 12 practices. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice for collecting and processing 13 correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United 14 States Postal Service. BY OVERNIGHT MAIL 15 I placed the subject document(s) in a sealed envelope or package provided by an 16 overnight delivery carrier addressed to the interested party/parties on the attached Service List. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at a 17 regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. 18 BY MESSENGER I placed the subject document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the 19 interested party/parties on the attached Service List and provided them to a professional messenger service. 20 BY FACSIMILE to MAYR LAW FIRM *ONLY* Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the 21 document(s) on the interested party/parties on the attached Service List. No error was 22 reported by the fax machine I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed, is attached. 23 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE 24 Based on applicable law or statute, including California Rule of Court 2.251(C)(3) and/or Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6), or an agreement of the parties to accept 25 service by electronic transmission, I electronically served the document(s) on the 26 interested party/parties on the attached Service List. 27 28 6 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT 1 CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED I placed the subject document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the 2 interested party/parties on the attached Service List with postage fully prepaid with a 3 return receipt requested to be signed by the addressee that the documents were received. I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our firm’s ordinary business 4 practices. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for 5 collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United 6 States Postal Service. 7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 8 9 Date: September 1, 2023 10 11 __________________________________ MAUREEN MERRILES 12 13 For purposes of serving documents on the Law Offices of John A. Hauser, please use 14 the email address for the attorney of record (Laurie.Elza@thehartford.com) and LawOfficesHauser@thehartford.com. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT 1 SERVICE LIST LOUIS MONTANO, JR.; et al. v. CITY OF SALINAS; et al. 2 Case No. 21CV003635 [LEAD] [Consolidated w/Case Nos. 22CV002531; 22CV003206; 22CV003261; 22CV003443; and 22CV003598] 3 Emily A. Ruby, Esq. Richard C. Alpers, Esq. 4 Sergio R. Cardenas, Esq. ALPERS LAW GROUP, INC. 5 GREENBERG AND RUBY INJURY P.O. Box 1540 ATTORNEYS, APC Aptos, CA 95001 6 6100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1170 T: 855-808-1174 / F: 855-870-1129 Los Angeles, CA 90048 E: rca@alperslawgroup.com 7 T: 323-782-0535 / F: 323-782-0543 Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs, LOUIS MONTANO, E: eruby@caltrialpros.com; JR.; LOUIE MONTANO III; MICHAEL 8 scardenas@caltrialpros.com; MONTANO 9 kdobroth@caltrialpros.com; records@caltrialpros.com 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, LOUIS MONTANO, JR.; LOUIE MONTANO III; MICHAEL 11 MONTANO 12 Christopher A. Callihan, Esq. William R. Price, Esq. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY D. Scott Dodd, Esq. 13 200 Lincoln Ave. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM R. PRICE Salinas, CA 93901 12636 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 400 14 T: 831-758-7256 / F: 831-758-7257 San Diego, CA 92130 E: chrisc@ci.salinas.ca.us T: 831-758-7256 / F: 15 Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, E: wprice@williamrprice.com; 16 CITY OF SALINAS sdodd@williamrprice.com; dhartsough@williamrprice.com; 17 obarnes@williamrprice.com Co-Counsel for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, 18 CITY OF SALINAS 19 Cynthia Shambaugh, Esq. Rodney N. Mayr, Esq. Chandrani Mandal, Esq. MAYR LAW FIRM 20 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH 1010 W. Taylor St. LLP San Jose, CA 95126 21 2185 N. California Blvd., Ste. 300 T: 408-331-7606 / F: 669-266-5612 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 E: rodney@mayrlawfirm.com; 22 T: 925-357-3456 / F: 925-478-3260 emiliano@mayrlawfirm.com 23 E: cynthia.shambaugh@lewisbrisbois.com; Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Defendants, joan.whipple@lewisbrisbois.com; ROSAURA ARCOS PANIAGUA and 24 chandrani.mandal@lewisbrisbois.com; AUSTIN ALARCON izie.hudson@lewisbrisbois.com 25 Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Defendants, *SERVE VIA FACSIMILE ALSO – 26 GINO’S RESTAURANT, INC.; GINO’S FINE CONSISTENT PROBLEMS WITH THEIR ITALIAN FOOD, INC. and NGOCHAO THI EMAIL* 27 NGUYEN 28 8 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT 1 Joseph J. Babich, Esq. Cornelo V. Dilag, Esq. DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR, 2 CAMPORA, LLP LLP 3 20 Bicentennial Circle One World Trade Center, 27th Floor Sacramento, CA 95826 Long Beach, CA 90831 4 T: 916-379-3500 / F: 916-379-3599 T: 562-983-2568/ F: 562-590-3571 E: jbabich@dbbwc.com; tstevens@dbbwc.com; E: cdilag@fwhb.com; jprado@fwhb.com; 5 DBBWC-ESERVICE@dbbwc.com rlrservice@fwhb.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, MAIRA ARELLANO – Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, 6 Monterey Superior Court, Case # 22CV002531; AUSTIN ALARCON– Monterey Superior 7 Maira Arellano vs. Austin Alarcon, et al. Court, 22CV002531; Maira Arellano vs. Austin Alarcon, et al. 8 Neil P. Berman, Esq. Shahin “Shawn” Kahroba, Esq. 9 RUCKA, O'BOYLE, LOMBARDO & SHERIDAN & RUND, KAHROBA PC 10 MCKENNA 270 Coral Circle 245 W. Laurel Dr. El Segundo, CA 90245 11 Salinas, CA 93906 T: 310-640-1200 / F: 310-640-0200 T: 831-443-1051 / F: 831-443-6419 E: shawn@srlawyers.com 12 E: nberman@rolmlaw.com; Attorneys for Plaintiff, ROBERT ROSSETT – spena@rolmlaw.com; janie@rolmlaw.com Monterey Superior Court, Case # 22CV003261; 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff, DIANE MIDDAUGH – Robert Rossett vs Austin Alarcon, et al. 14 Monterey Superior Court, Case # 22CV003206; Diane Middaugh vs BLFA Properties LLC, et 15 al. 16 Robert D. Ponce, Esq. Owili K. Eison, Esq. 17 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT D. PONCE Yen-Yu “Renee” Liu, Esq. 400 Camino Aguajito, Ste. 100 BD&J, PC 18 Monterey, CA 93940 9701 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor T: 831-649-0515 / F: 831-649-3397 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 19 E: rponce@redshift.com T: 310-887-1818 / F: 310-887-1880 Attorney for Plaintiff, KEVIN SMITH – E: oe@bhattorneys.com; ryl@bhattorneys.com; 20 Monterey Superior Court, Case # 22CV003443; eservet1@bhattorneys.com; 21 Kevin Smith vs Gino's Fine Italian Food, Inc., et rrg@bhattorneys.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs, al. DANIEL ORTEGA and YOSELYN GARCIA 22 – Monterey Superior Court, Case # 22CV003598; Daniel Ortega, et al. vs. Austin 23 Alarcon, et al. 24 25 26 27 28 9 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT 1 Gina D. Huettel, Esq. WILLIAMS, PINELLI & CULLEN 2 1960 The Alameda, Ste. 195 3 San Jose, CA 95126 T: 408-288-3868 x 109 / F: 408-288-3860 4 E: ghuettel@wpclaw.com; amagana@wpclaw.com 5 Attorneys for Defendant, BRYAN CABALLERO TENA – Monterey Superior 6 Court, Case # 22CV003598; Daniel Ortega, et 7 al. vs. Austin Alarcon, et al. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT NTN PROPERTIES LLC'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED DOE 1 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT OF ROBERT ROSSETT