Preview
V mnw L V
ROGER MANSUKHANI (SBN: 190800)
rmansukhani@grsm.com
IAN G. WILLIAMSON (SBN; 185740) F g L E D
igwilliamson@grsm.com StéPOEURfifi COURT OF CALIFORNIA
DAN QUON (SEN; 32 1 532) SAN Bes?§q%%"f$§§fi=¢%?駰
u'
V
'
dquon@grsm.com
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP MAR 1.7 2021
2:,
P:
AWE 101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000
v
~ 5*”
San Diego, CA 92101 BY
'
1¢t
Telephone: (619) 696-6700
H “’0 ANNA LEA D DEPUTY
5??“ Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 -
Attorneys for Defendant
SOCAL PACIFIC MF MANAGEMENT CORP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA
NOVA POINTE APARTMENTS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
11
LLP
2000
12 KENYA BRINSON, and individual; KENYA CASE NO. CIV DS 2017097
BRINSON on behalf of LENNOX M., a
Mansukhani,
Suite
92101 13 minor individual
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
CA 14 Plaintiffs, AMENDED COMPLAINT
Broadway,
Scully
Diego,
15 VS. Hon. John M. Tomberlin
VVVVVVVVVVVVV
Dept; S33
Rees
W
San
16 SOCAL PACIFIC MF MANAGEMENT
101
CORP, a California Corporation, dba Nova Complaint Filed: August 24, 2020
Gordon
17 Pointe Apartments, and DOES 1 THROUGH
50, inclusive
18
Defendants.
19
20 COMES NOW defendant SOCAL PACIFIC MP MANAGEMENT CORP, a California
l . .
. .
21 Corporatlon, dba Nova Pomte Apartment Defendant”), and, 1n answer to the Complamt of
22 KENYA BRINSON and LENNOX M., a minor (“Plaintiffs”), on file herein, and each and every
23 cause of action allegedly set forth therein, answers, alleges, and denies as follows:
24 I. GENERAL DENIAL
25 Pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30,
26 subdivision (d) this answering Defendant denies each and every, all and singularly, generally and
27 specifically, the allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and each and every cause of
28 action allegedly set fonh therein, as they may apply to this answering Defendant. In addition,
-1-
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant denies that Plaintiffs have been injured 0r damaged in any sum by reason of any act 0r
omission on the part of this Defendant.
II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant alleges the following separate afiirmative defenses:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that one or more of the causes of action asserted in the Complaint fail
to state a claim against Defendant for which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each purported cause of action asserted
10 therein, is uncertain.
11 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
LLP
2000
12 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk, if any, of
Mansukhani,
Suite
92101 13 the damages alleged in the Complaint.
CA 14 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Broadway,
Scully
Defendant alleges not liable to Plaintiffs because of the preceding, subsequent
Diego,
15 that it is
Rees
W. San
16 and intervening acts of Plaintiffs, and/or other defendants or cross-defendants, third parties
101
Gordon
17 and/or acts of God, all of which caused the damages, if any, alleged in the Complaint.
18 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiffs prove that Defendant conducted any of the
20 activities alleged in the Complaint, those activities conformed with and were pursuant to statutes,
21 government regulations and/or industry standards based upon the state of knowledge existing at
22 the time ofthe activities.
23 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 Defendant alleges that by virtue of the acts, conduct and omissions of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs
25 are estopped fiom asserting the claims alleged in the Complaint.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
-2-
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
V mnw L V ROGER MANSUKHANI (SBN: 190800) rmansukhani@grsm.com IAN G. WILLIAMSON (SBN; 185740) F g L E D igwilliamson@grsm.com StéPOEURfifi COURT OF CALIFORNIA DAN QUON (SEN; 32 1 532) SAN Bes?§q%%"f$§§fi=¢%?駰 u' V ' dquon@grsm.com GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP MAR 1.7 2021 2:, P: AWE 101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000 v ~ 5*” San Diego, CA 92101 BY ' 1¢t Telephone: (619) 696-6700 H “’0 ANNA LEA D DEPUTY 5??“ Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 - Attorneys for Defendant SOCAL PACIFIC MF MANAGEMENT CORP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA NOVA POINTE APARTMENTS SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 11 LLP 2000 12 KENYA BRINSON, and individual; KENYA CASE NO. CIV DS 2017097 BRINSON on behalf of LENNOX M., a Mansukhani, Suite 92101 13 minor individual ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST CA 14 Plaintiffs, AMENDED COMPLAINT Broadway, Scully Diego, 15 VS. Hon. John M. Tomberlin VVVVVVVVVVVVV Dept; S33 Rees W San 16 SOCAL PACIFIC MF MANAGEMENT 101 CORP, a California Corporation, dba Nova Complaint Filed: August 24, 2020 Gordon 17 Pointe Apartments, and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive 18 Defendants. 19 20 COMES NOW defendant SOCAL PACIFIC MP MANAGEMENT CORP, a California l . . . . 21 Corporatlon, dba Nova Pomte Apartment Defendant”), and, 1n answer to the Complamt of 22 KENYA BRINSON and LENNOX M., a minor (“Plaintiffs”), on file herein, and each and every 23 cause of action allegedly set forth therein, answers, alleges, and denies as follows: 24 I. GENERAL DENIAL 25 Pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, 26 subdivision (d) this answering Defendant denies each and every, all and singularly, generally and 27 specifically, the allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and each and every cause of 28 action allegedly set fonh therein, as they may apply to this answering Defendant. In addition, -1- ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant denies that Plaintiffs have been injured 0r damaged in any sum by reason of any act 0r omission on the part of this Defendant. II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant alleges the following separate afiirmative defenses: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that one or more of the causes of action asserted in the Complaint fail to state a claim against Defendant for which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each purported cause of action asserted 10 therein, is uncertain. 11 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE LLP 2000 12 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk, if any, of Mansukhani, Suite 92101 13 the damages alleged in the Complaint. CA 14 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Broadway, Scully Defendant alleges not liable to Plaintiffs because of the preceding, subsequent Diego, 15 that it is Rees W. San 16 and intervening acts of Plaintiffs, and/or other defendants or cross-defendants, third parties 101 Gordon 17 and/or acts of God, all of which caused the damages, if any, alleged in the Complaint. 18 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiffs prove that Defendant conducted any of the 20 activities alleged in the Complaint, those activities conformed with and were pursuant to statutes, 21 government regulations and/or industry standards based upon the state of knowledge existing at 22 the time ofthe activities. 23 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 Defendant alleges that by virtue of the acts, conduct and omissions of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs 25 are estopped fiom asserting the claims alleged in the Complaint. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / -2- ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT