Preview
ROGER MANSUKHAN] (SBN: 190800)
rmansukhani@grsm.com
MARK OKNYANSKY (SBN: 298620)
moknyansky@grsm.com
DAN QUON (SBN: 321532)
dquon@grsm.com
A GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (6 1 9) 696-6700
VONUI
Facsimile: (6 1 9) 696-7 1 24
Attorneys for Defendant
SOCAL PACIFIC MF MANAGEMENT CORP
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
11
LLP
KENYA BRINSON, an individual; KENYA ) CASE NO. CIV DS 2017097
2000
12 BRINSON 0n behalf of LENNOX M., a
)
minor individual, by and through his guardian ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
)
ad litem, Kenya Brinson; KIMORE R., a AMENDED COMPLAINT
Mansukhani,
Sulte
92101 13
)
minor individual by and through her guardian
av,
CA 14 ad litem Kenya Brinson; and CHAZZ )
Hon. John M. Tomberlin
Scully
LOPEZ, an individual Dept; S33
Diego,
Broad“
15 g
Rees
Plaintiffs, ) Complaint August 24, 2020
Filed:
San
W 16 ) Trial Date: September 12, 2022
l0]
vs.
Gordon
17
§
SOCAL PACIFIC MF MANAGEMENT )
18 CORP, a California Corporation, dba Nova )
Pointe Apartments, and DOES 1 THROUGH )
19 50, inclusive
)
)
20 Defendants.
21 COMES NOW defendant SOCAL PACIFIC MF MANAGEMENT CORP,
G a California
22 Corporation, dba Nova Pointe Apartments (“Defendant”), and, in answer to the Second
23 Amended Complaint ofplaintiffs KENYA BRINSON, LENNOX M., KIMORE R., and CHAZZ
24 LOPEZ (“Plaintiffs,”) on file herein, and each and every cause 0f action allegedly set forth
25
26
therein, answers, alleges,
///
and denies as follows:
w
27
28
///
///
g
-1-
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
g
l. GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant to the provisions of California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 431.30,
U.)
subdivision (d) this answering Defendant denies each and every, all and singularly, generally and
specifically, the allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and each and
every cause 0f action allegedly set forth therein, as they may apply to this answering Defendant.
In addition, Defendant denies that Plaintiffs have been injured or damaged in any sum by reason
of any act or omission 0n the part ofthis Defendant.
\OWVQ
II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant alleges the following separate affirmative defenses:
10 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 Defendant alleges that one 0r more of the causes of action asserted in the Second
LLP
2000
12 Amended Complaint fail to state a claim against Defendant for which relief can be granted.
Mansukhani,
Suite
92101 13 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
av,
CA 14 Defendant alleges that the Second Amended Complaint, and each purported cause 0f
Scully
Diego,
Broad“
15 action asserted therein, is uncertain.
Rees
W
San
16 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10]
17 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs knowingly and voluntarily assumed the
Gordon
risk, if any, 0f
18 the damages alleged in the Second Amended Complaint.
19 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 Defendant alleges that it is not liable to Plaintiffs because of the preceding, subsequent
21 and intervening acts of Plaintiffs, and/or other defendants 0r cross—defendants, third parties
22 and/or acts of God, all 0f which caused the damages, if any, alleged in the Second Amended
23 Complaint.
24 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiffs prove that Defendant conducted any of the
26 activities alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, those activities conformed with and were
27 pursuant to statutes, government regulations and/or industry standards based upon the state 0f
28 knowledge existing at the time of the activities.
-2-
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
ROGER MANSUKHAN] (SBN: 190800) rmansukhani@grsm.com MARK OKNYANSKY (SBN: 298620) moknyansky@grsm.com DAN QUON (SBN: 321532) dquon@grsm.com A GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (6 1 9) 696-6700 VONUI Facsimile: (6 1 9) 696-7 1 24 Attorneys for Defendant SOCAL PACIFIC MF MANAGEMENT CORP SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 11 LLP KENYA BRINSON, an individual; KENYA ) CASE NO. CIV DS 2017097 2000 12 BRINSON 0n behalf of LENNOX M., a ) minor individual, by and through his guardian ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND ) ad litem, Kenya Brinson; KIMORE R., a AMENDED COMPLAINT Mansukhani, Sulte 92101 13 ) minor individual by and through her guardian av, CA 14 ad litem Kenya Brinson; and CHAZZ ) Hon. John M. Tomberlin Scully LOPEZ, an individual Dept; S33 Diego, Broad“ 15 g Rees Plaintiffs, ) Complaint August 24, 2020 Filed: San W 16 ) Trial Date: September 12, 2022 l0] vs. Gordon 17 § SOCAL PACIFIC MF MANAGEMENT ) 18 CORP, a California Corporation, dba Nova ) Pointe Apartments, and DOES 1 THROUGH ) 19 50, inclusive ) ) 20 Defendants. 21 COMES NOW defendant SOCAL PACIFIC MF MANAGEMENT CORP, G a California 22 Corporation, dba Nova Pointe Apartments (“Defendant”), and, in answer to the Second 23 Amended Complaint ofplaintiffs KENYA BRINSON, LENNOX M., KIMORE R., and CHAZZ 24 LOPEZ (“Plaintiffs,”) on file herein, and each and every cause 0f action allegedly set forth 25 26 therein, answers, alleges, /// and denies as follows: w 27 28 /// /// g -1- ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT g l. GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to the provisions of California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 431.30, U.) subdivision (d) this answering Defendant denies each and every, all and singularly, generally and specifically, the allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and each and every cause 0f action allegedly set forth therein, as they may apply to this answering Defendant. In addition, Defendant denies that Plaintiffs have been injured or damaged in any sum by reason of any act or omission 0n the part ofthis Defendant. \OWVQ II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant alleges the following separate affirmative defenses: 10 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 Defendant alleges that one 0r more of the causes of action asserted in the Second LLP 2000 12 Amended Complaint fail to state a claim against Defendant for which relief can be granted. Mansukhani, Suite 92101 13 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE av, CA 14 Defendant alleges that the Second Amended Complaint, and each purported cause 0f Scully Diego, Broad“ 15 action asserted therein, is uncertain. Rees W San 16 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10] 17 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs knowingly and voluntarily assumed the Gordon risk, if any, 0f 18 the damages alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. 19 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 Defendant alleges that it is not liable to Plaintiffs because of the preceding, subsequent 21 and intervening acts of Plaintiffs, and/or other defendants 0r cross—defendants, third parties 22 and/or acts of God, all 0f which caused the damages, if any, alleged in the Second Amended 23 Complaint. 24 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiffs prove that Defendant conducted any of the 26 activities alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, those activities conformed with and were 27 pursuant to statutes, government regulations and/or industry standards based upon the state 0f 28 knowledge existing at the time of the activities. -2- ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT