Preview
V I ‘
V F
'
I
‘
I. L'
m u
D v
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALU'OENIA
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDWC:
SAN BERNARDRJO DtSTRICT
JAMES J. RIJ ESQ. (SBN: 94347)
LIEBMAN, QUIGLEY & SHEPPARD SEP 1 5 2022
A Professional Law Corporation
A Street,
401 West
San Diego,
Tel:
CA
Suite 1150
92101-7920
(619) 232-0777 / Fax: (619) 238-5442
BY km
umsvmazLow,
~
394%;
059m
_
Attorneys for Defendants, FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. d.b.a. FOOD 4 LESS, erroneously
\OOOQQUI-hU-DN
sued and served as “FOOD 4 LESS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.;” and THE KROGER CO.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
ELSA ELOISA GUTIERREZ, Case No; CIVSB 2209743
I/c Judge: JANET M. FRANGLE
11
Plaintiff, Dept: $29
12
v. ANSWER BY THE KROGER CO.
13
TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
FOOD 4 LESS OF SOUTHERN
14
CALIFORNIA, INC.,; THE KROGER CO. and “1M4 GED FILE”
DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Inclusive,
[TRIAL NOT SET]
éfifl
15
Defendants.
AX
16
17
18
COMES NOW defendant W., for itself,” (hereinafler "defendant")
answering plaintiffs unven'fied Complaint on file herein, denies, and alleges as follows:
in
19 Under the provisions of §43 1 .30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, defendant herein
20 denies generally, specifically, conjunctively, and disjunctively, each and every allegation of each and
21 every paragraph of each and every cause of action of said Complaint and the Complaint in its entirety,
22 and denies that plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or amount whatsoever, or at all.
23 AFFIRMA TIVE DEFENSES
24 AS A FIRST, SEPARA TE AND AFFIRMA TIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant is
25 informed and believes, and thereon alleges:
26 That the events, injuries, losses, and damages complained ofin plaintiff's Complaint, ifany there
27 were, were the result of an unavoidable accident insofar as this answering defendant is concerned, and
28 occurred without any negligence, want of care, fault or other breach of duty complained of on the part
ANSWER BY THE KROGER CO. TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1
of this answering defendant.
AS A SECOND, SEPARA TE AND AFFIRAM TIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant is
informed and believes, and thereon alleges:
That defendant acted as a reasonable entity in preventing injuries to others and that defendant's
actions were reasonable and prudent under the circumstances that existed at the time and place of the
OOOQONUI-bUJN—n
accident and injuries referred to in plaintiffs Complaint, if any there were.
AS A THIRD, SEPARA TE AM AFFIRMA TIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant is
informed and believes, and thereon alleges:
That defendant acted as a reasonable entity in preventing injuries to its patrons. That plaintiffs
injuries, if any there were, were not as a result of defendant's negligence and, in fact, defendant did not
have actual or constructive knowledge of any dangerous condition, if any there were, on said premises
operated by this answering defendant.
AS A F0 UR TH, SEPARA TE AND AFFIRMA TIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant is
informed and believes, and thereon alleges:
That the allegations contained in plaintiffs Complaint fail to state a cause of action against this
answering defendant.
AS AN FIFTH, SEPARA TE AM AFFIRMA TIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant is
infonned and believes, and thereon alleges:
mqmmgmNHoE‘ESSGESSZS
That if any injuries and/or damages were sustained by plaintiff, then said injuries and/or
damages, if any there were, and the whole thereof, were and are the proximate and direct result of the
recklessness. carelessness, and negligence ofsaid plaintifi'in failing to exercise ordinary care for her own
safety at the time and place referred to in her Complaint; that said recklessness, carelessness,
and
negligence on the part of said plaintiff proximately and concurrently contributed to, caused or brought
NNNNNNNNN about, wholly or in part, whatever injuries and/or damages, if any there were, said plaintiff
claims to
have sustained; and said injuries and damages, if any, should be reduced in proportion to the amount of
negligence attributable to said plaintiff.
AS A SHTH, SEPARA TE AW AFFIRJIM TIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant is
informed and believes, and thereon alleges:
ANSWER BY THE KROGER CO. TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
2
Preview
V I ‘ V F ' I ‘ I. L' m u D v SUPERIOR COURT OF CALU'OENIA COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDWC: SAN BERNARDRJO DtSTRICT JAMES J. RIJ ESQ. (SBN: 94347) LIEBMAN, QUIGLEY & SHEPPARD SEP 1 5 2022 A Professional Law Corporation A Street, 401 West San Diego, Tel: CA Suite 1150 92101-7920 (619) 232-0777 / Fax: (619) 238-5442 BY km umsvmazLow, ~ 394%; 059m _ Attorneys for Defendants, FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. d.b.a. FOOD 4 LESS, erroneously \OOOQQUI-hU-DN sued and served as “FOOD 4 LESS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.;” and THE KROGER CO. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 ELSA ELOISA GUTIERREZ, Case No; CIVSB 2209743 I/c Judge: JANET M. FRANGLE 11 Plaintiff, Dept: $29 12 v. ANSWER BY THE KROGER CO. 13 TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOOD 4 LESS OF SOUTHERN 14 CALIFORNIA, INC.,; THE KROGER CO. and “1M4 GED FILE” DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Inclusive, [TRIAL NOT SET] éfifl 15 Defendants. AX 16 17 18 COMES NOW defendant W., for itself,” (hereinafler "defendant") answering plaintiffs unven'fied Complaint on file herein, denies, and alleges as follows: in 19 Under the provisions of §43 1 .30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, defendant herein 20 denies generally, specifically, conjunctively, and disjunctively, each and every allegation of each and 21 every paragraph of each and every cause of action of said Complaint and the Complaint in its entirety, 22 and denies that plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or amount whatsoever, or at all. 23 AFFIRMA TIVE DEFENSES 24 AS A FIRST, SEPARA TE AND AFFIRMA TIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant is 25 informed and believes, and thereon alleges: 26 That the events, injuries, losses, and damages complained ofin plaintiff's Complaint, ifany there 27 were, were the result of an unavoidable accident insofar as this answering defendant is concerned, and 28 occurred without any negligence, want of care, fault or other breach of duty complained of on the part ANSWER BY THE KROGER CO. TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 of this answering defendant. AS A SECOND, SEPARA TE AND AFFIRAM TIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges: That defendant acted as a reasonable entity in preventing injuries to others and that defendant's actions were reasonable and prudent under the circumstances that existed at the time and place of the OOOQONUI-bUJN—n accident and injuries referred to in plaintiffs Complaint, if any there were. AS A THIRD, SEPARA TE AM AFFIRMA TIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges: That defendant acted as a reasonable entity in preventing injuries to its patrons. That plaintiffs injuries, if any there were, were not as a result of defendant's negligence and, in fact, defendant did not have actual or constructive knowledge of any dangerous condition, if any there were, on said premises operated by this answering defendant. AS A F0 UR TH, SEPARA TE AND AFFIRMA TIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges: That the allegations contained in plaintiffs Complaint fail to state a cause of action against this answering defendant. AS AN FIFTH, SEPARA TE AM AFFIRMA TIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant is infonned and believes, and thereon alleges: mqmmgmNHoE‘ESSGESSZS That if any injuries and/or damages were sustained by plaintiff, then said injuries and/or damages, if any there were, and the whole thereof, were and are the proximate and direct result of the recklessness. carelessness, and negligence ofsaid plaintifi'in failing to exercise ordinary care for her own safety at the time and place referred to in her Complaint; that said recklessness, carelessness, and negligence on the part of said plaintiff proximately and concurrently contributed to, caused or brought NNNNNNNNN about, wholly or in part, whatever injuries and/or damages, if any there were, said plaintiff claims to have sustained; and said injuries and damages, if any, should be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to said plaintiff. AS A SHTH, SEPARA TE AW AFFIRJIM TIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges: ANSWER BY THE KROGER CO. TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 2