Answer: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                \



 1RICHARD D. SOPP, State Bar # 125546
     TV,T_1_     nrl   ±1   Cl _   O   T->   1—   T T T»
                                                                       F!LEO/Ef\!OOR8ED
                                                                       B
                                                                           "« iraBc ' l ** > /   "™ •
  Maloney, Wneatley, oopp & Brooks, LLr
2 1004 River Rock Drive, Suite 245
  Folsom, CA 95630                                                                     AMP oq onns
                                                                                      AUb
3 (916)988-3857                                                                           ^ *uuo
4                                                                     Py                     D JC,JNSON
     Attornevs for Cross-defendant                                                           DEPU rv d ERK
 5 CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC.
6
 7                           SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 8                                     FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
9
     RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE)                             CASE NO. 07AS04450
10   ABBOTT,                     )
                                 )                             CROSS-DEFENDANT CADRE DESIGN
11                Plaintiffs,    )                             GROUP, INC.'S ANSWER TO THE
                                 )                             UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF
12   vs.                         )                             RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID
13                                                         )
14   RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al.,                        )
15                             Defendants.                 )
16   RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually )
     and d.b.a. CA CONSTRUCTION,         )
17
                               Cross-complainant,          )
18
     vs.                                                   )
19
     RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, individually )
20   and d.b.a. BRITSCHGI CONSTRUCTION, )
     and MOES 1 throught 100,            )
21
                               Cross-defendants.           )
22
23
               Cross-defendant CADRE. DESIGN GROUP, INC. (hereinafter "cross-defendant"), a California
24
     corporation, named herein as cross-defendant Moe 1, answers the unverified Cross-complaint of
25
     (hereinafter the "Cross-complaint") of RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID (hereinafter "cross-complainant")
26
     in the above described action as follows:
27
28                                                             1



                                                                                                             ^
                                                                                                             V "'~ •
 1           1. This answering cross-defendant denies generally and specifically, all of the allegations
 2   contained in the Cross-complaint and further denies that cross-complainant has been damaged by the
 3   actions of this cross-defendant in any sum whatsoever.
 4                                    FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 5          2. As a First and separate Affirmative Defense, cross-defendant alleges that the Cross-complaint
 6   herein fails to state a cause of action and/or claim upon which relief can be granted.
 7                                  SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 8          3. As a Second and separate Affirmative Defense, cross-defendant alleges on information and
 9   belief that the entire Cross-complaint is barred by the appropriate Statute of Limitations as set forth in
10 the California Code of Civil Procedure, including sections 337.1 and 338(b).
11                                   THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12          4. As a Third and separate Affirmative Defense, cross-defendant alleges on information and
13 belief that the entire Cross-complaint is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
14                                  FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

15          5. As a Fourth and separate Affirmative Defense, cross-defendant alleges on information and
16 belief that the entire Cross-complaint is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
17                                    FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18          6. As a Fifth and separate Affirmative Defense, cross-defendant alleges, on information and
19 belief and without admitting the existence of a contract, that Cross-complainant failed to properly
20 mitigate damages, if any, and said failure bars the cross-complaint.
21                                    SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22          7. As a Sixth and separate Affirmative Defense, cross-defendant alleges on information and
23 belief that cross-complainant's claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver.
24                                 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25          8. As a Seventh and separate Affirmative Defense, cross-defendant alleges cross-complainant
26   failed to exercise reasonable care.
27
28                                                       o
 1                                  EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 2           9. As an Eighth and separate Affirmative Defense, cross-defendant alleges that the damages
 3   sought by cross-complainant were the result of negligence, misconduct and breaches of persons and
4    entities other than this answering cross-defendant and for which cross-defendant is not responsible.
 5                                   NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 6           10.   As a Ninth and separate Affirmative Defense, cross-defendant alleges that the Cross-
 7   complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches.
 8                                   TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 9           11. As a Tenth and separate Affirmative Defense, cross-defendant alleges on information and
10 belief that the acts of third parties were responsible in the things and acts herein alleged, and that said
11   acts constituted an intervening and superseding cause to cross-complainant's damages, if any, thereby
12   barring any recovery against this answering cross-defendant.
13                                ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14           12. As an Eleventh and separate Affirmative Defense, cross-defendant alleges that plaintiff and
15   cross-complainant failed to exercise reasonable and ordinary care, caution, or prudence. The resulting
16 damages, if any, sustained by plaintiff or cross-complainant were proximately caused and contributed
17 to by the negligence of plaintiff or cross-complainant.
18                                 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19           13. As an Twelfth and separate Affirmative Defense, cross-defendant alleges that it has entered
20   into a contract with plaintiff releasing cross-defendant from any and all damages that may be awarded
21   in this action.
22           WHEREFORE, cross-defendant prays for relief as to all Causes of Action alleged against it as
23 follows:
24           1. That judgment be granted in this answering cross-defendant's favor as to all Causes of Action
25   alleged and that cross-complainant take nothing by way of the Cross-complaint;
26           2. That this answering cross-defendant be awarded costs of suit herein incurred;
27           3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
28                                                      3
 1
2 Dated: August/^, 2008   MALONEY, WHEATLEY, SOPP & BROOKS, LLP
3
4                         By:
                                RICHARD/DgSOPP
5                               ATTORNEYS FOR CROSS-DEFENDANT
                                CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC.
6
7
 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 1                                           PROOF OF SERVICE
2
3           I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen (18) years, and not a party to
4    the within entitled action. I am employed in the County of Sacramento; my business address is
5    1004 River Rock Drive, Suite 245, Folsom, California 95630.
6           On August 28, 2008,1 served true and correct copies of the following document(s):
7          CROSS-DEFENDANT CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC.'S ANSWER TO THE
             UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID
 8
     XX     Via United States Postal Service. By depositing for collection and mailing, following
 9          ordinary business practices, with the United States Postal Service on the same date as is
            indicated hereinbelpw, a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage
10          thereon fully prepaid.
11          Via Overnight Mail Service. By causing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed
            envelope, to be delivered via the following overnight mail courier service: United Parcel
12          Service.
13          Via Facsimile. By sending a true copy thereof by facsimile transmission to the numbers
            listed hereinbelow
14
            By Personal Delivery. By personally delivering a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
15          envelope.
16   on the party(ies) listed hereinbelow:
17   TODD A. JONES, ESQ.
     JASUN C. MOLINELLI, ESQ.
18   ARCHER NORRIS
     655 University Avenue, Suite 225
19   Sacramento, CA 95825-6707
20   JOHN A. BRITTON, ESQ.
     WRIGHT & BRITTON
21   3741 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 380
     Roseville, CA 95661
22
     RAZI A. SHAH, ESQ.
23   2140 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 411
     Berkeley, CA 94704
24
     CRAIG N. LUNDGREN, ESQ.
25   MALOVOS & MENDOZA, LLP
     3620 American River Drive, Suite 215
26   Sacramento, CA 95864
27
28
 1          I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
 2   foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Folsom, California, on August 28, 2008.
 3
4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28