Preview
F i L. E D"‘
SUPERIORx OJRT “5:”
A! :FORNlA
COUNTY OF SA a P. ’ERNARDINO
MAR 3 O 2023
William O. Woodland, Esq., Bar No. 175103
FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR
__~wg_{.___j;
One World Trade Center ar ihéamson Deputy
Twenty-Seventh Floor
Long Beach, California 90831-2700
(562) 983-2500
Attorneys for Defendant,
ANTONIO ZUNIGA
kOOOflONLh-wa
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11
CHARLES ANTHONY HILL, III and DONNA ) Case No. CIVD82016910
12
LYNN DENNIS-HILL, )
)
JUDGE DONALD ALVAREZ
13 Plaintiffs, )
DEPT. 523
)
14 vs.
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE 0F MOTION AND
15
3
MOTION FOR LEAVE T0 FILE SECOND
ANTONIO ZUNIGA and DOES 1 through 10, )
AMENDED ANSWER To FIRST AMENDED
16 )
COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM 0F
Defendants. )
17
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
)
DECLARATION OF RENEE E. JENSEN
)
18
)
Hearing Date: May 15, 2023
)
19 Time: 8:30 a.m.
)
Dept: S23
20 )
)
21 Action Filed: August 18, 2020
)
Trial: July 17, 2023
)
22
23
D:
24 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECOR
at 8:30 a.m., 0r as soon as the matter may b-
25 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 15, 2023
“823” of the San Bemardino County Superior Court located at, 247 West Thir
26 heard, in Department
CA 92415-0210, Defendant, ANTONIO ZUNIGA, will, and hereby does, mov
27 Street, San Bemardino,
to file a Second Amended Answer to the First Amendel
28 for an Order granting leave for Defendant
1
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECO
ND
AMENDED ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
DONNA LYNN DENNIS—HIL
Complaint filed by Plaintiffs CHARLES ANTHONY HILL, III and
(“Plaintiffs”). A copy of the proposed amended pleading is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Code of Civil Procedure §§ 473(a) and 576 and th-
This Motion is made under California
liberally permitting amendments at any stage of th
established case law and policy in California
the amended Answer is necessary to allege defense
proceeding, and on the more specific ground that
\OOOQQUl-PWNu—t
operative Amended Answer to First Amende
based upon the following information not pleaded in the
in the California appellate decision i
Complaint filed on June 30, 2021, based on the case law
stated
App. 5th 27, published on December 1, 2021, as applied to th-
CSAA Ins. Exch. v. Hodroj (2021) 72 Cal.
facts and evidence in this case:
accordance with the holding in CSAA Ins. Exch. v. Hadroj (2021) 7
1. Defendant asserts that, in
Cal. App. 5th 272, 287 Cal. Rptr. 3d 264, 267—69, a settlement agreement was already reache
and Defendant before Plaintiffs’ original complaint herein was filed on Augus
between Plaintiffs
settlement with the intention to late
18, 2020; the parties had agreed on the material terms of the
a reasonable person looking at the parties’ pre-lawsui
reduce it to a formal writing;
communications would think they intended to be bound by that settlement agreement that woul
any proposed writing that did not accurately reflect
a1
later be reduced to a more formal writing;
the terms of the settlement agreement did not unwind the entire settlement deal; and so Plaintiff
filing their Complaint after they ha
breached the settlement contract reached with Defendant by
NNNNNNNNNr—‘HHHHHHr—ay—AH
OONQm-bWNHODWNQM-bWNb—do
already agreed to settle.
This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion
and the attached Memorandum ofPoint
upon of the records and document
and Authon'ties, documents attached, Declaration of Renee E. Jensen,
all
on file herein, and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this matter
Dated: March 9, 2023
for
0
FORD, WALKER,
BY'
WILLIAM O.
HAGGERTY & BEHAR
W0 DLAND
Attorneys for Defendant,
ANTONIO ZUNIGA
2
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECO
ND
AMENDED ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
F i L. E D"‘ SUPERIORx OJRT “5:” A! :FORNlA COUNTY OF SA a P. ’ERNARDINO MAR 3 O 2023 William O. Woodland, Esq., Bar No. 175103 FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR __~wg_{.___j; One World Trade Center ar ihéamson Deputy Twenty-Seventh Floor Long Beach, California 90831-2700 (562) 983-2500 Attorneys for Defendant, ANTONIO ZUNIGA kOOOflONLh-wa SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 CHARLES ANTHONY HILL, III and DONNA ) Case No. CIVD82016910 12 LYNN DENNIS-HILL, ) ) JUDGE DONALD ALVAREZ 13 Plaintiffs, ) DEPT. 523 ) 14 vs. DEFENDANT’S NOTICE 0F MOTION AND 15 3 MOTION FOR LEAVE T0 FILE SECOND ANTONIO ZUNIGA and DOES 1 through 10, ) AMENDED ANSWER To FIRST AMENDED 16 ) COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM 0F Defendants. ) 17 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; ) DECLARATION OF RENEE E. JENSEN ) 18 ) Hearing Date: May 15, 2023 ) 19 Time: 8:30 a.m. ) Dept: S23 20 ) ) 21 Action Filed: August 18, 2020 ) Trial: July 17, 2023 ) 22 23 D: 24 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECOR at 8:30 a.m., 0r as soon as the matter may b- 25 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 15, 2023 “823” of the San Bemardino County Superior Court located at, 247 West Thir 26 heard, in Department CA 92415-0210, Defendant, ANTONIO ZUNIGA, will, and hereby does, mov 27 Street, San Bemardino, to file a Second Amended Answer to the First Amendel 28 for an Order granting leave for Defendant 1 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECO ND AMENDED ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DONNA LYNN DENNIS—HIL Complaint filed by Plaintiffs CHARLES ANTHONY HILL, III and (“Plaintiffs”). A copy of the proposed amended pleading is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 473(a) and 576 and th- This Motion is made under California liberally permitting amendments at any stage of th established case law and policy in California the amended Answer is necessary to allege defense proceeding, and on the more specific ground that \OOOQQUl-PWNu—t operative Amended Answer to First Amende based upon the following information not pleaded in the in the California appellate decision i Complaint filed on June 30, 2021, based on the case law stated App. 5th 27, published on December 1, 2021, as applied to th- CSAA Ins. Exch. v. Hodroj (2021) 72 Cal. facts and evidence in this case: accordance with the holding in CSAA Ins. Exch. v. Hadroj (2021) 7 1. Defendant asserts that, in Cal. App. 5th 272, 287 Cal. Rptr. 3d 264, 267—69, a settlement agreement was already reache and Defendant before Plaintiffs’ original complaint herein was filed on Augus between Plaintiffs settlement with the intention to late 18, 2020; the parties had agreed on the material terms of the a reasonable person looking at the parties’ pre-lawsui reduce it to a formal writing; communications would think they intended to be bound by that settlement agreement that woul any proposed writing that did not accurately reflect a1 later be reduced to a more formal writing; the terms of the settlement agreement did not unwind the entire settlement deal; and so Plaintiff filing their Complaint after they ha breached the settlement contract reached with Defendant by NNNNNNNNNr—‘HHHHHHr—ay—AH OONQm-bWNHODWNQM-bWNb—do already agreed to settle. This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion and the attached Memorandum ofPoint upon of the records and document and Authon'ties, documents attached, Declaration of Renee E. Jensen, all on file herein, and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this matter Dated: March 9, 2023 for 0 FORD, WALKER, BY' WILLIAM O. HAGGERTY & BEHAR W0 DLAND Attorneys for Defendant, ANTONIO ZUNIGA 2 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECO ND AMENDED ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT