On March 21, 2019 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Mahaffey, Ashley,
Mahaffey, Brian,
and
Colorama Wholesale Nursery,
Medina, Jose,
Wilson, Richard,
for Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
J
i i3
SUr ERIOR COt1RT O CALIFORNIA
CGilt TY UFSA 3 1vP RDINO
1 Kimberly S Oberrecht C S B No 190794
SAN BER iAb Jf fO iSTRlCT
Jeremy R Cronin C S B No 270284
2 HORTON OBERRECHT KIRKPATRICK MARTHA IAY 0 6 2019
101 W Broadway Suite 600
3 San Diego California 92101
619 232 1183 619 696 5719 facsimile Vl
4 C i
5 Attorneys far Defendants RICHARD WILSON JOSE MEDINA and COLORAMA
WHOLESALE NURSERY dba COLORAMA
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNAR INO
CENTRAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT
10
BRIAN MAHAFFEY ASHLEY MAHAFFEY CASE NO CIVDS1908657
11
Plaintiff DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO
12 COMPLAINT
vs
13
RICHARD WILSON JOSE MEDINA Action Filed March 21 2019
14 COLORAMA WHOLESALE NURSERY dba Trial Date None Set
COLORAMA and DOES 1 through 100
15 Inclusive Dept S30
I
Defendants j
17
18 COME NOW Defendants RICHARD WILSON JOSE MEDINA and COLORAMA
19
WHOLESALE NURSERY dba COLORAMA and answer the Complaint of Plaintiffs BRIAN
20 MAHAFFEY ASHLEY MAHAFFEY on file herein as follows
21 I
2 GENERAL DENIAL
23 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 431 30 of the California Code ofCivil Procedure these
24
answering Defendants deny generally and specifically each every and all of the allegations in said
25
Complaint and the whole thereof including each and every purported cause of action contained
26 therein These answering Defendants further deny that Plaintiffs have or will sustain damages in
27 the amount alleged or in any amount whatsoever
28
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
G CLIENTS 5845 PleadingsWnswer wpd 1
1 II
2 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
3 AS AND FOR A FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE THESE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS ARE INFORMED
4 AND BELIEVE AND THEREON ALLEGE AS FOLLOWS
5 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFFS
6 That at all times and places set forth in the Complaint Plaintiffs failed to exercise ordinary
7 care on their own behalf which negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion
8 up to and including the whole thereof of the injt ries and damages complained of in this action
9 Plaintiffs recovery therefore agains these answering Defendants should be barred or reduced
10 according to principles of comparative negligence
11 AS AND FOR A SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE THESE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS ARE INFORMED
12 AND BELIEVE AND THEREON ALLEGE AS FOLLOWS
13 COMPARATIVE FAULT OF CO DEFENDANTS
14 At all times and places set forth in the Complaint parties Defendant other than these
15 answering Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care on their own behalf which negligence and
16 carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion up to and including the whole thereof of the
17 injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiffs in this action The fault if any of these answering
18 Defendants should be compared with the fault of the other Defendants and damages if any should
19 be apportioned among the Defendants in direct relation to each Defendant s comparative fault
20 These answering Defendants should be obligated to pay oniy such damages it any which are
21 directly attributable to their percentage ofcomparative fault To require these answering Defendants
22 to pay any more than their percentage of comparative fault violates the equal protection and due
23 process clauses of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
24 California
25
26
27
28
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
G CLIENTS 5845 PleadingsWnswer wpd 2
Document Filed Date
May 06, 2019
Case Filing Date
March 21, 2019
Category
Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
J i i3 SUr ERIOR COt1RT O CALIFORNIA CGilt TY UFSA 3 1vP RDINO 1 Kimberly S Oberrecht C S B No 190794 SAN BER iAb Jf fO iSTRlCT Jeremy R Cronin C S B No 270284 2 HORTON OBERRECHT KIRKPATRICK MARTHA IAY 0 6 2019 101 W Broadway Suite 600 3 San Diego California 92101 619 232 1183 619 696 5719 facsimile Vl 4 C i 5 Attorneys far Defendants RICHARD WILSON JOSE MEDINA and COLORAMA WHOLESALE NURSERY dba COLORAMA 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNAR INO CENTRAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 BRIAN MAHAFFEY ASHLEY MAHAFFEY CASE NO CIVDS1908657 11 Plaintiff DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO 12 COMPLAINT vs 13 RICHARD WILSON JOSE MEDINA Action Filed March 21 2019 14 COLORAMA WHOLESALE NURSERY dba Trial Date None Set COLORAMA and DOES 1 through 100 15 Inclusive Dept S30 I Defendants j 17 18 COME NOW Defendants RICHARD WILSON JOSE MEDINA and COLORAMA 19 WHOLESALE NURSERY dba COLORAMA and answer the Complaint of Plaintiffs BRIAN 20 MAHAFFEY ASHLEY MAHAFFEY on file herein as follows 21 I 2 GENERAL DENIAL 23 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 431 30 of the California Code ofCivil Procedure these 24 answering Defendants deny generally and specifically each every and all of the allegations in said 25 Complaint and the whole thereof including each and every purported cause of action contained 26 therein These answering Defendants further deny that Plaintiffs have or will sustain damages in 27 the amount alleged or in any amount whatsoever 28 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT G CLIENTS 5845 PleadingsWnswer wpd 1 1 II 2 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 3 AS AND FOR A FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THESE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS ARE INFORMED 4 AND BELIEVE AND THEREON ALLEGE AS FOLLOWS 5 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFFS 6 That at all times and places set forth in the Complaint Plaintiffs failed to exercise ordinary 7 care on their own behalf which negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion 8 up to and including the whole thereof of the injt ries and damages complained of in this action 9 Plaintiffs recovery therefore agains these answering Defendants should be barred or reduced 10 according to principles of comparative negligence 11 AS AND FOR A SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THESE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS ARE INFORMED 12 AND BELIEVE AND THEREON ALLEGE AS FOLLOWS 13 COMPARATIVE FAULT OF CO DEFENDANTS 14 At all times and places set forth in the Complaint parties Defendant other than these 15 answering Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care on their own behalf which negligence and 16 carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion up to and including the whole thereof of the 17 injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiffs in this action The fault if any of these answering 18 Defendants should be compared with the fault of the other Defendants and damages if any should 19 be apportioned among the Defendants in direct relation to each Defendant s comparative fault 20 These answering Defendants should be obligated to pay oniy such damages it any which are 21 directly attributable to their percentage ofcomparative fault To require these answering Defendants 22 to pay any more than their percentage of comparative fault violates the equal protection and due 23 process clauses of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of 24 California 25 26 27 28 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT G CLIENTS 5845 PleadingsWnswer wpd 2