Answer: MARIE DE GUZMAN VS. COLUMBIA PROPERTY TRUST ET AL

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Co Oo YD DH HW PF ww

oo

ELECTRONICALLY

DEBRA STEEL STURMER (CSB #105276) FILED
NICOLE A. DETERDING (CSB #305419) Superior Court of California,
LERCH STURMER LLP. County of San Francisco
One Sansome Street, Ste. 2060 10/17/2017
San Francisco, California 94104 Clerk of the Court
Telephone: (415) 217-6340 BY:GARY a pe suWeienk

dsturmer @lerchsturmer.com
ndeterding@lerchsturmer.com

Attommeys for Defendant Columbia Property Trust

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MARIE DE GUZMAN ) Case No.: CGC-17-561142
)
Plaintiff, ) COLUMBIA PROPERTY TRUST’S
) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
v. ) COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR JURY
) TRIAL
COLUMBIA PROPERTY TRUST; JONES )
LANG LaSALLE AMERICAS, INC. and ) Action filed : September 5, 2017
DOES | to 50, Inclusive, ) Trial Date: None Set
)
Defendants. )
)

COMES NOW Defendant COLUMBIA PROPERTY TRUST and hereby answers

Plaintiff's unverified First Amended Complaint as follows:
GENERAL DENIAL

Pursuant to Civil Code of Procedure Section 431.30 (d), answering Defendant COLUMBIA
PROPERTY TRUST denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the
allegations contained in the First Amended Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, and further
denies that answering Defendant is liable to Plaintiff in any sum, sums, or otherwise, or at all.
Mi
Ut
ut
Mt

Wt
1

COLUMBIA PROPERTY TRUST'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
CASE NO, CGC-17-561142Oo ON DH WwW

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AS A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering defendant
alleges that the First Amended Complaint does not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action
against this answering defendant.

AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering defendant
alleges that the injuries and damages of which Plaintiff complains, if any there were, were
proximately caused by the negligence and fault of other persons, firms, corporations, including
Plaintiff and other Defendants, and should judgment be rendered against this answering defendant,
which should not occur, such judgment should be reduced, abated and discharged in accordance
with the percentage of negligence and other fault charged against such other persons, firms,
corporations, including Plaintiff and other Defendants.

AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering defendant
alleges that the incidents and damages alleged by Plaintiff were either wholly or in part, negligently
or otherwise, caused by persons, firms or entities other than this answering defendant, and such fact
eliminates or comparatively reduces the percentage of liability, if any, of this answering defendant.

AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering defendant
alleges that if it should be established that it is in any manner legally responsible for Plaintiff's
alleged damages, which is denied, then this answering defendant is entitled to indemnity and/or
contribution from the other parties named in this litigation in direct proportion to the negligence or
other actionable conduct which proximately caused or contributed to the alleged damages, if any.

AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering defendant
alleges that Plaintiff was herself partially, if not wholly, negligent and, pursuant to the doctrine of
comparative negligence, should be barred from recovery of that portion of damages directly
attributable to her proportionate share of the negligence.

AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering defendant
alleges that at the time and place of the happening or matters set forth in the First Amended
Complaint on file herein, Plaintiff was herself careless, negligent, or otherwise at fault in and about
the matters and things set forth in said First Amended Complaint, and that if Plaintiff sustained any

2

COLUMBIA PROPERTY TRUST'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
CASE NO. CGC-17-561142oe YD Hw FB wR &

RR BP NM RW NR RR RY Be Se ee em Be eR ee Be
eS I~ Hw FF BN = SV we AA wD HE DH HS

damages, the same were proximately caused by the carelessness, recklessness, negligence
contributed thereto, thereby barring her from any recovery in this action.

AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering defendant
alleges that at the time and place set forth in the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff had knowledge
of, appreciated, and voluntarily assumed the risks incident to those matters and happenings alleged
in said First Amended Complaint. The damages, if any, alleged by Plaintiff were caused and arose
out of such risks assumed.

AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering defendant
alleges that the Plaintiff assisted, consulted, and/or approved the actions of this answering
defendant, thereby estopping Plaintiff from now complaining of damages, if any.

AS A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering defendant
alleges that Plaintiff has waived and is estopped and barred from alleging the matters set forth in
said First Amended Complaint.

AS A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering defendant

alleges that it performed each of its obligations to Plaintiff pursuant to any and all contracts and
agreements, except those obligations which Defendant was prevented and/or excused from
performing by the acts and/or omissions of Plaintiff or by any third other person, firm or entity.

AS AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering
defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages, if any, allegedly caused by the
conduct which is the subject matter of the First Amended Complaint.

AS A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering defendant
alleges that the First Amended Complaint, and each and every cause of action thereof, is barred by
the applicable statute of limitations.

AS A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering
defendant alleges that the First Amended Complaint should be barred by the doctrine of laches.

AS A FOURTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering
defendant alleges that the First Amended Complaint should be barred by the doctrine of unclean
hands.

3

COLUMBIA PROPERTY TRUST'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
CASE NO. CGC-17-561 142AS A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering
defendant alleges that Plaintiff has no standing to bring any of the causes of action asserted in her
First Amended Complaint.

AS A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE this answering
defendant reserves the right to amend this answer and to assert any Affirmative Defenses raised by
any other Defendant to this action.

WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays that Plaintiff takes nothing by way of her
First Amended Complaint, that this answering defendant be dismissed with its costs of suit and
attorney's fees incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
proper.

DATED: October 17, 2017 LERCH STURMER LLP

» hy

Debra Steel Sturmer, Esq.

Nicole A. Deterding, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant COLUMBIA
PROPERTY TRUST

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Answering Defendant COLUMBIA PROPERTY TRUST hereby respectfully requests a
jury trial.

DATED: October 17, 2017 LERCH STURMER LLP

f)

L

Debra Steel Sturmer, Esq.

Nicole A. Deterding, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant COLUMBIA
PROPERTY TRUST

4
COLUMBIA PROPERTY TRUST'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL.
CASE NO, CGC-17-561142DECLARATION OF SERVICE

lam a citizen of the United States, I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the
within cause; I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, California and my business
address is One Sansome Street, Ste. 2060, San Francisco, California 94104. On this date, I served
the following documents:

COLUMBIA PROPERTY TRUST’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

on the parties identified below, through their attorneys of record, by placing true copies thereof in
sealed envelopes addressed as shown below by the following means of service:

v__: By First Class Mail -- I caused each such envelope, with first class postage thereon fully
prepaid, to be deposited in a recognized place of deposit of the U.S. Mail in San Francisco,
California, for collection to the office of the addressee(s) following ordinary business practices.

__: By Overnight Courier -- I caused each such envelope to be given to an overnight mail
service at San Francisco, California, to be hand delivered to the office of the addressee(s) on the
next business day.

By Personal Service-- I caused each such envelope to be given to a messenger at San
Francisco, California, to be hand delivered to the office of the addressee(s) on this date.

_—_: Facsimile -- (Only where permitted. Must consult CCP §1012.5 and California Rules of
Court 2001-2011. Also consult FRCP Rule S(e). Not currently authorized in N.D.CA.)

: By E-mail ~ I electronically served each party at the email addresses shown on this
declaration.

Nikolaus W. Reed, Esq.

Law Office of Nikolaus Reed

135 10" Street

San Francisco, CA 94103

Tel: 415-940-7766

Email: Nik@nwriaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Marie DeGuzman

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing

is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

EXECUTED _October 17 , 2017 at San Francisco, Cajifornia.

Rosemarie Vernola
(type/print name)

(signature)

5

COLUMBIA PROPERTY TRUST'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL,
CASE NO. CGC-17-561142