Preview
wo Ce AYNY DUH Ff WN —&
Soe
BRRAREBRRESSCEUVABDESHRAS
Brian C. O’Hara, Esq. (SBN 134024) De
SKEBBA, ISAAC, BISHOP & HENDERSON ee
One Montgome: Street, Suite 2550 Fever aan bramerice
San Francisco, CA. 94
Telephone: (415) 836-2626 10/30/' 2017
Facsimile: (415) 836-3104 Eepownan 10] |
Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk
JONES iG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MARIE DE GUZMAN, Case No. CGC-17-561142
te [Unlimited Civil]
Plaintiff,
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
v. ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
JONES LANG LASALLE
COLUMBIA PROPERTY TRUST; AMERICAS, INC.
JONES LANG LASALLE
AMERICAS, INC,; CROWN
BUILDING MAINTENANCE Cco., TRIAL DATE: _ not set
and DOES 1 to 50,
Defendants.
COMES NOW Defendant JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC. and answering the
unverified Complaint for damages filed by Plaintiff MARIE DE GUZMAN herein, for itself
alone, admits, denies and alleges as follows:
1 GENERAL DENIAL: Under the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure
§431.30, this answering defendant denies, generally and specifically, all and singular, each and
every allegation contained in the Unverified Complaint for Damages of plaintiff herein (the
“Complaint”), and the whole thereof, and specifically denies that plaintiff has been injured or
damaged as alleged herein, or in any other sum or manner, or otherwise or at all.
-l-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.wo ont nuN fF WN
etapa leet
BNRRRRBBESSREAUABDEBSETS
SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
2. By stating the matters set forth in these defenses, this answering Defendant does
not allege or admit that it has the burden of proof and/or persuasion with respect to any of these
matters, and does not assume the burden of proof or persuasion as to any matters to which Plaintiff
has the burden of proof or persuasion.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of
Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that said Complaint fails to state facts sufficient
to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant or at all.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of
action alleged therein is barred by California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 and/or the applicable
statute of limitations, including but not limited to CCP §§335 through 349.4.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of
Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff herself was negligent in and about
the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that said carelessness and negligence on plaintiff's
own part proximately contributed to the happening of the incident in question, and to the injuries,
loss, and damages complained of, if any there were.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant denies that it was negligent in any fashion with
respect to the damages, losses, injuries and debts claimed by the Plaintiff in the Complaint on file
herein; however, if this answering Defendant is found to be negligent (which supposition is denied
and merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative defense), then this answering Defendant
provisionally alleges that Defendant’s negligence is not the sole and proximate cause of the
resultant damages, losses and injuries alleged by Plaintiff; that plaintiff's damages, if there were
-2-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.Co eo NI DH FF WH |
ee Sa sa a ea ea ea
wo ery A rH fF HW NH YH S&S
nN
=
22
any, were either wholly or in part directly and proximately caused by the negligence of persons or
entities other than this answering defendant, and said negligence comparatively reduces the
proportion of negligence and corresponding liability of this answering defendant; that the damages
awarded to Plaintiff, if any, be apportioned according to the respective fault of the parties, persons,
and entities, or their agents, servants, and employees who contributed to and/or caused said
resultant damages as alleged, according to the proof presented at the time of trial; that to assess
any greater percentage of fault and damages against this answering Defendant in excess of the
answering Defendant’s percentage of fault would be a denial of California equal protection and
due process and Federal equal protection and due process, all guaranteed by the respective
Constitutions.
FIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that at the time and place alleged in the
Complaint, Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care or caution concerning the
matters alleged in the Complaint, under the facts and circumstances then and there prevailing, and
such carelessness and negligence was the sole, or participating, direct and proximate cause of the
happening of the alleged accident and the injuries and losses and damages, if any sustained by the
plaintiff and that, as a result thereof, plaintiff is barred from either, all or part of any recovery
herein from this answering defendant.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of
reasonable care should have known, of the risk and hazards involved in the undertaking in which
she engaged, but nevertheless and with full knowledge of these things did fully and voluntarily
consent to assume the risks and hazards involved in this undertaking, thereby assuming all risks of
any injuries or damages, if any, referred to in the Complaint.
i]
1]
3.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.wo eon A UU FF WH
feb bee ett eae
BNRBRPBBLBSeRAABDEBETS
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff failed to mitigate the
damages, if any, alleged in the Complaint which plaintiff contends she suffered and is, therefore,
barred from any recovery.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiff suffered
damages, which Defendant denies, such injury or damage was not proximately caused by any
conduct or inaction of this answering Defendant, or was not foreseeable, or both.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
li. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the injuries and damages
complained of by plaintiff, if there were any, were either wholly or in part directly and
proximately caused by the negligence of persons or entities other than this answering defendant,
and said negligence comparatively reduces the proportion of negligence and corresponding
liability of this answering defendant.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. AS AFURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant is informed and believes and based on such
information and belief alleges that any and all acts or omissions of this answering defendant were
caused by the acts or omissions of a third party or parties,
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the damages of which Plaintiff
complains were proximately caused or contributed to by the acts of other Defendants, persons
and/or other entities. Such acts were an intervening, supervening and superseding cause of the
injuries and damages, if any, of which the Plaintiff complains, thus barring Plaintiff from any
4.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.© woe YAW PF WH
wv woe ee ee ee
BNRRBRBBEBSGREDVAGBEBHES
recovery against this answering Defendant.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14, AS AFURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that prior to, at the time of, and
subsequent to the accident mentioned in plaintiff's Complaint, plaintiff had already sustained
similar injuries or damages, and such existing injuries or damages the plaintiff had prior to, at the
time of, and subsequent to the incident bar or reduce any recovery herein.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that defendant is entitled to, and hereby
requests, a separate judgment allocating to it only such damages as are in direct proportion to its
percentage of fault, if any.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that it had no knowledge or notice,
actual, constructive or otherwise, of the dangerous condition alleged in plaintiff's Complaint
and/or had no knowledge or notice of the alieged conditions so as to provide defendant the time
reasonably necessary to remedy the condition or to provide reasonable warning.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17. AS AFURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that if there was a dangerous or
defective condition for which this answering defendant was responsible, the condition was a trivial
defect as a matter of law and this answering defendant cannot have any liability arising from the
alleged defect.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18. AS AFURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that that if there was a dangerous
condition for which these answering defendants were responsible, the condition was open and
-5-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.Oo oN DM F&F WN
DS _ —_ Re ee me
BNRRERPEBREBSGREUADEBRES
obvious to anyone exercising due care for his/her own safety and no warning of such condition
was required,
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19, AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that at all relevant times, that if plaintiff,
in fact, sustained any damages or injuries by reason of any alleged acts, omissions or negligence
on the part of this answering defendant, such acts, omissions or negligence are passive or
secondary in nature, whereas the acts, omissions or negligence of plaintiff and/or others were
active and primary in character.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant is informed and believes and based on such
information and belief alleges that Plaintiff has received payments or benefits by or from an
insurance company or other individuals or entities, or such payments were paid on plaintiff's
behalf, in connection with the claims, damages and/or incident alleged herein, and said insurance
companies, individuals and/or entities are subrogated to or have subrogated such claims, damages,
payments or benefits, by reason of which plaintiff's claims and damages alleged herein are barred.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred from any relief
and/or the recovery of any damages under the doctrine of unclean hands,
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22, AS AFURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff unduly delayed the
presentation of her claim against this defendant, which delay has created a prejudice to these
defendants and by reason of said conduct, plaintiff is barred from any relief and/or the recovery of
any damages under the doctrine of laches.
it
6-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.COIN DAH BF WN
Fee eta
BNSRRRPBBEBGSRVABEBHESHS
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23, AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that by reason of the acts, omissions or
conduct of plaintiff and/or plaintiffs agents, or by reason of their ratification of the acts,
omissions or conduct of others, plaintiff is barred from any relief and/or the recovery of damages
under the doctrine of waiver and/or estoppel.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24, AS AFURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that payments were made to or on
behalf of the plaintiff by or on behalf of this answering defendant in an amount according to proof.
Defendant claims a credit or set off against any verdict or judgment entered against it in the
amount of such payments.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff has received payments or
benefits by or from an insurance company or other individuals or entities, or such payments were
paid on plaintiff's behalf, in connection with the claims, damages and/or incident alleged herein,
and said insurance companies, individuals and/or entities are subrogated to or have subrogated
such claims, damages, payments or benefits, by reason of which plaintiff's claims and damages
alleged herein are barred.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that at all times mentioned herein,
plaintiff was in the course and scope of her employment, and that plaintiff's exclusive remedy lies
under the provisions of the California Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code §3600 et. seq.
Defendant further contends that the actions of Plaintiff's employer and/or said employer’s agents,
servants, or employees were the sole proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries. As such, Defendant is
entitled to a credit, set-off or reduction in damages for the amount of workers’ compensation
“Te
J
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.Co ent Dn FS WwW
payments made by Plaintiffs employer to Plaintiff, pursuant to Witt v, Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d
57, 17 Cal.Rptr. 369.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant is informed and believes and based on such
information and belief alleges that Plaintiff's recovery for past medical expenses or other
economic loss or benefit, if any, is limited to the lesser of the amount paid or the reasonable value
of those services or benefits.
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant is informed and believes and based on such
information and belief alleges that Plaintiff is excluded from recovering any amounts which have
been, or will, indemnify plaintiff, for any past or future claimed medical expenses, health care, life
care, or other economic loss or benefit that is offered, or provided under or in connection with the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
29. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant is informed and believes and based on such
information and belief alleges that in the event plaintiff has failed to obtain health insurance
coverage available to her, which she is eligible to obtain under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages and cannot recover for such
failure.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
30. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant is informed and believes and based on such
information and belief alleges that to the extent plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to avail
herself of the resources, service benefits, and coverage available to her under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages and cannot
-8-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.recover for such failure.
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
31. ASA FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant is informed and believes and based on such
information and belief alleges that this answering defendant presently has insufficient knowledge
or insufficient information upon which to form a belief as to whether it may have additional, yet
un-asserted, affirmative defenses. Defendant therefore reserves the right to assert additional
affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates it would be appropriate.
WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays as follows:
1. That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of Plaintiffs Complaint;
2. For Defendant’s costs of suit incurred herein; and
3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: October 30, 2017 ae
SKEBBA, ISAAC, 1S:
ft
Gp siybenson
VICE.
Brian C. O’ Hara, Esq./Attomeys for
Defendant JONES LANG LASALLE
AMERICAS, INC.
/]
9.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.coo wm ID SF WON
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013A(3) C.
State of California, County of San Francisco
I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. Lam over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is:
SKEBBA, ISAAC, BISHOP & HENDERSON, One Montgomery Street, Suite 2550 in San
Francisco, CA 94104, telephone (415) 836-2626 and Facsimile (415) 836-3104.
On the date entered below, I served the foregoing document described as:
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG
LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.
On all interested parties in said action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed
envelopes addressed as follows:
Nikolaus W. Reed
LAW OFFICE OF NIKOLAUS REED
135 10th Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
BY MAIL AS FOLLOWS - I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection
and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with
the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San
Francisco, California, in the ordinary course of business. | am aware that on motion of the
party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is
more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
(J BY FAX- Isent a true copy thereof via telephone facsimile transmission to the following
number(s):
Ol BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to the
following address, using the following service or method:
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct.
EXECUTED ON: October 30, 2017
oer lk. Sluofe
K. SHINODA.
-10-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.
Preview
wo Ce AYNY DUH Ff WN —& Soe BRRAREBRRESSCEUVABDESHRAS Brian C. O’Hara, Esq. (SBN 134024) De SKEBBA, ISAAC, BISHOP & HENDERSON ee One Montgome: Street, Suite 2550 Fever aan bramerice San Francisco, CA. 94 Telephone: (415) 836-2626 10/30/' 2017 Facsimile: (415) 836-3104 Eepownan 10] | Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk JONES iG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO MARIE DE GUZMAN, Case No. CGC-17-561142 te [Unlimited Civil] Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT v. ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE COLUMBIA PROPERTY TRUST; AMERICAS, INC. JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC,; CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE Cco., TRIAL DATE: _ not set and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants. COMES NOW Defendant JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC. and answering the unverified Complaint for damages filed by Plaintiff MARIE DE GUZMAN herein, for itself alone, admits, denies and alleges as follows: 1 GENERAL DENIAL: Under the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure §431.30, this answering defendant denies, generally and specifically, all and singular, each and every allegation contained in the Unverified Complaint for Damages of plaintiff herein (the “Complaint”), and the whole thereof, and specifically denies that plaintiff has been injured or damaged as alleged herein, or in any other sum or manner, or otherwise or at all. -l- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.wo ont nuN fF WN etapa leet BNRRRRBBESSREAUABDEBSETS SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 2. By stating the matters set forth in these defenses, this answering Defendant does not allege or admit that it has the burden of proof and/or persuasion with respect to any of these matters, and does not assume the burden of proof or persuasion as to any matters to which Plaintiff has the burden of proof or persuasion. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that said Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant or at all. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein is barred by California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 and/or the applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to CCP §§335 through 349.4. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff herself was negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that said carelessness and negligence on plaintiff's own part proximately contributed to the happening of the incident in question, and to the injuries, loss, and damages complained of, if any there were. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant denies that it was negligent in any fashion with respect to the damages, losses, injuries and debts claimed by the Plaintiff in the Complaint on file herein; however, if this answering Defendant is found to be negligent (which supposition is denied and merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative defense), then this answering Defendant provisionally alleges that Defendant’s negligence is not the sole and proximate cause of the resultant damages, losses and injuries alleged by Plaintiff; that plaintiff's damages, if there were -2- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.Co eo NI DH FF WH | ee Sa sa a ea ea ea wo ery A rH fF HW NH YH S&S nN = 22 any, were either wholly or in part directly and proximately caused by the negligence of persons or entities other than this answering defendant, and said negligence comparatively reduces the proportion of negligence and corresponding liability of this answering defendant; that the damages awarded to Plaintiff, if any, be apportioned according to the respective fault of the parties, persons, and entities, or their agents, servants, and employees who contributed to and/or caused said resultant damages as alleged, according to the proof presented at the time of trial; that to assess any greater percentage of fault and damages against this answering Defendant in excess of the answering Defendant’s percentage of fault would be a denial of California equal protection and due process and Federal equal protection and due process, all guaranteed by the respective Constitutions. FIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that at the time and place alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care or caution concerning the matters alleged in the Complaint, under the facts and circumstances then and there prevailing, and such carelessness and negligence was the sole, or participating, direct and proximate cause of the happening of the alleged accident and the injuries and losses and damages, if any sustained by the plaintiff and that, as a result thereof, plaintiff is barred from either, all or part of any recovery herein from this answering defendant. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the risk and hazards involved in the undertaking in which she engaged, but nevertheless and with full knowledge of these things did fully and voluntarily consent to assume the risks and hazards involved in this undertaking, thereby assuming all risks of any injuries or damages, if any, referred to in the Complaint. i] 1] 3. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.wo eon A UU FF WH feb bee ett eae BNRBRPBBLBSeRAABDEBETS SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff failed to mitigate the damages, if any, alleged in the Complaint which plaintiff contends she suffered and is, therefore, barred from any recovery. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintiff suffered damages, which Defendant denies, such injury or damage was not proximately caused by any conduct or inaction of this answering Defendant, or was not foreseeable, or both. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE li. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the injuries and damages complained of by plaintiff, if there were any, were either wholly or in part directly and proximately caused by the negligence of persons or entities other than this answering defendant, and said negligence comparatively reduces the proportion of negligence and corresponding liability of this answering defendant. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. AS AFURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant is informed and believes and based on such information and belief alleges that any and all acts or omissions of this answering defendant were caused by the acts or omissions of a third party or parties, ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the damages of which Plaintiff complains were proximately caused or contributed to by the acts of other Defendants, persons and/or other entities. Such acts were an intervening, supervening and superseding cause of the injuries and damages, if any, of which the Plaintiff complains, thus barring Plaintiff from any 4. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.© woe YAW PF WH wv woe ee ee ee BNRRBRBBEBSGREDVAGBEBHES recovery against this answering Defendant. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14, AS AFURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that prior to, at the time of, and subsequent to the accident mentioned in plaintiff's Complaint, plaintiff had already sustained similar injuries or damages, and such existing injuries or damages the plaintiff had prior to, at the time of, and subsequent to the incident bar or reduce any recovery herein. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that defendant is entitled to, and hereby requests, a separate judgment allocating to it only such damages as are in direct proportion to its percentage of fault, if any. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that it had no knowledge or notice, actual, constructive or otherwise, of the dangerous condition alleged in plaintiff's Complaint and/or had no knowledge or notice of the alieged conditions so as to provide defendant the time reasonably necessary to remedy the condition or to provide reasonable warning. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. AS AFURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that if there was a dangerous or defective condition for which this answering defendant was responsible, the condition was a trivial defect as a matter of law and this answering defendant cannot have any liability arising from the alleged defect. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. AS AFURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that that if there was a dangerous condition for which these answering defendants were responsible, the condition was open and -5- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.Oo oN DM F&F WN DS _ —_ Re ee me BNRRERPEBREBSGREUADEBRES obvious to anyone exercising due care for his/her own safety and no warning of such condition was required, SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19, AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that at all relevant times, that if plaintiff, in fact, sustained any damages or injuries by reason of any alleged acts, omissions or negligence on the part of this answering defendant, such acts, omissions or negligence are passive or secondary in nature, whereas the acts, omissions or negligence of plaintiff and/or others were active and primary in character. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant is informed and believes and based on such information and belief alleges that Plaintiff has received payments or benefits by or from an insurance company or other individuals or entities, or such payments were paid on plaintiff's behalf, in connection with the claims, damages and/or incident alleged herein, and said insurance companies, individuals and/or entities are subrogated to or have subrogated such claims, damages, payments or benefits, by reason of which plaintiff's claims and damages alleged herein are barred. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff is barred from any relief and/or the recovery of any damages under the doctrine of unclean hands, TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22, AS AFURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff unduly delayed the presentation of her claim against this defendant, which delay has created a prejudice to these defendants and by reason of said conduct, plaintiff is barred from any relief and/or the recovery of any damages under the doctrine of laches. it 6- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.COIN DAH BF WN Fee eta BNSRRRPBBEBGSRVABEBHESHS TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23, AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that by reason of the acts, omissions or conduct of plaintiff and/or plaintiffs agents, or by reason of their ratification of the acts, omissions or conduct of others, plaintiff is barred from any relief and/or the recovery of damages under the doctrine of waiver and/or estoppel. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24, AS AFURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that payments were made to or on behalf of the plaintiff by or on behalf of this answering defendant in an amount according to proof. Defendant claims a credit or set off against any verdict or judgment entered against it in the amount of such payments. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that Plaintiff has received payments or benefits by or from an insurance company or other individuals or entities, or such payments were paid on plaintiff's behalf, in connection with the claims, damages and/or incident alleged herein, and said insurance companies, individuals and/or entities are subrogated to or have subrogated such claims, damages, payments or benefits, by reason of which plaintiff's claims and damages alleged herein are barred. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that at all times mentioned herein, plaintiff was in the course and scope of her employment, and that plaintiff's exclusive remedy lies under the provisions of the California Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code §3600 et. seq. Defendant further contends that the actions of Plaintiff's employer and/or said employer’s agents, servants, or employees were the sole proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries. As such, Defendant is entitled to a credit, set-off or reduction in damages for the amount of workers’ compensation “Te J ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.Co ent Dn FS WwW payments made by Plaintiffs employer to Plaintiff, pursuant to Witt v, Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57, 17 Cal.Rptr. 369. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant is informed and believes and based on such information and belief alleges that Plaintiff's recovery for past medical expenses or other economic loss or benefit, if any, is limited to the lesser of the amount paid or the reasonable value of those services or benefits. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant is informed and believes and based on such information and belief alleges that Plaintiff is excluded from recovering any amounts which have been, or will, indemnify plaintiff, for any past or future claimed medical expenses, health care, life care, or other economic loss or benefit that is offered, or provided under or in connection with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 29. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant is informed and believes and based on such information and belief alleges that in the event plaintiff has failed to obtain health insurance coverage available to her, which she is eligible to obtain under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages and cannot recover for such failure. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 30. AS A FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant is informed and believes and based on such information and belief alleges that to the extent plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to avail herself of the resources, service benefits, and coverage available to her under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages and cannot -8- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.recover for such failure. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 31. ASA FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant is informed and believes and based on such information and belief alleges that this answering defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or insufficient information upon which to form a belief as to whether it may have additional, yet un-asserted, affirmative defenses. Defendant therefore reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates it would be appropriate. WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays as follows: 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of Plaintiffs Complaint; 2. For Defendant’s costs of suit incurred herein; and 3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: October 30, 2017 ae SKEBBA, ISAAC, 1S: ft Gp siybenson VICE. Brian C. O’ Hara, Esq./Attomeys for Defendant JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC. /] 9. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.coo wm ID SF WON PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013A(3) C. State of California, County of San Francisco I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. Lam over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is: SKEBBA, ISAAC, BISHOP & HENDERSON, One Montgomery Street, Suite 2550 in San Francisco, CA 94104, telephone (415) 836-2626 and Facsimile (415) 836-3104. On the date entered below, I served the foregoing document described as: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC. On all interested parties in said action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Nikolaus W. Reed LAW OFFICE OF NIKOLAUS REED 135 10th Street San Francisco, CA 94103 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF BY MAIL AS FOLLOWS - I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Francisco, California, in the ordinary course of business. | am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (J BY FAX- Isent a true copy thereof via telephone facsimile transmission to the following number(s): Ol BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to the following address, using the following service or method: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. EXECUTED ON: October 30, 2017 oer lk. Sluofe K. SHINODA. -10- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC.