On September 07, 2021 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Novalk, Llc,
and
Cirit, Denis Baran,
Cirit, Fatma Handan,
Cirit, Semih,
C-Tech, Inc,
Does 1-100,
Kim, Yun Kyung,
Kyung, Yun,
Nc Queen, Inc.,
Sargent, Sarina Berna,
for Other Real Property Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
\a
CASE ATTACHbENT COVER PAGE (ENDORSED)
ELECTRONICALLY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FILED
STREET ADDRess;247 West Third Street
MAILING ADDREss;
BY SUPERIOR COURT
CITY AND ZIP cone; San Bernardino, CA 92415 OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
BRANCH NAME:San Bernardino Justice Center San Bernardino
WEBSITEzhttp //www.
: sb-court org . on Feb 22, 2022
CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
ATTACHMENT NAME: Answer: Answer of Defendant NC Queen, Inc
Deputy Clem: Liliana Marisca/
CASE NAME: Novalk,
LLC vs. Semih Cirit, et al CASE NUMBER:
CIVSB2122277
Please log on to www.TurboCourt.com regularly for updates
Please staple this to your original attachment
Moounoocqma/flduu
Edward S. Wallace (SBN 134973)
LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD S. WALLACE
31371 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 202
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Telephone: (949) 476-0668
Facsimile: (949) 743-5837
E-Mail: ewallace.legal@yahoo.com
(DQNGUIAQ’NA
Attorney for Defendant NC QUEEN, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, JUSTICE CENTER
NOVALK, LLC, CASE NO. CIVSBZ122277
Plaintiff
ANSWER 0F DEFENDANT NC QUEEN,
’
To PLAINTIFFs’ VERIFIED
INC.
COMPLAINT
vs.
SEMIH FATMA HANDAN CIRIT;
CIRIT;
DENIS BARAN CIRIT; SARINA BERNA
SARGENT; C-TECH, INC.; NC QUEEN,
INC.; YUN KYUNG; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive.
Defendants
Defendant NC QUEEN, INC. (“Defendant”) for itselfa|one and no other party, files this
NNNNNMNNNAAAAAAAAAA
QNOSCH¥wNAOt0mNO§UIthAO
Answer to the Verified Complaint filed by Plaintiff NOVALK, LLC as follows:
1. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint
constitute legal arguments or legal conclusions, no answer is required.
2. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny.
3. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint
constitute legal arguments or legal conclusions, no answer is required.
4. Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint.
5. Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint.
Document Filed Date
February 22, 2022
Case Filing Date
September 07, 2021
Category
Other Real Property Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
\a CASE ATTACHbENT COVER PAGE (ENDORSED) ELECTRONICALLY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FILED STREET ADDRess;247 West Third Street MAILING ADDREss; BY SUPERIOR COURT CITY AND ZIP cone; San Bernardino, CA 92415 OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BRANCH NAME:San Bernardino Justice Center San Bernardino WEBSITEzhttp //www. : sb-court org . on Feb 22, 2022 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ATTACHMENT NAME: Answer: Answer of Defendant NC Queen, Inc Deputy Clem: Liliana Marisca/ CASE NAME: Novalk, LLC vs. Semih Cirit, et al CASE NUMBER: CIVSB2122277 Please log on to www.TurboCourt.com regularly for updates Please staple this to your original attachment Moounoocqma/flduu Edward S. Wallace (SBN 134973) LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD S. WALLACE 31371 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 202 San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Telephone: (949) 476-0668 Facsimile: (949) 743-5837 E-Mail: ewallace.legal@yahoo.com (DQNGUIAQ’NA Attorney for Defendant NC QUEEN, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, JUSTICE CENTER NOVALK, LLC, CASE NO. CIVSBZ122277 Plaintiff ANSWER 0F DEFENDANT NC QUEEN, ’ To PLAINTIFFs’ VERIFIED INC. COMPLAINT vs. SEMIH FATMA HANDAN CIRIT; CIRIT; DENIS BARAN CIRIT; SARINA BERNA SARGENT; C-TECH, INC.; NC QUEEN, INC.; YUN KYUNG; and DOES 1-100, inclusive. Defendants Defendant NC QUEEN, INC. (“Defendant”) for itselfa|one and no other party, files this NNNNNMNNNAAAAAAAAAA QNOSCH¥wNAOt0mNO§UIthAO Answer to the Verified Complaint filed by Plaintiff NOVALK, LLC as follows: 1. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint constitute legal arguments or legal conclusions, no answer is required. 2. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny. 3. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint constitute legal arguments or legal conclusions, no answer is required. 4. Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint. 5. Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint.