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
\y V
CASE ATTACHDENT COVER PAGE (ENDORSED)
ELECTRONICALLY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FILED
STREET ADDREss;247 West Third Street
BY SUPERIOR COURT
MAILING ADDRESS:
San Bernardino, CA 92415 OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
CITY AND z|p CODE;
BRANCH NAME:San Bernardino Justice Center San Bernardino
weasnehttp : / /www. sb—court org . 0n Feb 22, 2022
CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
ATTACHMENTNAME: Answer:
Answer of Defendant Semih Cirit
Deputy Clerk: Liliana Marisca/
Novalk, LLC vs. Semih Cirit, et al CASE NUMBER;
CASE NAME:
CIVSB2122277
Please log on to www.TurboCourt.com regularly for updates
Please staple this to your original attachment
Moawnoooqlnw-‘dzw
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.lega|@yahoo.com
CONNOUI-th—K
Attorney for SEMIH CIRIT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, JUSTICE CENTER
NOVALK, LLC, CASE NO. CIVSBZ122277
plaintiff
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT SEMIH CIRIT
’
TO PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED COMPLAINT
VS.
SEMIH CIRIT; FATMA HANDAN CIRIT;
DENIS BARAN CIRIT; SARINA BERNA
SARGENT; C-TECH, INC.; NC QUEEN,
INC; YUN KYUNG; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive.
Defendants
mfiamthAOOmNGtfl#wN—¥O
Defendant SEMIH CIRIT (“Defendant”) for herself alone and no other party, files this
NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA
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
\y V CASE ATTACHDENT COVER PAGE (ENDORSED) ELECTRONICALLY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FILED STREET ADDREss;247 West Third Street BY SUPERIOR COURT MAILING ADDRESS: San Bernardino, CA 92415 OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CITY AND z|p CODE; BRANCH NAME:San Bernardino Justice Center San Bernardino weasnehttp : / /www. sb—court org . 0n Feb 22, 2022 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ATTACHMENTNAME: Answer: Answer of Defendant Semih Cirit Deputy Clerk: Liliana Marisca/ Novalk, LLC vs. Semih Cirit, et al CASE NUMBER; CASE NAME: CIVSB2122277 Please log on to www.TurboCourt.com regularly for updates Please staple this to your original attachment Moawnoooqlnw-‘dzw 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.lega|@yahoo.com CONNOUI-th—K Attorney for SEMIH CIRIT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, JUSTICE CENTER NOVALK, LLC, CASE NO. CIVSBZ122277 plaintiff ANSWER OF DEFENDANT SEMIH CIRIT ’ TO PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED COMPLAINT VS. SEMIH CIRIT; FATMA HANDAN CIRIT; DENIS BARAN CIRIT; SARINA BERNA SARGENT; C-TECH, INC.; NC QUEEN, INC; YUN KYUNG; and DOES 1-100, inclusive. Defendants mfiamthAOOmNGtfl#wN—¥O Defendant SEMIH CIRIT (“Defendant”) for herself alone and no other party, files this NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA 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.