On March 14, 2023 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Huh, Sung Kyoo,
and
Does 1 Through 20, Inclusive,
Hyundai Motor America,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
F L E
l
SUPERIOR COURT
-
.
COUNTY 0F SAN OFPALIFORNIA
BER
Soheyl Tahsnldoost (Ba! N0. 271294) SAN BER NARD'NO NARDINO
THETA LAW FIRM, LLP DISTRICT
12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1070
L05 Angeles, CA 90025
AUG 02 2023
Telephone: (424) 297-3103
Facsimile: (424) 286-2244
eservicegtDthetaflrm .Com BY:
Bflinna/JohrgarDeputy
Attorneys for Defendant Hyundai Motor America
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SUNG KYOO HUH, an individual, Case N0.: CIVSBZ302135
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
v. COMPLAINT
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a Dept; $27
DOES
California Corporation; and 1
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Judge: Hon. Thomas S Garza
through 20, inclusive,
Defendants. Complaint Filed: March 14, 2023
Trial Date: None
A(
._____~_‘
Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“Defendant”) hereby answers the unverified
Complaint 0n file against it as follows:
GENERAL DENIAL
Under Code ofCivil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant denies, generally and
specifically, all 0fthe allegations contained in the Complaint and specifically denies that it
caused 0r contributed t0 any alleged damages. Defendant further denies that Plaintiffhas been 0r
24 will be damaged in any sum 0r sums, either as alleged, otherwise, 0r at all.
25 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
26 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 (Failure t0 State a Legal Claim)
28 The allegations in the COmplaint. both individually and collectively, fail t0 state facts
l
7
7
binnixllxrvlr‘ m'l'XIMI xm‘i‘dR AMERICA'S ASS‘QER :m PLXNI‘II51”srrt‘biilfifiiryr
sufficient t0 constitute a cause ofaction against Defendant. Moreover, the Complaint is vague.
ambiguous, and unintelligible and Plaintiffis therefore barred from recovery.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Breach 0f Condition Precedent)
Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the improper conduct 0f
Plaintiff and other parties, as well as the failure t0 give written or other notice as required under
the applicable statutes, constituted a breach of conditions precedent t0 any right 0r theory 0f
recovery against Defendant which might otherwise apply.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Mitigation)
Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff‘s failure to exercise
reasonable care in caring for any injury, damage or loss, preventing the aggravation thereof. 0r t0
reduce or mitigate Plaintiff’s alleged damages, ifany, are the result, in whole 0r in pan. 0f
Plaintiff‘s failure t0 exercise reasonable care t0 reduce 0r mitigate Plaintiff‘s damages.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Contributory Negligence)
Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffis barred from
recovering any legal and/or equitable relief against Defendant due in part or whole Io Plaintiffs
contributory negligence.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Negligence)
22 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffis barred from
23 recovering any legal and/or equitable relief against Defendant due in part 0r whole 10 Plaintiff‘s
24 comparative negligence and/or fault.
25 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 (Apportionment)
27 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that superseding. intervening acts
28 0r omissions ofpersons 0r entities other than the Defendant proximately and/or legally caused
2
I)l‘:lrl:.\'l)?\r.r\*ri:
Iii i3717);;I'fiifi‘briilulI~:Ri(i\;§:if\i§§\r+:R T0 PLAIN'I‘Ill‘II's (‘meux’r
Document Filed Date
August 02, 2023
Case Filing Date
March 14, 2023
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
F L E l SUPERIOR COURT - . COUNTY 0F SAN OFPALIFORNIA BER Soheyl Tahsnldoost (Ba! N0. 271294) SAN BER NARD'NO NARDINO THETA LAW FIRM, LLP DISTRICT 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1070 L05 Angeles, CA 90025 AUG 02 2023 Telephone: (424) 297-3103 Facsimile: (424) 286-2244 eservicegtDthetaflrm .Com BY: Bflinna/JohrgarDeputy Attorneys for Defendant Hyundai Motor America SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SUNG KYOO HUH, an individual, Case N0.: CIVSBZ302135 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S v. COMPLAINT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a Dept; $27 DOES California Corporation; and 1 vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Judge: Hon. Thomas S Garza through 20, inclusive, Defendants. Complaint Filed: March 14, 2023 Trial Date: None A( ._____~_‘ Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“Defendant”) hereby answers the unverified Complaint 0n file against it as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Under Code ofCivil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant denies, generally and specifically, all 0fthe allegations contained in the Complaint and specifically denies that it caused 0r contributed t0 any alleged damages. Defendant further denies that Plaintiffhas been 0r 24 will be damaged in any sum 0r sums, either as alleged, otherwise, 0r at all. 25 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 26 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 (Failure t0 State a Legal Claim) 28 The allegations in the COmplaint. both individually and collectively, fail t0 state facts l 7 7 binnixllxrvlr‘ m'l'XIMI xm‘i‘dR AMERICA'S ASS‘QER :m PLXNI‘II51”srrt‘biilfifiiryr sufficient t0 constitute a cause ofaction against Defendant. Moreover, the Complaint is vague. ambiguous, and unintelligible and Plaintiffis therefore barred from recovery. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Breach 0f Condition Precedent) Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the improper conduct 0f Plaintiff and other parties, as well as the failure t0 give written or other notice as required under the applicable statutes, constituted a breach of conditions precedent t0 any right 0r theory 0f recovery against Defendant which might otherwise apply. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Mitigation) Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff‘s failure to exercise reasonable care in caring for any injury, damage or loss, preventing the aggravation thereof. 0r t0 reduce or mitigate Plaintiff’s alleged damages, ifany, are the result, in whole 0r in pan. 0f Plaintiff‘s failure t0 exercise reasonable care t0 reduce 0r mitigate Plaintiff‘s damages. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Contributory Negligence) Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffis barred from recovering any legal and/or equitable relief against Defendant due in part or whole Io Plaintiffs contributory negligence. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Negligence) 22 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffis barred from 23 recovering any legal and/or equitable relief against Defendant due in part 0r whole 10 Plaintiff‘s 24 comparative negligence and/or fault. 25 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (Apportionment) 27 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that superseding. intervening acts 28 0r omissions ofpersons 0r entities other than the Defendant proximately and/or legally caused 2 I)l‘:lrl:.\'l)?\r.r\*ri: Iii i3717);;I'fiifi‘briilulI~:Ri(i\;§:if\i§§\r+:R T0 PLAIN'I‘Ill‘II's (‘meux’r