On January 24, 2020 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Williams, Barbara,
and
Maldonado, Mariclare,
Wilson, Troy,
for Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Timothy P. McDonald, Esq., Bar No. 126076
FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR s F
One World Trade Center
ggifigfgolufir OEF D
SAN
BsqufingBERflgB95mA
O
Twenty-Seventh Floor D’STRICTO
Long Beach, California 90831—2700 DEC 1 4 202,
(562) 983-2500
BY
*
<94 N
KDOOQQU‘IAUJNH
Attorneys for Defendant, JESSIC
TROY WILSON JOAN’S:
DEPu
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
BARBARA WILLIAMS, Case No. CIVD82002655
Plaintiff, JUDGE BRIAN s. MC CARVILLE
DEPT. S30
vs.
VVVVVVVVVVV
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
TROY WILSON; MARICLARE MALDONADO; COMPLAINT
and DOES TO 100,
1
Defendants.
NNNNNNNNNr—‘Hr—‘Ht—‘t—‘r—Ht—Ir—
OOQQMAWNHO©OOQONUIAWNHO
COMES NOW Defendant, TROY WILSON, and answering the unverified First Amended
Complaint, admits, denies and alleges:
1. Under the provisions of Section 43 1 .30(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure ofthe State 0f
California, this Defendant denies generally and specifically each, every and all 0f the allegations
contained in said unverified First Amended Complaint, and the whole thereof, and denies that Plaintiff
was injured and damaged as alleged, or at all.
FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
2. That the acts 0f Plaintiff were negligent and were a legal cause 0f the injuries
and
damages, if any, which she claims t0 have sustained as a result 0f the accident.
1
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
H
FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIV
E DEFENSE
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
3. That Plaintiff is barred from recovery herein
by reason of her own voluntary assumption 0f
risk in that each and all ofthe matters; conditions, acts and omissions of
which Plaintiff complains was full
known to Plaintiff and the risk and danger, if any, were voluntarily assumed by her.
\DOOQQU1#UJN
FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFE
NSE
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
4. That if Plaintiff, BARBARA WILLIAMS was not insured as required by the financial
responsibility laws of California, Plaintiffs
recovery herein, if any, shall not include non-economic
losses pursuant to the provisions of California Civil Code § 3333.4.
FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
5. Defendant is informed and believes that the First Amended Complaint, and each and
every cause 0f action contained therein, is barred by applicable statutes of limitation, includi
ng, but not
limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1.
FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
Defendant places
NNNNNNNNNv—Ir—Av—v—AHHV—‘Hy—ag
6. in issue the negligence 0r other tortious conduct of all persons, firms 0r
OOQGMhWNWO©0°flONMJ>WNHO
entities which caused 0r contributed in any degree t0 the happening of the incident
as alleged in the First
Amended Complaint and to the injuries if any, and the damages, if any, suffered by Plaintiff as a result
of said incident.
FOR A SIXTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
,
7. That the First Amended Complaint, and each and every cause of action contained
therein,
fails t0 set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause 0f action against this answer
ing Defendant.
///
///
///
///
2
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Document Filed Date
December 14, 2021
Case Filing Date
January 24, 2020
Category
Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Timothy P. McDonald, Esq., Bar No. 126076 FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR s F One World Trade Center ggifigfgolufir OEF D SAN BsqufingBERflgB95mA O Twenty-Seventh Floor D’STRICTO Long Beach, California 90831—2700 DEC 1 4 202, (562) 983-2500 BY * <94 N KDOOQQU‘IAUJNH Attorneys for Defendant, JESSIC TROY WILSON JOAN’S: DEPu SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO BARBARA WILLIAMS, Case No. CIVD82002655 Plaintiff, JUDGE BRIAN s. MC CARVILLE DEPT. S30 vs. VVVVVVVVVVV ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED TROY WILSON; MARICLARE MALDONADO; COMPLAINT and DOES TO 100, 1 Defendants. NNNNNNNNNr—‘Hr—‘Ht—‘t—‘r—Ht—Ir— OOQQMAWNHO©OOQONUIAWNHO COMES NOW Defendant, TROY WILSON, and answering the unverified First Amended Complaint, admits, denies and alleges: 1. Under the provisions of Section 43 1 .30(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure ofthe State 0f California, this Defendant denies generally and specifically each, every and all 0f the allegations contained in said unverified First Amended Complaint, and the whole thereof, and denies that Plaintiff was injured and damaged as alleged, or at all. FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DEFENDANT ALLEGES: 2. That the acts 0f Plaintiff were negligent and were a legal cause 0f the injuries and damages, if any, which she claims t0 have sustained as a result 0f the accident. 1 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT H FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE DEFENDANT ALLEGES: 3. That Plaintiff is barred from recovery herein by reason of her own voluntary assumption 0f risk in that each and all ofthe matters; conditions, acts and omissions of which Plaintiff complains was full known to Plaintiff and the risk and danger, if any, were voluntarily assumed by her. \DOOQQU1#UJN FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFE NSE DEFENDANT ALLEGES: 4. That if Plaintiff, BARBARA WILLIAMS was not insured as required by the financial responsibility laws of California, Plaintiffs recovery herein, if any, shall not include non-economic losses pursuant to the provisions of California Civil Code § 3333.4. FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DEFENDANT ALLEGES: 5. Defendant is informed and believes that the First Amended Complaint, and each and every cause 0f action contained therein, is barred by applicable statutes of limitation, includi ng, but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DEFENDANT ALLEGES: Defendant places NNNNNNNNNv—Ir—Av—v—AHHV—‘Hy—ag 6. in issue the negligence 0r other tortious conduct of all persons, firms 0r OOQGMhWNWO©0°flONMJ>WNHO entities which caused 0r contributed in any degree t0 the happening of the incident as alleged in the First Amended Complaint and to the injuries if any, and the damages, if any, suffered by Plaintiff as a result of said incident. FOR A SIXTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE , 7. That the First Amended Complaint, and each and every cause of action contained therein, fails t0 set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause 0f action against this answer ing Defendant. /// /// /// /// 2 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT