On March 29, 2019 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bell Motors Llc,
Metrogisticsllc,
Hernandez, Mayra,
Lopez, Francisco Escalera,
and
Alcala, David,
Bell Motors Llc,
Carmax Auto Superstores California, Llc A Business Entity Form Unknown,
Carmax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. A Business Entity Form Unknown,
Melchor Autotransport, Inc.,
Melchor, Victor,
Metrogistics Llc,
for PI Motor Vehicle
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
4 D
D
RIGINAL
1 PARKER STANBURY LLP
444 South Flower Street
2 19th Floor
L03 Al1ge 8S CA 90071 SUPEP IOR CJJr2T Q CALIFORNiA
A iNO
C1
3 213 622 5124 COUNTY
r
R RtcY
AN t
213 622 4858 Fax
4 JOHN D BARRETT JR SBN 70079 AUG 2 2019
5 Attorneys for Defendant
BY
METROGISTICS LLC v k
6 Sued and served as DOE 2
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1Q
11 FRANCISCO ESCALERA LOPEZ an CASE NO CIV DS 1909599
individual MAYRA HERNANDEZ an
12 individual and FRANCISC4 ESCALERA ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
HERNANDEZ through COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR
a minor
by and
13 Guardian Ad Litem MAYRA HERNANDEZ JURY TRIAL
14 Plaintiffs Filed Concurrently with
Cross Complaint
15 vs
16 DAVID ALCALA an individual MELCHOR Assigned for All Purposes to the Honorable
AUTO TRANSPORT INC a business entry Judge John M Pacheco Department S 31
1 form unknown CARMAX AUTO
SUPERSTORES WEST COAST INC a Complaint Filed March 29 2019
18 business entity form unknown CARMAX Trial Date None
AUTO SUPERSTORES CALIFORNIA LLC
19 abusiness entity form unknown and DOES 1 1
C L
100 inclusive 4
20
Defendants
21
22 Defendant METROGISTIC LLC sued and served as DOE 2 hereby answers the First
23 Amended Complaint on file herein for itself alone and for no other person firm corporation or
24
other entity as follows
25
26 GENERAL DENIAL
2 1 Under the provisions of ode o Cavil I r e tiur e 431 30 d this answering
28
Defendant a denies generally and specifically each and every allegation of each and every
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
VS ALCALA METR0458 26431 PLD ANS 1 ST AMD CP 8 26 2019 doc
os fs 01 data Leea1 SecretariesURMA CLIENT BARRETT LOPEZ
1 paragraph and b particularly denies that by reason ofanything done or permitted to be done by
2
said Defendant Plaintiffs were injured or damaged as set forth in the Complaint or in any way
3
sum manner or at all
4
5
FIRST A FFIR3 TIVE DEFENSE
6
Failure to State Cause of Action
g
2 The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for
9 damages against this answering Defendant and omits facts which if stated would bar any
10
p ported right to recovery including but not limited to the narrow scope of this Defendant s
11
tenuous and technical involvement in a business transaction which a had and has no
very
12
legally or factually cognizable connection to the occurrence of the accident alleged by plaintiffs
13
and b which by contract by controlling law and regulatory provisions by logic custom
14
15
Practice industry standards common sense and equity does not subject it to liability on the known
16
d operative facts The case involves a traffic collision that occurred when a different Defendant s
17 tractor trailer was being operated by a properly licensed and experienced driver employed by that
18
Defendant and this answering Defendant had no duty or power by contract by controlling law
19
d regulatory provisions by logic custom practice industry standards common sense and
20
equity to direct or control the other Defendant s tractor trailer or employee driver
21
22
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23
Conduct of Others
24
25 3 If any Plaintiff was injured or damaged it was due to the negligence intentional
26 individuals or entities other than this answering Defendant Any
conduct fault or strict liability of
2
liability must be apportioned
28
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Ser mtAries IRMA CI iF NT RARRETT LOPEZ VS ALCALA METR0458 26431 PLD ANS 1ST AMD CP 8 26 2019 doc
nc fc 11 ria aP f P oal
Document Filed Date
August 26, 2019
Case Filing Date
March 29, 2019
Category
PI Motor Vehicle
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
4 D D RIGINAL 1 PARKER STANBURY LLP 444 South Flower Street 2 19th Floor L03 Al1ge 8S CA 90071 SUPEP IOR CJJr2T Q CALIFORNiA A iNO C1 3 213 622 5124 COUNTY r R RtcY AN t 213 622 4858 Fax 4 JOHN D BARRETT JR SBN 70079 AUG 2 2019 5 Attorneys for Defendant BY METROGISTICS LLC v k 6 Sued and served as DOE 2 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 1Q 11 FRANCISCO ESCALERA LOPEZ an CASE NO CIV DS 1909599 individual MAYRA HERNANDEZ an 12 individual and FRANCISC4 ESCALERA ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED HERNANDEZ through COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR a minor by and 13 Guardian Ad Litem MAYRA HERNANDEZ JURY TRIAL 14 Plaintiffs Filed Concurrently with Cross Complaint 15 vs 16 DAVID ALCALA an individual MELCHOR Assigned for All Purposes to the Honorable AUTO TRANSPORT INC a business entry Judge John M Pacheco Department S 31 1 form unknown CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES WEST COAST INC a Complaint Filed March 29 2019 18 business entity form unknown CARMAX Trial Date None AUTO SUPERSTORES CALIFORNIA LLC 19 abusiness entity form unknown and DOES 1 1 C L 100 inclusive 4 20 Defendants 21 22 Defendant METROGISTIC LLC sued and served as DOE 2 hereby answers the First 23 Amended Complaint on file herein for itself alone and for no other person firm corporation or 24 other entity as follows 25 26 GENERAL DENIAL 2 1 Under the provisions of ode o Cavil I r e tiur e 431 30 d this answering 28 Defendant a denies generally and specifically each and every allegation of each and every ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL VS ALCALA METR0458 26431 PLD ANS 1 ST AMD CP 8 26 2019 doc os fs 01 data Leea1 SecretariesURMA CLIENT BARRETT LOPEZ 1 paragraph and b particularly denies that by reason ofanything done or permitted to be done by 2 said Defendant Plaintiffs were injured or damaged as set forth in the Complaint or in any way 3 sum manner or at all 4 5 FIRST A FFIR3 TIVE DEFENSE 6 Failure to State Cause of Action g 2 The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for 9 damages against this answering Defendant and omits facts which if stated would bar any 10 p ported right to recovery including but not limited to the narrow scope of this Defendant s 11 tenuous and technical involvement in a business transaction which a had and has no very 12 legally or factually cognizable connection to the occurrence of the accident alleged by plaintiffs 13 and b which by contract by controlling law and regulatory provisions by logic custom 14 15 Practice industry standards common sense and equity does not subject it to liability on the known 16 d operative facts The case involves a traffic collision that occurred when a different Defendant s 17 tractor trailer was being operated by a properly licensed and experienced driver employed by that 18 Defendant and this answering Defendant had no duty or power by contract by controlling law 19 d regulatory provisions by logic custom practice industry standards common sense and 20 equity to direct or control the other Defendant s tractor trailer or employee driver 21 22 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 Conduct of Others 24 25 3 If any Plaintiff was injured or damaged it was due to the negligence intentional 26 individuals or entities other than this answering Defendant Any conduct fault or strict liability of 2 liability must be apportioned 28 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Ser mtAries IRMA CI iF NT RARRETT LOPEZ VS ALCALA METR0458 26431 PLD ANS 1ST AMD CP 8 26 2019 doc nc fc 11 ria aP f P oal