On November 12, 2020 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Amador, Alma Rosa,
Amador, Alonso,
Amador, Annette,
Amador, Anthony,
Moran, Haydee,
and
Does 2 Through 50,
Kao Logistics, Inc.,
Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc.,
Martin, James Joseph,
for Auto PI/PD/WD Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
‘
31 :
M33IIIWIN:
-\
I7
w‘gi
XL;
BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O’MEARA LLP
Nicole Whyte, State Bar No. 156503
nwhyte@bremerwhyte.com
Rick Peterson, State Bar No. 227466 D
SUPEREOR COURT OF CALIFOF {NIA
rpeterson@bremerwhyte.com COUNTY OF SAN BERNARD! O
Rony Saleh, State Bar No. 336073 SAN BFRNARDIMT‘ D'STR|C
rsaleh@bremerwhyte.com
20320 S.W. Birch Street MAY 2 4 2021
Second Floor
v'-.. a’ x
Newport Beach, California 92660 ,;.-\
\
(”(2)3
Telephone: (949) 22 1 - 1 000 BY figfiflkgz
ELYZ‘ABETH GQM .
E PUTY
Facsimile: (949) 22 1 - 1 001
Attorneys for Defendants,
KAO LOGISTICS, INC, JAMES JOSEPH MARTIN, and
KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS, INC. (DOE 1)
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
12
13 ALMA ROSA AMADOR, individually and as Case No. CIVSB2025762
the Administrator for the Estate of ALONSO
14 AMADOR; HAYDEE MORAN, and Individual; DEFENDANT KEYSTONE
ALONSO AMADOR, an individual; ANNETTE AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS, INC.’S
15 AMADOR, an individual; ANTHONY (DOE l) ANSWER TO THE
AMADOR, an individual” COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS
16
Plaintiff, Complaint November
Filed: 12, 2020
17
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
V.
18
KAO LOGISTICS, INC, a company; JAMES
l9 JOSEPH MARTIN, and individual; DOES 1
through 50, Inclusive. ,
20
Defendant.
21
22
(9
23 COMES NOW Defendant, KEYSONE AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS, INC. (DOE 1)
24 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant”), and answers Plaintiffs
‘1
ALMA ROSA
25 AMADOR, individually and as the Administrator for the Estate of ALONSO AMADOR,
26 HAYDEE MORAN, ALONSO AMADOR, ANNETTE AMADOR and ANTHONY AMADOR’S
27
28
DEFENDANT KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS, INC.’S (DOE l) ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT
OF PLAINTIFFS
1158.031 4815—6819-24901
(hereinafter collectively referred to as “P1aintifi‘s”) Complaint herein and admits, denies, and
alleges as follows:
1. Pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure § 43 1 .30, Defendant denies the allegations of
the Complaint and each cause of action, and each paragraph in each cause of action, and each and
every part thereof, including a denial that Plaintiffs were damaged in the sum or sums alleged, or to
be alleged, or any other sum or sums whatsoever.
2. Defendant further denies that by reason of any act or omission, fault, conduct or
liability on their part, Plaintiffs were injured or damaged in any manner; Defendant further denies
that Defendant acted unlawfully or is liable, whether in the manner alleged or otherwise.
10 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (COMPARATIVE FAULT OF PLAINTIFFS)
12 3. Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and on such information and belief
13 alleges, that the injuries and damages, if any, alleged in the Complaint occuned and were
14 proximately caused by either the sole or the partial negligence of Plaintiffs, which negligence bars
15 0r reduces Plaintiffs’ recovery herein.
16 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 1FAILURE T0 STATE CAUSE OF ACTION!
18 4. Each of Plaintiffs“ causes of action, individually, fails to state facts sufficient to
19 constitute a cause of action against this answering Defendant.
20 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES!
22 5. The right of Plaintiffs to recovery herein, if any right exists, is reduced and limited
23 to the percentage of negligence attributable to this answering Defendant pursuant to Section 143 l .2
24 0f the California Civil Code.
25 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 (COMPARATIVE FAULT OF THIRD PARTIES)
27 6. Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and
28 belief alleges, that the accident and the injuries, if any, allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs were
2
DEFENDANT KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS, INC.’S (DOE 1) ANSWER T0 THE COMPLAINT
OF PLAINTIFFS
1153031 4815-6819-2490.1
Preview
‘ 31 : M33IIIWIN: -\ I7 w‘gi XL; BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O’MEARA LLP Nicole Whyte, State Bar No. 156503 nwhyte@bremerwhyte.com Rick Peterson, State Bar No. 227466 D SUPEREOR COURT OF CALIFOF {NIA rpeterson@bremerwhyte.com COUNTY OF SAN BERNARD! O Rony Saleh, State Bar No. 336073 SAN BFRNARDIMT‘ D'STR|C rsaleh@bremerwhyte.com 20320 S.W. Birch Street MAY 2 4 2021 Second Floor v'-.. a’ x Newport Beach, California 92660 ,;.-\ \ (”(2)3 Telephone: (949) 22 1 - 1 000 BY figfiflkgz ELYZ‘ABETH GQM . E PUTY Facsimile: (949) 22 1 - 1 001 Attorneys for Defendants, KAO LOGISTICS, INC, JAMES JOSEPH MARTIN, and KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS, INC. (DOE 1) 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT 12 13 ALMA ROSA AMADOR, individually and as Case No. CIVSB2025762 the Administrator for the Estate of ALONSO 14 AMADOR; HAYDEE MORAN, and Individual; DEFENDANT KEYSTONE ALONSO AMADOR, an individual; ANNETTE AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS, INC.’S 15 AMADOR, an individual; ANTHONY (DOE l) ANSWER TO THE AMADOR, an individual” COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS 16 Plaintiff, Complaint November Filed: 12, 2020 17 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV V. 18 KAO LOGISTICS, INC, a company; JAMES l9 JOSEPH MARTIN, and individual; DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive. , 20 Defendant. 21 22 (9 23 COMES NOW Defendant, KEYSONE AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS, INC. (DOE 1) 24 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant”), and answers Plaintiffs ‘1 ALMA ROSA 25 AMADOR, individually and as the Administrator for the Estate of ALONSO AMADOR, 26 HAYDEE MORAN, ALONSO AMADOR, ANNETTE AMADOR and ANTHONY AMADOR’S 27 28 DEFENDANT KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS, INC.’S (DOE l) ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS 1158.031 4815—6819-24901 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “P1aintifi‘s”) Complaint herein and admits, denies, and alleges as follows: 1. Pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure § 43 1 .30, Defendant denies the allegations of the Complaint and each cause of action, and each paragraph in each cause of action, and each and every part thereof, including a denial that Plaintiffs were damaged in the sum or sums alleged, or to be alleged, or any other sum or sums whatsoever. 2. Defendant further denies that by reason of any act or omission, fault, conduct or liability on their part, Plaintiffs were injured or damaged in any manner; Defendant further denies that Defendant acted unlawfully or is liable, whether in the manner alleged or otherwise. 10 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (COMPARATIVE FAULT OF PLAINTIFFS) 12 3. Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and on such information and belief 13 alleges, that the injuries and damages, if any, alleged in the Complaint occuned and were 14 proximately caused by either the sole or the partial negligence of Plaintiffs, which negligence bars 15 0r reduces Plaintiffs’ recovery herein. 16 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 1FAILURE T0 STATE CAUSE OF ACTION! 18 4. Each of Plaintiffs“ causes of action, individually, fails to state facts sufficient to 19 constitute a cause of action against this answering Defendant. 20 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES! 22 5. The right of Plaintiffs to recovery herein, if any right exists, is reduced and limited 23 to the percentage of negligence attributable to this answering Defendant pursuant to Section 143 l .2 24 0f the California Civil Code. 25 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (COMPARATIVE FAULT OF THIRD PARTIES) 27 6. Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and upon such information and 28 belief alleges, that the accident and the injuries, if any, allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs were 2 DEFENDANT KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS, INC.’S (DOE 1) ANSWER T0 THE COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS 1153031 4815-6819-2490.1