Preview
Napoleon G. Tercero, III, Esq. (SBN 140314)
1
LAW OFFICES OF BETH M. HENDERSON
2 Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 64093, St. Paul, MN 55164-0093
3 Physical Address:
655 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800, Glendale, CA 91203
4
Main (818) 502-6477; Fax (855) 245-0794
5 Direct (818) 502-3092 E-mail: ntercero@travelers.com
Attorneys for Defendants, CATHERINE SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS CATHERINE
6 SENNING) AND RANDOLPH SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS RANDOLPH
SENNING)
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN – BAKERSFIELD COURT
10
11 THOMAS MOORE, AN INDIVIDUAL, Case No.: BCV-23-103295-BCB
12 Plaintiff, CATHERINE SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY
vs. SUED AS CATHERINE SENNING) AND
13 RANDOLPH SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY
14 ELIZABETH RENEE NASH, AN SUED AS RANDOLPH SENNING)’S ANSWER
INDIVIDUAL; REBECCA NASH, AN TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND
15 INDIVIDUAL; RICKI NASH, AN DEMAND FOR JURY
INDIVIDUAL; CATHERINE SENNING, AN
16 INDIVIDUAL; RANDOLPH SENNING, AN
17 INDIVIDUAL; DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Assigned to Judge Bernard C. Barmann, Jr.,
INCLUSIVE, Dept. H
18 Complaint Filed: October 3, 2023
Defendants. Trial Date: None Set
19
20
21
22 COMES NOW Defendants, CATHERINE SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS
23 CATHERINE SENNING) AND RANDOLPH SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS RANDOLPH
24 SENNING), and for themselves alone for no other person, firm or corporation, and answers the
25
Complaint as follows:
26
27 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, §431.30, these answering defendants both generally and
28 specifically deny each and every allegation and each and every part of each and every allegation
1
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 contained in the Complaint and the whole thereof and further deny that plaintiff has been damaged in
2 the sum or sums alleged or in any other sum or sums at all.
3 AS A FIRST AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
4 (Comparative Negligence)
5 Defendants assert that at or about the time, date and place alleged in the Complaint, plaintiff and
6 other persons or parties failed to exercise ordinary care, and such failure was a contributing cause of the
7 accident and/or injuries allegedly sustained in said accident; plaintiff’s negligence acts as a bar or to
8 reduce recovery in relation to his percentage of fault. Other parties' negligence acts to reduce recovery
9 as to non-economic damages due from these answering defendants in relation to its fault.
10 AS A SECOND AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
11 (Failure to State Cause of Action)
12 Defendants assert that the plaintiff’s complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
13 of action against defendants.
14 AS A THIRD AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
15 (No Breach of Duty)
16 Defendants assert that each and every purported cause of action contained in the Complaint is
17 barred because defendants did not breach any duty to plaintiff.
18 AS A FOURTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
19 (No Duty)
20 Defendants did not owe any duty to plaintiff to perform the acts alleged in the Complaint.
21 AS A FIFTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
22 (Intervening and Superseding Cause)
23 Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were legally caused and contributed to by the negligence of other
24 persons and/or entities, and such negligence was an intervening and superseding cause of plaintiffs’
25 damages, if any.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 AS A SIXTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
2 (Statute of Limitations)
3 Defendants assert that some or all of the purported claims and causes of action in the Complaint
4 against defendants is barred, in whole or in part, by any applicable statute of limitations, including, but
5 not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 337, 338, 339, 340.6, and 343.
6 AS A SEVENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
7 (Indemnification and Contribution)
8 Defendants assert that if it is established that defendant is in any manner legally responsible for
9 any of the damages claimed by plaintiff in any of the causes of action in the Complaint, such damages
10 were proximately caused by other persons or entities over whom defendant had no control and
11 defendants are entitled to indemnity or contribution from these other parties.
12 AS AN EIGHTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
13 (Set Off)
14 Defendants assert that if it is established that defendants are in any manner legally responsible
15 for any of the damages claimed by plaintiff in any of the causes of action in her/his Complaint,
16 defendants are entitled to a setoff of these damages with the damages that result from the wrongful acts
17 of plaintiff and/or others.
18 AS A NINTH AND SEPARATE FFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
19 (Comparative Fault)
20 Defendants assert that any loss, injury, or damage alleged in the Complaint was directly or
21 proximately caused and contributed to by the actions of other persons other than defendant, including,
22 but not limited to, plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff’s recovery against defendant, if any, should be reduced
23 in proportion to the percentage of responsibility attributable to persons other than defendants.
24 AS A TENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
25 (Failure to Mitigate)
26 Defendants assert that plaintiff’s damages, if any, have been aggravated as a result of the failure
27 of the plaintiff to exercise reasonable diligence in mitigating the alleged losses and damages.
28 Defendants’ liability, if any, must therefore be limited to the amount of damage that would have been
3
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 suffered, if any, had plaintiff and the agents, employees, and representatives exercised the diligence
2 required of them.
3 AS AN ELEVENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
4 (Breach of Duty by Third Parties)
5 Defendants assert that each and every purported cause of action contained in the Complaint is
6 barred because the breach of duty, if any, was by third parties.
7 AS A TWELFTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
8 (Assumption of Risk)
9 Plaintiff voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the matters referred to in said Complaint,
10 assumed any and all of the risks, hazards, and perils of the circumstances referred to in said Complaint
11 and therefore assumed the risks of any injuries or damages sustained by said plaintiff, if any at all.
12 AS A THIRTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
13 (No Proximate Cause or Legal Causation)
14 Defendants assert that injuries and damages, if any, alleged in the Complaint were not
15 proximately or legally caused, in whole or in part, by any act or omission of defendants.
16 AS A FOURTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
17 (Contributory Negligence)
18 Defendants assert that each and every purported cause of action contained in the Complaint is
19 barred because the alleged losses sustained by plaintiff was either wholly or in part negligently caused
20 by persons, firms, corporations or entities other than defendants, and said negligence is either imputed to
21 plaintiff by reason of the relationship of said parties to plaintiff and/or said negligence comparatively
22 reduces the percentage of negligence, if any, by defendants.
23 AS A FIFTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
24 (No Damages)
25 Defendants assert that some or all of the purported claims and causes of action in the Complaint
26 against defendants are barred, in whole or in part, because plaintiff has sustained no damages.
27 ///
28 ///
4
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 AS A SIXTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
2 (Defendants Were Not a Substantial Factor in Bringing About Plaintiff's Alleged Injuries)
3 Defendants assert that they were not a substantial factor in bringing about the damages or
4 injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff.
5 AS A SEVENTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
6 (Reservation of Rights)
7 Defendants expressly and specifically reserve the right to amend this Answer to add, delete,
8 and/or modify affirmative defenses based upon legal theories, facts, and circumstances that may or will
9 be divulged through discovery and/or further investigation or legal analysis of plaintiff’s position in this
10 litigation.
11 WHEREFORE, having fully answered the unverified Complaint on file, this answering
12 defendants pray that plaintiff take nothing by virtue of said Complaint, that plaintiff’s recovery against
13 defendants be reduced by the percentage of fault attributable to plaintiff, that defendant has costs of suit
14 herein incurred, together with such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
15
DEMAND FOR JURY
16
17 These defendants hereby request a jury trial in this matter.
18
19 DATED: February 14, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF BETH M. HENDERSON
20
__________________________________________
21
Napoleon G. Tercero, III, Esq., Attorneys for Defendants,
22 CATHERINE SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS
CATHERINE SENNING) AND RANDOLPH SENINING
23 (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS RANDOLPH SENNING)
24
25
26
27
28
5
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action; my business address is: 21680 Gateway Center Drive, Suite 100,
4 Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
5
On February 14, 2024, I served the foregoing document described as:
6
CATHERINE SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS CATHERINE SENNING) AND
7 RANDOLPH SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS RANDOLPH SENNING)’S ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
8
9 on all interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope
addressed as follows:
10
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
11
12 I am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for
mailing. It is deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of
13 business. I am aware that on motion of parties served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation
date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [CCP
14
§1013a]
15
BY MAIL: I caused such envelopes with postage thereon fully prepaid, to be placed in the
16 United States mail at Diamond Bar, California.
17 ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Pursuant to CCP §1010.6(C)(2) and California
Rules of Court, Rule 2.250, I caused such documents to be served electronically at the e-mail
18 addresses stated on the attached service list. Such e-mail transmissions were complete with no
errors reported.
19
20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
21 true and correct.
22 Executed on February 14, 2024, at Diamond Bar, California.
23
___________________________________
24 Sarah Richardson
(858) 616-6165
25
26
27
28
6
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
SERVICE LIST
1
2 Moore, Thomas v. Nash, Elizabeth et al.
3 Case No.: BCV-23-103295-BCB
4
5
Alivia Abreu, Esq.
6 Patricia Mamac, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
7
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
8 Los Angeles CA 90010
(213) 381-9988; FAX (213) 381-9989
9 nancydelgadillosotosteam@wilshirelawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff; THOMAS MOORE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Preview
Napoleon G. Tercero, III, Esq. (SBN 140314) 1 LAW OFFICES OF BETH M. HENDERSON 2 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 64093, St. Paul, MN 55164-0093 3 Physical Address: 655 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800, Glendale, CA 91203 4 Main (818) 502-6477; Fax (855) 245-0794 5 Direct (818) 502-3092 E-mail: ntercero@travelers.com Attorneys for Defendants, CATHERINE SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS CATHERINE 6 SENNING) AND RANDOLPH SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS RANDOLPH SENNING) 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN – BAKERSFIELD COURT 10 11 THOMAS MOORE, AN INDIVIDUAL, Case No.: BCV-23-103295-BCB 12 Plaintiff, CATHERINE SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY vs. SUED AS CATHERINE SENNING) AND 13 RANDOLPH SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY 14 ELIZABETH RENEE NASH, AN SUED AS RANDOLPH SENNING)’S ANSWER INDIVIDUAL; REBECCA NASH, AN TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND 15 INDIVIDUAL; RICKI NASH, AN DEMAND FOR JURY INDIVIDUAL; CATHERINE SENNING, AN 16 INDIVIDUAL; RANDOLPH SENNING, AN 17 INDIVIDUAL; DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Assigned to Judge Bernard C. Barmann, Jr., INCLUSIVE, Dept. H 18 Complaint Filed: October 3, 2023 Defendants. Trial Date: None Set 19 20 21 22 COMES NOW Defendants, CATHERINE SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS 23 CATHERINE SENNING) AND RANDOLPH SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS RANDOLPH 24 SENNING), and for themselves alone for no other person, firm or corporation, and answers the 25 Complaint as follows: 26 27 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, §431.30, these answering defendants both generally and 28 specifically deny each and every allegation and each and every part of each and every allegation 1 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 contained in the Complaint and the whole thereof and further deny that plaintiff has been damaged in 2 the sum or sums alleged or in any other sum or sums at all. 3 AS A FIRST AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 4 (Comparative Negligence) 5 Defendants assert that at or about the time, date and place alleged in the Complaint, plaintiff and 6 other persons or parties failed to exercise ordinary care, and such failure was a contributing cause of the 7 accident and/or injuries allegedly sustained in said accident; plaintiff’s negligence acts as a bar or to 8 reduce recovery in relation to his percentage of fault. Other parties' negligence acts to reduce recovery 9 as to non-economic damages due from these answering defendants in relation to its fault. 10 AS A SECOND AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 11 (Failure to State Cause of Action) 12 Defendants assert that the plaintiff’s complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause 13 of action against defendants. 14 AS A THIRD AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 15 (No Breach of Duty) 16 Defendants assert that each and every purported cause of action contained in the Complaint is 17 barred because defendants did not breach any duty to plaintiff. 18 AS A FOURTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 19 (No Duty) 20 Defendants did not owe any duty to plaintiff to perform the acts alleged in the Complaint. 21 AS A FIFTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 22 (Intervening and Superseding Cause) 23 Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were legally caused and contributed to by the negligence of other 24 persons and/or entities, and such negligence was an intervening and superseding cause of plaintiffs’ 25 damages, if any. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 AS A SIXTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 2 (Statute of Limitations) 3 Defendants assert that some or all of the purported claims and causes of action in the Complaint 4 against defendants is barred, in whole or in part, by any applicable statute of limitations, including, but 5 not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 337, 338, 339, 340.6, and 343. 6 AS A SEVENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 7 (Indemnification and Contribution) 8 Defendants assert that if it is established that defendant is in any manner legally responsible for 9 any of the damages claimed by plaintiff in any of the causes of action in the Complaint, such damages 10 were proximately caused by other persons or entities over whom defendant had no control and 11 defendants are entitled to indemnity or contribution from these other parties. 12 AS AN EIGHTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 13 (Set Off) 14 Defendants assert that if it is established that defendants are in any manner legally responsible 15 for any of the damages claimed by plaintiff in any of the causes of action in her/his Complaint, 16 defendants are entitled to a setoff of these damages with the damages that result from the wrongful acts 17 of plaintiff and/or others. 18 AS A NINTH AND SEPARATE FFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 19 (Comparative Fault) 20 Defendants assert that any loss, injury, or damage alleged in the Complaint was directly or 21 proximately caused and contributed to by the actions of other persons other than defendant, including, 22 but not limited to, plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff’s recovery against defendant, if any, should be reduced 23 in proportion to the percentage of responsibility attributable to persons other than defendants. 24 AS A TENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 25 (Failure to Mitigate) 26 Defendants assert that plaintiff’s damages, if any, have been aggravated as a result of the failure 27 of the plaintiff to exercise reasonable diligence in mitigating the alleged losses and damages. 28 Defendants’ liability, if any, must therefore be limited to the amount of damage that would have been 3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 suffered, if any, had plaintiff and the agents, employees, and representatives exercised the diligence 2 required of them. 3 AS AN ELEVENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 4 (Breach of Duty by Third Parties) 5 Defendants assert that each and every purported cause of action contained in the Complaint is 6 barred because the breach of duty, if any, was by third parties. 7 AS A TWELFTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 8 (Assumption of Risk) 9 Plaintiff voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the matters referred to in said Complaint, 10 assumed any and all of the risks, hazards, and perils of the circumstances referred to in said Complaint 11 and therefore assumed the risks of any injuries or damages sustained by said plaintiff, if any at all. 12 AS A THIRTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 13 (No Proximate Cause or Legal Causation) 14 Defendants assert that injuries and damages, if any, alleged in the Complaint were not 15 proximately or legally caused, in whole or in part, by any act or omission of defendants. 16 AS A FOURTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 17 (Contributory Negligence) 18 Defendants assert that each and every purported cause of action contained in the Complaint is 19 barred because the alleged losses sustained by plaintiff was either wholly or in part negligently caused 20 by persons, firms, corporations or entities other than defendants, and said negligence is either imputed to 21 plaintiff by reason of the relationship of said parties to plaintiff and/or said negligence comparatively 22 reduces the percentage of negligence, if any, by defendants. 23 AS A FIFTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 24 (No Damages) 25 Defendants assert that some or all of the purported claims and causes of action in the Complaint 26 against defendants are barred, in whole or in part, because plaintiff has sustained no damages. 27 /// 28 /// 4 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 AS A SIXTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 2 (Defendants Were Not a Substantial Factor in Bringing About Plaintiff's Alleged Injuries) 3 Defendants assert that they were not a substantial factor in bringing about the damages or 4 injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff. 5 AS A SEVENTEENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 6 (Reservation of Rights) 7 Defendants expressly and specifically reserve the right to amend this Answer to add, delete, 8 and/or modify affirmative defenses based upon legal theories, facts, and circumstances that may or will 9 be divulged through discovery and/or further investigation or legal analysis of plaintiff’s position in this 10 litigation. 11 WHEREFORE, having fully answered the unverified Complaint on file, this answering 12 defendants pray that plaintiff take nothing by virtue of said Complaint, that plaintiff’s recovery against 13 defendants be reduced by the percentage of fault attributable to plaintiff, that defendant has costs of suit 14 herein incurred, together with such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. 15 DEMAND FOR JURY 16 17 These defendants hereby request a jury trial in this matter. 18 19 DATED: February 14, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF BETH M. HENDERSON 20 __________________________________________ 21 Napoleon G. Tercero, III, Esq., Attorneys for Defendants, 22 CATHERINE SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS CATHERINE SENNING) AND RANDOLPH SENINING 23 (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS RANDOLPH SENNING) 24 25 26 27 28 5 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 21680 Gateway Center Drive, Suite 100, 4 Diamond Bar, CA 91765. 5 On February 14, 2024, I served the foregoing document described as: 6 CATHERINE SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS CATHERINE SENNING) AND 7 RANDOLPH SENINING (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS RANDOLPH SENNING)’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY 8 9 on all interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: 10 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 11 12 I am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of 13 business. I am aware that on motion of parties served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [CCP 14 §1013a] 15 BY MAIL: I caused such envelopes with postage thereon fully prepaid, to be placed in the 16 United States mail at Diamond Bar, California. 17 ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Pursuant to CCP §1010.6(C)(2) and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.250, I caused such documents to be served electronically at the e-mail 18 addresses stated on the attached service list. Such e-mail transmissions were complete with no errors reported. 19 20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 21 true and correct. 22 Executed on February 14, 2024, at Diamond Bar, California. 23 ___________________________________ 24 Sarah Richardson (858) 616-6165 25 26 27 28 6 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL SERVICE LIST 1 2 Moore, Thomas v. Nash, Elizabeth et al. 3 Case No.: BCV-23-103295-BCB 4 5 Alivia Abreu, Esq. 6 Patricia Mamac, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 7 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 8 Los Angeles CA 90010 (213) 381-9988; FAX (213) 381-9989 9 nancydelgadillosotosteam@wilshirelawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff; THOMAS MOORE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL