On June 11, 2020 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Duke Realty Limited Partnership,
Insurance Company Of The West,
Madrigal, Adriana Quintero,
Marquez, Rafael Carvajal,
and
Does 2-100,
Duke Realty Corporation,
Duke Realty Limited Partnership,
Genie Industries, Inc.,
Gregg Electric, Inc.,
I.E. General Engineering Inc.,
King Equipment, Llc,
Terex Corporation,
General Engineering, Inc,
Gregg Electric, Inc., I.E.,
King Equipment, Inc.,
Roes 2 To 100,
for Personal Injury Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
David J. Byassee, Bar N0. 244509
Jessica R. Spinola, Bar No. 309138 F g E D
P&INLEGALPC S%%E§¢$$g2gAL%2§skggsg'A
2 0 Via Vina
’n
OAN Rmmwmm mSTR‘CT
San Clemente, California 92673 ~
(714) 587-5214 MAY l 3 2022
service@plain-legal.com
Attorneys for Defendant BY ,4:ng
KING EQUIPMENT, LLC. (DOE 1) ummirfifims AEETEFUW
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11 RAFAEL CARVAJAL MARQUEZ; Case N0. CIVDSZOIO3 10
ADRIANA QUINTERO MADRIGAL,
12
Plaintiffs, KING EQUIPMENT, LLC. ’S ANSWER
13
TO COMPLAINT
V.
Judge: Hon. Donald Alvarez
PLAIN 14 523
GENIE INDUSTRIES, INC; TEREX
LEGAL DePt-i
?C
15 CORPORATION; DUKE REALTY June 11, 2020
LIMITED pARTNERSHIP; DUKE
Action Filed:
January 9, 2023
REALTY CORPORATION; GREGG
Tlial Date?
16
GENERAL
ELECTRIC, INC.; LE.
17 ENGINEERING INC.; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive
18 v'
'
'
L
Defendants. ,
19
20
___________J
21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
("KING") answer to Plaintiffs
22 Defendant KING EQUIPMENT, LLC. (DOE 1) in
IGAL (“PLAINTIFFS”)
23 RAFAEL CARVAJAL MARQUEZ and ADRIANA QUINTERO MADR
alleges as follows:
24 Complaint on file herein (the “Complaint”) admits, denies, and
25 GENERAL DENIAL
section 431.30, KING denies, both generally and
26 Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure
aint, in the conjunctive and
27 specifically, each and every allegation of PLAINTIFFS' Compl
therein, and the whole thereof; and further
28 disjunctive, and each purported cause of action
1
KING EQUIPMENT, LLC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
V n |
V
generally and specifically denies that PLAINTIFF’S sustained any loss, injury, or damage 0r at all.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTIOM
PLAINTIFFS' Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
against KING.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)
If KING is subject t0 any liability herein, it will be due in whole, or alternatively, in pan,
on the acts and/or omissions of PLAINTIFF’S, and any
to the comparative negligence based
10 recovery obtained by PLAINTIFFS should be barred or reduced according to law, up to and
11 including the whole thereof.
12 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 (FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES)
any damages they may have sustained in connection with
14 PLAINTIFFS failed to mitigate
to mitigate bars and/or diminishes
15 the matters referred to in their Complaint, and such failure
16 PLAINTIFFS' recovery against KING.
17 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 ggNCERTAINTYL
in the Complaint uncertain and ambiguous as t0 PLAINTIFFS' claim
19 The cause of action is
20 for damages against KING.
21 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (FAILURE OF OTHERS T0 EXERCISE REASONABLE CARE)
If KING is subjected to any liability, it will be due in whole, 0r in part, to the acts and/or
23
unknown at this time, and any recovery obtained by
24 omissions of other Defendants or other parties
25 PLAINTIFF’S should be barred or reduced according to law.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
2
KING EQUIPMENT, LLC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Document Filed Date
May 13, 2022
Case Filing Date
June 11, 2020
Category
Personal Injury Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
David J. Byassee, Bar N0. 244509 Jessica R. Spinola, Bar No. 309138 F g E D P&INLEGALPC S%%E§¢$$g2gAL%2§skggsg'A 2 0 Via Vina ’n OAN Rmmwmm mSTR‘CT San Clemente, California 92673 ~ (714) 587-5214 MAY l 3 2022 service@plain-legal.com Attorneys for Defendant BY ,4:ng KING EQUIPMENT, LLC. (DOE 1) ummirfifims AEETEFUW SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 RAFAEL CARVAJAL MARQUEZ; Case N0. CIVDSZOIO3 10 ADRIANA QUINTERO MADRIGAL, 12 Plaintiffs, KING EQUIPMENT, LLC. ’S ANSWER 13 TO COMPLAINT V. Judge: Hon. Donald Alvarez PLAIN 14 523 GENIE INDUSTRIES, INC; TEREX LEGAL DePt-i ?C 15 CORPORATION; DUKE REALTY June 11, 2020 LIMITED pARTNERSHIP; DUKE Action Filed: January 9, 2023 REALTY CORPORATION; GREGG Tlial Date? 16 GENERAL ELECTRIC, INC.; LE. 17 ENGINEERING INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive 18 v' ' ' L Defendants. , 19 20 ___________J 21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: ("KING") answer to Plaintiffs 22 Defendant KING EQUIPMENT, LLC. (DOE 1) in IGAL (“PLAINTIFFS”) 23 RAFAEL CARVAJAL MARQUEZ and ADRIANA QUINTERO MADR alleges as follows: 24 Complaint on file herein (the “Complaint”) admits, denies, and 25 GENERAL DENIAL section 431.30, KING denies, both generally and 26 Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure aint, in the conjunctive and 27 specifically, each and every allegation of PLAINTIFFS' Compl therein, and the whole thereof; and further 28 disjunctive, and each purported cause of action 1 KING EQUIPMENT, LLC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT V n | V generally and specifically denies that PLAINTIFF’S sustained any loss, injury, or damage 0r at all. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTIOM PLAINTIFFS' Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against KING. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE) If KING is subject t0 any liability herein, it will be due in whole, or alternatively, in pan, on the acts and/or omissions of PLAINTIFF’S, and any to the comparative negligence based 10 recovery obtained by PLAINTIFFS should be barred or reduced according to law, up to and 11 including the whole thereof. 12 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES) any damages they may have sustained in connection with 14 PLAINTIFFS failed to mitigate to mitigate bars and/or diminishes 15 the matters referred to in their Complaint, and such failure 16 PLAINTIFFS' recovery against KING. 17 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 ggNCERTAINTYL in the Complaint uncertain and ambiguous as t0 PLAINTIFFS' claim 19 The cause of action is 20 for damages against KING. 21 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (FAILURE OF OTHERS T0 EXERCISE REASONABLE CARE) If KING is subjected to any liability, it will be due in whole, 0r in part, to the acts and/or 23 unknown at this time, and any recovery obtained by 24 omissions of other Defendants or other parties 25 PLAINTIFF’S should be barred or reduced according to law. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 2 KING EQUIPMENT, LLC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT