Preview
ANS to COMP by Rebecca Nash, Elizabeth Renee Nash, and Ricki Nash
1 El Mahdi Young, State Bar No. 228084
MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES
2 Employees of the Law Department
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
3 655 North Central Avenue, 12th Floor
Glendale, California 91203-1434
4 Telephone: (818) 543-4000 / Fax: (855) 396-3606
Service Email: Cali.Law-Glendale@StateFarm.com
5
Attorneys for defendants Elizabeth Renee Nash,
6 Rebecca Nash, and Ricki Nash
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN
10
11 THOMAS MOORE, AN INDIVIDUAL, Case No.: BCV-23-103295
12 Plaintiff(s), ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON
BEHALF OF DEFENDANT(S)
13 vs. REBECCA NASH, ELIZABETH RENEE
NASH, AND RICKI NASH; DEMAND
14 ELIZABETH RENEE NASH, AN FOR JURY TRIAL
INDIVIDUAL; REBECCA NASH, AN
15 INDIVIDUAL; RICKI NASH, AN Complaint Filed: October 3, 2023
INDIVIDUAL; CATHERINE SENNING, AN Judge: Hon. Bernard C. Barmann, Jr.
16 INDIVIDUAL; RANDOLPH SENNING, AN Dept.: H
INDIVIDUAL; DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Trial Date: None Assigned
17 INCLUSIVE,
18 Defendant(s).
19
20 Elizabeth Renee Nash, Rebecca Nash, and Ricki Nash answer the unverified original
21 complaint of Thomas Moore on file herein as follows:
22 By virtue of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, these answering defendants deny
23 every allegation contained in the original complaint insofar as said allegations refer to these
24 answering defendants and further deny that plaintiff has been damaged in the sum or sums
25 alleged, or in any other sum or sums, or at all.
26
27 FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT
-1-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 (COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)
2 If plaintiff(s) suffered or sustained any loss, damage or injury as alleged in the complaint,
3 such loss, damage or injury was proximately caused and contributed to by plaintiff(s) failing to
4 conduct themselves in a manner expected of a reasonably prudent person in the conduct of their
5 affairs and person. Plaintiff(s)’ recovery herein is barred, diminished or reduced to the extent
6 that plaintiff(s)’ loss, damage or injury is attributed to plaintiff(s)’ negligence.
7
8 SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT
10 (FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION)
11 Plaintiff(s) has/have failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against
12 answering defendant(s).
13
14 THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT
16 (APPORTIONMENT)
17 If plaintiff(s) suffered or sustained any damages as alleged in the complaint, those
18 damages were proximately caused and contributed to by persons other than answering
19 defendant(s), including but not limited to Doe defendant(s). The liability of all defendants,
20 named or unnamed, should be apportioned according to their relative degrees of fault, and the
21 liability, if any, of answering defendant(s) should be reduced accordingly.
22
23 FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT
25 (FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES)
26 Plaintiff(s)’ recovery is reduced or diminished by plaintiff(s)’ failure to mitigate their
27 damages.
28 ///
-2-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 FIFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT
3 (NO KNOWLEDGE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITY)
4 Answering defendant(s) allege(s) that defendant(s) had no knowledge of any animal
5 within answering defendant(s)’ control which was dangerous by nature, or which answering
6 defendant(s) knew, or had reason to know, to have any dangerous propensities.
7
8 SIXTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
9 ENTIRE COMPLAINT
10 (INTERVENING AND SUPERSEDING CAUSE)
11
12 Any injuries or damages complained of were proximately caused or contributed to by the
13 negligence of other defendants, persons or entities, and said negligence was an intervening and
14 superseding cause of injuries and damages, if any, of which plaintiff complains.
15
16 SEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
17 THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT
18 (TRESPASS)
19
20 Plaintiff Thomas Moore was trespassing upon the property of the defendants at the time
21 and date of the alleged injury. Plaintiff is thereby barred in whole or in part from any recovery
22 against these answering defendants.
23
24 WHEREFORE, this/these answering defendant(s) pray(s):
25 1. That the plaintiff(s) take nothing by their complaint;
26 2. For costs of the suit incurred herein; and
27 3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
28
-3-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 Defendant(s) hereby demand(s) a trial by jury in the above-referenced matter.
3
DATED: March 20, 2024 MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES
4
5
6
By:
7
El Mahdi Young
8 Attorneys for defendants Elizabeth Renee
Nash, Rebecca Nash, and Ricki Nash
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
Moore v. Nash | Kern County Superior Court – Case No. BCV-23-103295
2
3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My
electronic service address is Cali.Law-Glendale@StateFarm.com and my business address is 655
4 North Central Avenue, 12th Floor, Glendale, California 91203-1434. On March 21, 2024, I
served the following document(s) on the following person(s):
5
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT(S) REBECCA NASH,
6
ELIZABETH RENEE NASH, AND RICKI NASH; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
7
Jon C. Teller Napoleon G Tercero III
8 Wilshire Law Firm Law Offices of Bet M. Henderson
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 655 N. Central Ave., Suite 800
9 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Glendale, CA 91203
Email: tellerteam@wilshirelawfirm.com Email: ntercero@travelers.com;
10
srichar9@travelers.com
11
☒ [Electronic Submission] – Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
12 §1010.6(e)(1), I served a true copy of the aforementioned document(s) via electronic mail on the
parties in said action by transmitting by email to the email address(es) as set forth above on this
13 date. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was
14 received within a reasonable time after submission. I declare under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct, and that this declaration was
15 executed on March 21, 2024.
16
17
By:
18
AnaMarie Martinez
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Preview
ANS to COMP by Rebecca Nash, Elizabeth Renee Nash, and Ricki Nash 1 El Mahdi Young, State Bar No. 228084 MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES 2 Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 3 655 North Central Avenue, 12th Floor Glendale, California 91203-1434 4 Telephone: (818) 543-4000 / Fax: (855) 396-3606 Service Email: Cali.Law-Glendale@StateFarm.com 5 Attorneys for defendants Elizabeth Renee Nash, 6 Rebecca Nash, and Ricki Nash 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN 10 11 THOMAS MOORE, AN INDIVIDUAL, Case No.: BCV-23-103295 12 Plaintiff(s), ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT(S) 13 vs. REBECCA NASH, ELIZABETH RENEE NASH, AND RICKI NASH; DEMAND 14 ELIZABETH RENEE NASH, AN FOR JURY TRIAL INDIVIDUAL; REBECCA NASH, AN 15 INDIVIDUAL; RICKI NASH, AN Complaint Filed: October 3, 2023 INDIVIDUAL; CATHERINE SENNING, AN Judge: Hon. Bernard C. Barmann, Jr. 16 INDIVIDUAL; RANDOLPH SENNING, AN Dept.: H INDIVIDUAL; DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Trial Date: None Assigned 17 INCLUSIVE, 18 Defendant(s). 19 20 Elizabeth Renee Nash, Rebecca Nash, and Ricki Nash answer the unverified original 21 complaint of Thomas Moore on file herein as follows: 22 By virtue of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, these answering defendants deny 23 every allegation contained in the original complaint insofar as said allegations refer to these 24 answering defendants and further deny that plaintiff has been damaged in the sum or sums 25 alleged, or in any other sum or sums, or at all. 26 27 FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT -1- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 (COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE) 2 If plaintiff(s) suffered or sustained any loss, damage or injury as alleged in the complaint, 3 such loss, damage or injury was proximately caused and contributed to by plaintiff(s) failing to 4 conduct themselves in a manner expected of a reasonably prudent person in the conduct of their 5 affairs and person. Plaintiff(s)’ recovery herein is barred, diminished or reduced to the extent 6 that plaintiff(s)’ loss, damage or injury is attributed to plaintiff(s)’ negligence. 7 8 SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT 10 (FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION) 11 Plaintiff(s) has/have failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against 12 answering defendant(s). 13 14 THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT 16 (APPORTIONMENT) 17 If plaintiff(s) suffered or sustained any damages as alleged in the complaint, those 18 damages were proximately caused and contributed to by persons other than answering 19 defendant(s), including but not limited to Doe defendant(s). The liability of all defendants, 20 named or unnamed, should be apportioned according to their relative degrees of fault, and the 21 liability, if any, of answering defendant(s) should be reduced accordingly. 22 23 FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT 25 (FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES) 26 Plaintiff(s)’ recovery is reduced or diminished by plaintiff(s)’ failure to mitigate their 27 damages. 28 /// -2- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 FIFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT 3 (NO KNOWLEDGE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITY) 4 Answering defendant(s) allege(s) that defendant(s) had no knowledge of any animal 5 within answering defendant(s)’ control which was dangerous by nature, or which answering 6 defendant(s) knew, or had reason to know, to have any dangerous propensities. 7 8 SIXTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 9 ENTIRE COMPLAINT 10 (INTERVENING AND SUPERSEDING CAUSE) 11 12 Any injuries or damages complained of were proximately caused or contributed to by the 13 negligence of other defendants, persons or entities, and said negligence was an intervening and 14 superseding cause of injuries and damages, if any, of which plaintiff complains. 15 16 SEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO 17 THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT 18 (TRESPASS) 19 20 Plaintiff Thomas Moore was trespassing upon the property of the defendants at the time 21 and date of the alleged injury. Plaintiff is thereby barred in whole or in part from any recovery 22 against these answering defendants. 23 24 WHEREFORE, this/these answering defendant(s) pray(s): 25 1. That the plaintiff(s) take nothing by their complaint; 26 2. For costs of the suit incurred herein; and 27 3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 28 -3- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 Defendant(s) hereby demand(s) a trial by jury in the above-referenced matter. 3 DATED: March 20, 2024 MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES 4 5 6 By: 7 El Mahdi Young 8 Attorneys for defendants Elizabeth Renee Nash, Rebecca Nash, and Ricki Nash 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 PROOF OF SERVICE Moore v. Nash | Kern County Superior Court – Case No. BCV-23-103295 2 3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My electronic service address is Cali.Law-Glendale@StateFarm.com and my business address is 655 4 North Central Avenue, 12th Floor, Glendale, California 91203-1434. On March 21, 2024, I served the following document(s) on the following person(s): 5 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT(S) REBECCA NASH, 6 ELIZABETH RENEE NASH, AND RICKI NASH; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 7 Jon C. Teller Napoleon G Tercero III 8 Wilshire Law Firm Law Offices of Bet M. Henderson 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 655 N. Central Ave., Suite 800 9 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Glendale, CA 91203 Email: tellerteam@wilshirelawfirm.com Email: ntercero@travelers.com; 10 srichar9@travelers.com 11 ☒ [Electronic Submission] – Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 12 §1010.6(e)(1), I served a true copy of the aforementioned document(s) via electronic mail on the parties in said action by transmitting by email to the email address(es) as set forth above on this 13 date. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was 14 received within a reasonable time after submission. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct, and that this declaration was 15 executed on March 21, 2024. 16 17 By: 18 AnaMarie Martinez 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL