Preview
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 and cross-defendants
6 Elizabeth Renee Nash, 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 CROSS-COMPLAINT ON
BEHALF OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS
13 vs. ELIZABETH RENEE NASH, REBECCA
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 CATHERINE SENINING AND RANDOLPH
SENINING,
21
Cross-Complainant,
22
vs.
23
ELIZABETH RENEE NASH, REBECCA
24
NASH, RICKI NASH and ROES 1 through
25 100, inclusive,
26 Cross-Defendants.
27
28 ///
-1-
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 Elizabeth Renee Nash, Rebecca Nash, and Ricki Nash answer(s) the unverified original
2 cross-complaint of Catherine Senining and Randolph Senining on file herein as follows:
3 1. By virtue of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, these answering cross-
4 defendant(s) deny(ies) each and every allegation contained in the original complaint insofar as said
5 allegations refer to these answering cross-defendant(s) and further deny(ies) that cross-
6 complainant(s) has/have been damaged in the sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum or sums,
7 or at all.
8
9 FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT
11 (COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)
12 If cross-complainant(s) suffered or sustained any loss, damage or injury as alleged in the
13 complaint, such loss, damage or injury was proximately caused and contributed to by cross-
14 complainant(s) failing to conduct themselves in a manner expected of a reasonably prudent
15 person in the conduct of their affairs and person. Cross-complainant(s)’ recovery herein is
16 barred, diminished or reduced to the extent that cross-complainant(s)’ loss, damage or injury is
17 attributed to cross-complainant(s)’ negligence.
18
19 SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT
21 (FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION)
22 Cross-complainant(s) has/have failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
23 action against answering cross-defendant(s).
24
25 THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT
27 (APPORTIONMENT)
28
-2-
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 If cross-complainant(s) suffered or sustained any damages as alleged in the complaint,
2 those damages were proximately caused and contributed to by persons other than answering
3 cross-defendant(s), including but not limited to Doe cross-defendant(s). The liability of all
4 cross-defendants, named or unnamed, should be apportioned according to their relative degrees
5 of fault, and the liability, if any, of answering cross-defendant(s) should be reduced accordingly.
6
7 FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT
9 (FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES)
10 Cross-complainant(s)’ recovery is reduced or diminished by cross-complainant(s)’ failure
11 to mitigate their damages.
12
13 WHEREFORE, this/these answering cross-defendant(s) pray(s):
14 1. That the cross-complainant(s) take nothing by their complaint;
15 2. For costs of the suit incurred herein; and
16 3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
17
18 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
19 Cross-defendant(s) hereby demand(s) a trial by jury in the above-referenced matter.
20
DATED: March 21, 2024 MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES
21
22
23
By:
24
El Mahdi Young
25 Attorneys for defendants and cross-
defendants Elizabeth Renee Nash,
26 Rebecca Nash, and Ricki Nash
27
28
-3-
ANSWER TO CROSS-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 CROSS-COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS
6
REBECCA NASH, ELIZABETH RENEE NASH, AND RICKI NASH;
7 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
8 Jon C. Teller Napoleon G Tercero III
Wilshire Law Firm Law Offices of Bet M. Henderson
9 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 655 N. Central Ave., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90010 Glendale, CA 91203
10
Email: tellerteam@wilshirelawfirm.com Email: ntercero@travelers.com;
11 srichar9@travelers.com
12 ☒ [Electronic Submission] – Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
§1010.6(e)(1), I served a true copy of the aforementioned document(s) via electronic mail on the
13 parties in said action by transmitting by email to the email address(es) as set forth above on this
14 date. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was
received within a reasonable time after submission. I declare under penalty of perjury under the
15 laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct, and that this declaration was
executed on March 21, 2024.
16
17
18
By:
19 AnaMarie Martinez
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Preview
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 and cross-defendants 6 Elizabeth Renee Nash, 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 CROSS-COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS 13 vs. ELIZABETH RENEE NASH, REBECCA 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 CATHERINE SENINING AND RANDOLPH SENINING, 21 Cross-Complainant, 22 vs. 23 ELIZABETH RENEE NASH, REBECCA 24 NASH, RICKI NASH and ROES 1 through 25 100, inclusive, 26 Cross-Defendants. 27 28 /// -1- ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 Elizabeth Renee Nash, Rebecca Nash, and Ricki Nash answer(s) the unverified original 2 cross-complaint of Catherine Senining and Randolph Senining on file herein as follows: 3 1. By virtue of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, these answering cross- 4 defendant(s) deny(ies) each and every allegation contained in the original complaint insofar as said 5 allegations refer to these answering cross-defendant(s) and further deny(ies) that cross- 6 complainant(s) has/have been damaged in the sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum or sums, 7 or at all. 8 9 FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT 11 (COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE) 12 If cross-complainant(s) suffered or sustained any loss, damage or injury as alleged in the 13 complaint, such loss, damage or injury was proximately caused and contributed to by cross- 14 complainant(s) failing to conduct themselves in a manner expected of a reasonably prudent 15 person in the conduct of their affairs and person. Cross-complainant(s)’ recovery herein is 16 barred, diminished or reduced to the extent that cross-complainant(s)’ loss, damage or injury is 17 attributed to cross-complainant(s)’ negligence. 18 19 SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT 21 (FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION) 22 Cross-complainant(s) has/have failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of 23 action against answering cross-defendant(s). 24 25 THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT 27 (APPORTIONMENT) 28 -2- ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 If cross-complainant(s) suffered or sustained any damages as alleged in the complaint, 2 those damages were proximately caused and contributed to by persons other than answering 3 cross-defendant(s), including but not limited to Doe cross-defendant(s). The liability of all 4 cross-defendants, named or unnamed, should be apportioned according to their relative degrees 5 of fault, and the liability, if any, of answering cross-defendant(s) should be reduced accordingly. 6 7 FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 TO THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT 9 (FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES) 10 Cross-complainant(s)’ recovery is reduced or diminished by cross-complainant(s)’ failure 11 to mitigate their damages. 12 13 WHEREFORE, this/these answering cross-defendant(s) pray(s): 14 1. That the cross-complainant(s) take nothing by their complaint; 15 2. For costs of the suit incurred herein; and 16 3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 17 18 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 19 Cross-defendant(s) hereby demand(s) a trial by jury in the above-referenced matter. 20 DATED: March 21, 2024 MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES 21 22 23 By: 24 El Mahdi Young 25 Attorneys for defendants and cross- defendants Elizabeth Renee Nash, 26 Rebecca Nash, and Ricki Nash 27 28 -3- ANSWER TO CROSS-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 CROSS-COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS 6 REBECCA NASH, ELIZABETH RENEE NASH, AND RICKI NASH; 7 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 8 Jon C. Teller Napoleon G Tercero III Wilshire Law Firm Law Offices of Bet M. Henderson 9 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 655 N. Central Ave., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Glendale, CA 91203 10 Email: tellerteam@wilshirelawfirm.com Email: ntercero@travelers.com; 11 srichar9@travelers.com 12 ☒ [Electronic Submission] – Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6(e)(1), I served a true copy of the aforementioned document(s) via electronic mail on the 13 parties in said action by transmitting by email to the email address(es) as set forth above on this 14 date. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after submission. I declare under penalty of perjury under the 15 laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on March 21, 2024. 16 17 18 By: 19 AnaMarie Martinez 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL