Preview
Dennis R. Thelen, Esq., SBN 83999
Alan J. Mish, Esq., SBN 150771
LAW OFFICES OF
LEBEAU * THELEN, LLP
5001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 300
Post Office Box 12092
Bakersfield, California 93389-2092
(661) 325-8962; Fax (661) 325-1475
Attorneys for Defendant PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF KERN - METROPOLITAN DIVISION
10
11
12 ARACELY ARREOLA RECENDEZ; Case No.: BCV-24-100174 TSC
ERIC RECENDEZ,
13 Dept. No.: 17
Plaintiffs,
14 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT
vs. PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D. AND
15 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D.,
16 ADVENTIST HEALTH DELANO; DOES 1 TO}
50, inclusive,
17 Case Filed: January 17, 2024
Defendants. Trial Date: Unassigned
18
19 COMES NOW the defendant, PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D., and answers the
20 complaint on file herein as follows:
21 I
22 It appearing herein that the complaint on file is unverified, defendant hereby files his
23 general denial pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d).
24 II
25 Defendant herein denies generally and specifically, each and every allegation of said
26 complaint, both conjunctively and disjunctively and the whole thereof, and denies further that plaintiffs
27 have been damaged in the amount claimed or in any other sum whatsoever or at all.
28 Ml
“1s
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT, PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D.
4876-4031-1988. v. 1
FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering defendant
alleges that plaintiffs’ complaint and each alleged cause of action therein, fails to state facts sufficient
to constitute a cause of action as to this answering defendant.
FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering defendant
alleges that at the times and places mentioned in plaintiffs’ complaint, plaintiffs were careless, reckless
and negligent in and about the matters and things alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint, which said
carelessness, recklessness and negligence concurred in point of time with the alleged negligence of the
defendant, if any there may have been, and proximately caused and contributed to whatever injury
and/or damage plaintiffs may have sustained, if any, and recovery by the plaintiffs, if any, should be
10 proportionately reduced according to the percentage of fault of the plaintiffs.
11 FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering defendant
12 alleges that in addition to the aforementioned negligence of the plaintiffs, any damages incurred by the
13 plaintiffs were directly and proximately caused and contributed by the negligence of third persons.
14 FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering defendant
15 alleges that plaintiffs did with full knowledge of the consequences of their acts, and with full
16 knowledge of the dangers incident thereto, voluntarily expose themselves to all of the matters and
17 things alleged in the complaint and did thereby assume the risk generally incident thereto.
18 FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering defendant
19 alleges that the cause of action stated in plaintiffs’ complaint herein is barred by Section 340.5 of the
20 Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, and a separate trial is requested pursuant to code of
21 Civil Procedure Section 597.5.
22 FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering defendant
23) alleges that he is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges, that plaintiffs, b
24 the exercise of reasonable effort and/or care, could have mitigated the amount of damages alleged to
25 have been suffered, but plaintiffs have failed, neglected and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to
26 exercise a reasonable effort to mitigate the damages.
27 FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering
28 defendant alleges that in the event this answering defendant is found to be negligent (which
ae
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT, PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D.
4876-4031-1988. v. 1
supposition is denied and merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative defense), this answering
defendant may elect to introduce any amounts paid or payable, if any, as a benefit to the plaintiffs
pursuant to Civil Code Section 3333.1.
FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering
defendant alleges that in the event this answering defendant is found to be negligent (which
supposition is denied and merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative defense), the damages for
noneconomic losses shall not exceed the amount specified in Civil Code Section 3333.2.
FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, if this answering defendant
is found to be negligent (which supposition is denied and merely stated for the purpose of this
10 affirmative defense), this defendant may elect to have future damages, if any, paid as specified in Code
11 of Civil Procedure Section 667.7.
12 FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this
13 answering defendant alleges that to the extent the plaintiffs contend that the defendant is liable for
14 violation of the Informed Consent Doctrine, this responding defendant alleges that he complied, in all
15 material respects, with the dictates of California law as it relates to the Doctrine of Informed Consent
16 and this answering defendant reserves his right to assert any and all affirmative defenses related to the
17 Informed Consent Doctrine in this matter.
18 WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays that plaintiffs take nothing by way of
19 their complaint and defendant go hence with her costs of suit incurred.
20 Dated: April 18, 2024 LeBEAU * THELEN, LLP
21
22 By:
DENNIS R. THELEN
23 ALAN J. MISH
Attorneys for Defendant
24 PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D.
25) //
26 MI
27 M/
28 Ml
53x
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT, PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D.
4876-4031-1988. v. 1
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants hereby demand that the within action be tried before a jury.
Dated: April 18, 2024 LeBEAU * THELEN, LLP
Y —
a
ee
7
D . THELEN
ALAN J. MISH
Attorneys for Defendant
PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a2
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT, PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D.
4876-4031-1988. v. 1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Arreola-Recendez v. Srivastava, M.D., et al.
KCSC Case No. BCV-24-100174 TSC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERN
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age
of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 5001 E.
Commercenter Drive, Suite 300, Bakersfield, California 93309; my email address is
shays@lebeauthelen.com.
On April 2024, I served the within ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND
FOR JURY TRIAL on the interested parties in said action by placing ( ) the original () a true copy
thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:
Jessica DeVille, Esq.
DeVille Law Group
2110 Artesia Boulevard, Suite 623
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
10 Telephone: (661) 447-2284
Facsimile: (888) 391-2056
11 Email: jessica@devillelawgroup.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
(X) (BY MAIL) I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing
13 correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal
Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield, California, in the
14 ordinary course of business.
15 ) (BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused such document to be
delivered by electronic means prior to close of business on this same day to the addressee(s) at the
16 electronic notification addressee(s) provided above.
17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct, and that the foregoing was executed on April , 2024, in Bakersfield, California.
18
19 aust
20
21
22
23
24
25:
26
27
28
4880-3890-0148, v. 1
Preview
Dennis R. Thelen, Esq., SBN 83999 Alan J. Mish, Esq., SBN 150771 LAW OFFICES OF LEBEAU * THELEN, LLP 5001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 300 Post Office Box 12092 Bakersfield, California 93389-2092 (661) 325-8962; Fax (661) 325-1475 Attorneys for Defendant PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN - METROPOLITAN DIVISION 10 11 12 ARACELY ARREOLA RECENDEZ; Case No.: BCV-24-100174 TSC ERIC RECENDEZ, 13 Dept. No.: 17 Plaintiffs, 14 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT vs. PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D. AND 15 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D., 16 ADVENTIST HEALTH DELANO; DOES 1 TO} 50, inclusive, 17 Case Filed: January 17, 2024 Defendants. Trial Date: Unassigned 18 19 COMES NOW the defendant, PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D., and answers the 20 complaint on file herein as follows: 21 I 22 It appearing herein that the complaint on file is unverified, defendant hereby files his 23 general denial pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d). 24 II 25 Defendant herein denies generally and specifically, each and every allegation of said 26 complaint, both conjunctively and disjunctively and the whole thereof, and denies further that plaintiffs 27 have been damaged in the amount claimed or in any other sum whatsoever or at all. 28 Ml “1s ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT, PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D. 4876-4031-1988. v. 1 FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ complaint and each alleged cause of action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as to this answering defendant. FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that at the times and places mentioned in plaintiffs’ complaint, plaintiffs were careless, reckless and negligent in and about the matters and things alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint, which said carelessness, recklessness and negligence concurred in point of time with the alleged negligence of the defendant, if any there may have been, and proximately caused and contributed to whatever injury and/or damage plaintiffs may have sustained, if any, and recovery by the plaintiffs, if any, should be 10 proportionately reduced according to the percentage of fault of the plaintiffs. 11 FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering defendant 12 alleges that in addition to the aforementioned negligence of the plaintiffs, any damages incurred by the 13 plaintiffs were directly and proximately caused and contributed by the negligence of third persons. 14 FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering defendant 15 alleges that plaintiffs did with full knowledge of the consequences of their acts, and with full 16 knowledge of the dangers incident thereto, voluntarily expose themselves to all of the matters and 17 things alleged in the complaint and did thereby assume the risk generally incident thereto. 18 FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering defendant 19 alleges that the cause of action stated in plaintiffs’ complaint herein is barred by Section 340.5 of the 20 Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, and a separate trial is requested pursuant to code of 21 Civil Procedure Section 597.5. 22 FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering defendant 23) alleges that he is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges, that plaintiffs, b 24 the exercise of reasonable effort and/or care, could have mitigated the amount of damages alleged to 25 have been suffered, but plaintiffs have failed, neglected and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to 26 exercise a reasonable effort to mitigate the damages. 27 FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering 28 defendant alleges that in the event this answering defendant is found to be negligent (which ae ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT, PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D. 4876-4031-1988. v. 1 supposition is denied and merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative defense), this answering defendant may elect to introduce any amounts paid or payable, if any, as a benefit to the plaintiffs pursuant to Civil Code Section 3333.1. FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, this answering defendant alleges that in the event this answering defendant is found to be negligent (which supposition is denied and merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative defense), the damages for noneconomic losses shall not exceed the amount specified in Civil Code Section 3333.2. FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, if this answering defendant is found to be negligent (which supposition is denied and merely stated for the purpose of this 10 affirmative defense), this defendant may elect to have future damages, if any, paid as specified in Code 11 of Civil Procedure Section 667.7. 12 FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this 13 answering defendant alleges that to the extent the plaintiffs contend that the defendant is liable for 14 violation of the Informed Consent Doctrine, this responding defendant alleges that he complied, in all 15 material respects, with the dictates of California law as it relates to the Doctrine of Informed Consent 16 and this answering defendant reserves his right to assert any and all affirmative defenses related to the 17 Informed Consent Doctrine in this matter. 18 WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays that plaintiffs take nothing by way of 19 their complaint and defendant go hence with her costs of suit incurred. 20 Dated: April 18, 2024 LeBEAU * THELEN, LLP 21 22 By: DENNIS R. THELEN 23 ALAN J. MISH Attorneys for Defendant 24 PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D. 25) // 26 MI 27 M/ 28 Ml 53x ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT, PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D. 4876-4031-1988. v. 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants hereby demand that the within action be tried before a jury. Dated: April 18, 2024 LeBEAU * THELEN, LLP Y — a ee 7 D . THELEN ALAN J. MISH Attorneys for Defendant PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT, PRAMOD K. SRIVASTAVA, M.D. 4876-4031-1988. v. 1 PROOF OF SERVICE Arreola-Recendez v. Srivastava, M.D., et al. KCSC Case No. BCV-24-100174 TSC STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERN I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 5001 E. Commercenter Drive, Suite 300, Bakersfield, California 93309; my email address is shays@lebeauthelen.com. On April 2024, I served the within ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL on the interested parties in said action by placing ( ) the original () a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Jessica DeVille, Esq. DeVille Law Group 2110 Artesia Boulevard, Suite 623 Redondo Beach, CA 90278 10 Telephone: (661) 447-2284 Facsimile: (888) 391-2056 11 Email: jessica@devillelawgroup.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 12 (X) (BY MAIL) I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing 13 correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield, California, in the 14 ordinary course of business. 15 ) (BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused such document to be delivered by electronic means prior to close of business on this same day to the addressee(s) at the 16 electronic notification addressee(s) provided above. 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct, and that the foregoing was executed on April , 2024, in Bakersfield, California. 18 19 aust 20 21 22 23 24 25: 26 27 28 4880-3890-0148, v. 1