Preview
1 Rinat Klier-Erlich (State Bar No. 188933)
rerlich@zelmserlich.com
2 Brian T. Smith (State Bar No. 234651)
bsmith@zelmserlich.com
3 ZELMS ERLICH & MACK
20920 Warner Center Lane, Suite B
4 Woodland Hills, California 91367
Telephone: (213) 712-8075
5 Facsimile: (818) 999-9155
6 Attorneys for Defendant CAROL NAGY
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, SANTA MARIA BRANCH
10
11 KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE, Case No. 23CV01793
12 Plaintiff, [Assigned to the Honorable Patricia L. Kelly,
Dept. SM-1]
13 v.
14 MISSION ROWING, a California nonprofit ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL
public benefit corporation; CONAL GROOM, NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE
15 an individual; CAROL NAGY, an individual; LORD-KRAUSE’S UNVERIFIED THIRD
UNITED STATES ROWING AMENDED COMPLAINT
16 ASSOCIATION, a Pennsylvania nonprofit
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
17 Action Filed: April 25, 2023
Defendant. Trial Date: None Set
18
19
20
21
22 Pursuant to Sections 431.10 et seq., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant
23 CAROL NAGY (hereinafter, “Defendant”) hereby answers the unverified Third Amended
24 Complaint (hereinafter, “Complaint”) of Plaintiff KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE (hereinafter,
25 “Plaintiff”). Defendant denies both generally and specifically, each and every allegation of the
26 Plaintiff’s Complaint and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever.
27 / / /
28 / / /
1
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S
UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
2 Defendant additionally sets forth the following affirmative defenses to the Complaint.
3 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 (Failure to State a Claim)
5 1. As a separate and first affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to the purported
6 causes of action set forth therein, Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient
7 to constitute a cause of action.
8 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (All Obligations Performed)
10 2. As a separate and second affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
11 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Defendant has fully and/or substantially
12 performed any and all obligations she may have had to Plaintiff.
13 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Apportionment of Fault)
15 3. As a separate and third affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
16 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused
17 by the negligence and/or acts or omissions of parties other than the Defendant whether or not
18 parties to this action. By reason thereof, Plaintiff’s damages, if any, as against Defendant must be
19 reduced by the proportion of fault attributable to such other parties, and based thereon, Defendant
20 may be entitled to partial indemnity from others on a comparative fault basis.
21 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Assumption of Risk)
23 4. As a separate and fourth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
24 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff, and/or the persons and/or
25 entities acting on Plaintiff’s behalf, assumed the risk of all conduct of the Defendant and her
26 agents.
27 / / /
28
2
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S
UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Attorneys’ Fees Barred)
3 5. As a separate and fifth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
4 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that attorney’s fees are barred by the
5 provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1021.
6 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Authorization)
8 6. As a separate and sixth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
9 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that by virtue of the acts of the Plaintiff,
10 and/or the persons and/or entities acting on her behalf, Plaintiff is barred from prosecuting the
11 purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of authorization.
12 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 (Comparative Fault)
14 7. As a separate and seventh affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
15 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused
16 by the primary negligence and/or acquiescence in the acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint
17 by the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s agents, employees, representatives, family members, heirs,
18 assigns, attorneys, and/or any other persons acting on her behalf. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is
19 not entitled to damages or any other relief whatsoever as against Defendant.
20 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (Compliance with the Law)
22 8. As a separate and eighth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
23 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that the actions taken by Defendant were in
24 full compliance with the law.
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
3
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S
UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Consent)
3 9. As a separate and ninth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
4 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred from prosecuting the
5 purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint because Plaintiff, and/or the persons and/or
6 entities acting on her behalf, consented to and acquiesced in the subject conduct.
7 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (Estoppel)
9 10. As a separate and tenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
10 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part
11 from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of
12 estoppel.
13 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Failure to Mitigate)
15 11. As a separate and eleventh affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
16 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims, if any, are barred for
17 her failure, and/or the failure of the persons and/or entities acting on her behalf, to mitigate any
18 alleged damages.
19 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Intervening and Superseding Cause)
21 12. As a separate and twelfth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
22 cause of action contained therein, Plaintiff allege that if Plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss,
23 damage or injury as alleged in the Complaint, such loss, damage or injury was legally caused or
24 contributed to by the negligence or wrongful conduct of other parties, persons or entities, and that
25 their negligence or wrongful conduct was an intervening and superseding cause of the loss,
26 damage or injury of which Plaintiff complains. Hence, plaintiff cannot establish causation as to
27 her alleged damages.
28 / / /
4
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S
UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Justification/Excuse)
3 13. As a separate and thirteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
4 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that by virtue of the acts of the
5 Plaintiff, and/or the persons and/or entities acting on their behalf, Plaintiff is barred from
6 prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint because the acts and/or
7 omissions alleged in the Complaint were justified and/or excused.
8 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (Lack of Deception)
10 14. As a separate and fourteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
11 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that her acts and omissions were
12 not deceptive nor intentional, nor wrongful in any manner.
13 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (No Injury or Damage)
15 15. As a separate and fifteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
16 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has not been injured or
17 damaged, in any manner, as a proximate result of any act or omission for which Defendant is
18 responsible.
19 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Statute of Limitations)
21 16. As a separate and sixteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
22 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that the purported causes of action
23 asserted in the Complaint are barred by such statutes of limitation as may be applicable, including,
24 but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure §335, 335.1, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340,
25 340.5, 340.9, 343, 344 and 474.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
5
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S
UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Unclean Hands)
3 17. As a separate and seventeenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
4 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred in whole or
5 in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine
6 of unclean hands.
7 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (Waiver and Estoppel)
9 18. As a separate and eighteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
10 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that as a result of Plaintiff’s own
11 acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff has waived any right which she may have had to recover, and/or is
12 estopped from recovering, any relief sought against Defendant.
13 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Waiver)
15 19. As a separate and nineteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
16 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred in whole or
17 in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine
18 of waiver.
19 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Satisfaction of the Standard of Care)
21 20. As a separate and twentieth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
22 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that at all times alleged in the
23 Complaint, Defendant acted within the standard of care for her profession and locality in dealing
24 with all matters alleged therein, and none of her acts or omissions caused any damages to Plaintiff
25 nor was Defendant negligent in any manner.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
6
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S
UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 TWENTY FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (No Causation)
3 21. As a separate and twenty-first affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
4 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that none of her acts or omissions
5 proximately caused the damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot
6 maintain any action against Defendant.
7 TWENTY SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (No Emotional Distress Damages)
9 22. As a separate and twenty second affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
10 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that emotional distress damages are
11 not recoverable, on the facts alleged. Gravillis v. Sup. Ct. (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 761.
12 Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot seek such damages from Defendant.
13 TWENTY THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Statute of Frauds)
15 23. As a separate and twenty third affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
16 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that the absence of a written
17 contract bars Plaintiff’s causes of action pursuant to Civil Code §1624.
18 TWENTY FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (No Punitive Damages)
20 24. As a separate and twenty fourth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
21 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that she did not act with
22 oppression, fraud, nor malice, of any nature whatsoever, (Civil Code §3294) and thus, punitive
23 damages cannot possibly be awarded from Defendant in favor of Plaintiff.
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
7
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S
UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 TWENTY FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Right to Add Additional Affirmative Defenses)
3 25. As a separate and twenty fifth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each
4 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant reserves the right to add additional
5 affirmative defenses that may be discovered as the case progresses.
6
7 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for relief as follows:
8 1. That the Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice and in its entirety;
9 2. That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of her Complaint and that judgment be
10 entered against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant;
11 3. That Defendant be awarded her costs incurred in defending this action; and
12 4. That Defendant be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
13 and proper.
14
15 DATED: April 24, 2024 ZELMS ERLICH & MACK
16
17
By:
18 Rinat Klier Erlich
Brian T. Smith
19 Attorneys for Defendant CAROL NAGY
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S
UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is
4 20920 Warner Center Lane, Suite B, Woodland Hills, California 91367.
5 On April 24, 2024, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-
6 KRAUSE’S UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this
action as follows:
7
8
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
9
10 BY E-MAIL: the foregoing above-described document(s) were electronically served to
the above-mentioned party. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
11 unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. We will provide a
physical copy, upon request.
12
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
13 foregoing is true and correct.
14 Executed on April 24, 2024, at Woodland Hills, California.
15
16
17
Rosa E. Rojas
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S
UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 SERVICE LIST
Lord-Krause v. Rowing, et al.
2 Case No.: 23CV01793
3
4 Janean Acevedo Daniels, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff KATHERINE LORD-
LAW OFFICE OF KRAUSE
5 JANEAN ACEVEDO DANIELS
1160 Via de Rey
6
Goleta, California 93117
7 janean@jadanielslaw.com
assistant@jadanielslaw.com
8
John C. Eck, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant MISSION ROWING
9 GRIFFITH & THORNBURGH, LLP
8 East Figueroa Street, Suite 300
10
Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2762
11 eck@g-tlaw.com
cordero@g-tlaw.com
12
Steven H. Schwartz, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant CONAL GROOM
13 SCHWARTZ & JANZEN, LLP
12100 Wilshire Boulevard
14
Suite 1125
15 Los Angeles, CA 90025
sschwartz@sj-law.com
16
Luis Esparza, Esq.
17 ESPARZA LAW GROUP, P.C.
Post Office Box 343
18
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
19 info@esparzalaw.com
20 Laura Loeck, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant US Rowing Association
MURCHINSON & CUMMINGS
21 Mt. Diablo Plaza
2175 N. California Blvd. Ste 900
22 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
lloeck@murchisonlaw.com
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S
UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
1 Rinat Klier-Erlich (State Bar No. 188933) rerlich@zelmserlich.com 2 Brian T. Smith (State Bar No. 234651) bsmith@zelmserlich.com 3 ZELMS ERLICH & MACK 20920 Warner Center Lane, Suite B 4 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Telephone: (213) 712-8075 5 Facsimile: (818) 999-9155 6 Attorneys for Defendant CAROL NAGY 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, SANTA MARIA BRANCH 10 11 KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE, Case No. 23CV01793 12 Plaintiff, [Assigned to the Honorable Patricia L. Kelly, Dept. SM-1] 13 v. 14 MISSION ROWING, a California nonprofit ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL public benefit corporation; CONAL GROOM, NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE 15 an individual; CAROL NAGY, an individual; LORD-KRAUSE’S UNVERIFIED THIRD UNITED STATES ROWING AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 ASSOCIATION, a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 17 Action Filed: April 25, 2023 Defendant. Trial Date: None Set 18 19 20 21 22 Pursuant to Sections 431.10 et seq., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant 23 CAROL NAGY (hereinafter, “Defendant”) hereby answers the unverified Third Amended 24 Complaint (hereinafter, “Complaint”) of Plaintiff KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE (hereinafter, 25 “Plaintiff”). Defendant denies both generally and specifically, each and every allegation of the 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 2 Defendant additionally sets forth the following affirmative defenses to the Complaint. 3 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 (Failure to State a Claim) 5 1. As a separate and first affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to the purported 6 causes of action set forth therein, Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient 7 to constitute a cause of action. 8 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (All Obligations Performed) 10 2. As a separate and second affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 11 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Defendant has fully and/or substantially 12 performed any and all obligations she may have had to Plaintiff. 13 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Apportionment of Fault) 15 3. As a separate and third affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 16 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused 17 by the negligence and/or acts or omissions of parties other than the Defendant whether or not 18 parties to this action. By reason thereof, Plaintiff’s damages, if any, as against Defendant must be 19 reduced by the proportion of fault attributable to such other parties, and based thereon, Defendant 20 may be entitled to partial indemnity from others on a comparative fault basis. 21 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Assumption of Risk) 23 4. As a separate and fourth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 24 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff, and/or the persons and/or 25 entities acting on Plaintiff’s behalf, assumed the risk of all conduct of the Defendant and her 26 agents. 27 / / / 28 2 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Attorneys’ Fees Barred) 3 5. As a separate and fifth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 4 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that attorney’s fees are barred by the 5 provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1021. 6 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Authorization) 8 6. As a separate and sixth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 9 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that by virtue of the acts of the Plaintiff, 10 and/or the persons and/or entities acting on her behalf, Plaintiff is barred from prosecuting the 11 purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of authorization. 12 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (Comparative Fault) 14 7. As a separate and seventh affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 15 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused 16 by the primary negligence and/or acquiescence in the acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint 17 by the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s agents, employees, representatives, family members, heirs, 18 assigns, attorneys, and/or any other persons acting on her behalf. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is 19 not entitled to damages or any other relief whatsoever as against Defendant. 20 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (Compliance with the Law) 22 8. As a separate and eighth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 23 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that the actions taken by Defendant were in 24 full compliance with the law. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 3 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Consent) 3 9. As a separate and ninth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 4 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred from prosecuting the 5 purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint because Plaintiff, and/or the persons and/or 6 entities acting on her behalf, consented to and acquiesced in the subject conduct. 7 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (Estoppel) 9 10. As a separate and tenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 10 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part 11 from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine of 12 estoppel. 13 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Failure to Mitigate) 15 11. As a separate and eleventh affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 16 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims, if any, are barred for 17 her failure, and/or the failure of the persons and/or entities acting on her behalf, to mitigate any 18 alleged damages. 19 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Intervening and Superseding Cause) 21 12. As a separate and twelfth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 22 cause of action contained therein, Plaintiff allege that if Plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss, 23 damage or injury as alleged in the Complaint, such loss, damage or injury was legally caused or 24 contributed to by the negligence or wrongful conduct of other parties, persons or entities, and that 25 their negligence or wrongful conduct was an intervening and superseding cause of the loss, 26 damage or injury of which Plaintiff complains. Hence, plaintiff cannot establish causation as to 27 her alleged damages. 28 / / / 4 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Justification/Excuse) 3 13. As a separate and thirteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 4 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that by virtue of the acts of the 5 Plaintiff, and/or the persons and/or entities acting on their behalf, Plaintiff is barred from 6 prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint because the acts and/or 7 omissions alleged in the Complaint were justified and/or excused. 8 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (Lack of Deception) 10 14. As a separate and fourteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 11 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that her acts and omissions were 12 not deceptive nor intentional, nor wrongful in any manner. 13 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (No Injury or Damage) 15 15. As a separate and fifteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 16 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has not been injured or 17 damaged, in any manner, as a proximate result of any act or omission for which Defendant is 18 responsible. 19 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Statute of Limitations) 21 16. As a separate and sixteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 22 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that the purported causes of action 23 asserted in the Complaint are barred by such statutes of limitation as may be applicable, including, 24 but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure §335, 335.1, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 25 340.5, 340.9, 343, 344 and 474. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 5 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Unclean Hands) 3 17. As a separate and seventeenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 4 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred in whole or 5 in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine 6 of unclean hands. 7 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (Waiver and Estoppel) 9 18. As a separate and eighteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 10 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that as a result of Plaintiff’s own 11 acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff has waived any right which she may have had to recover, and/or is 12 estopped from recovering, any relief sought against Defendant. 13 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Waiver) 15 19. As a separate and nineteenth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 16 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred in whole or 17 in part from prosecuting the purported causes of action set forth in the Complaint by the doctrine 18 of waiver. 19 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Satisfaction of the Standard of Care) 21 20. As a separate and twentieth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 22 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that at all times alleged in the 23 Complaint, Defendant acted within the standard of care for her profession and locality in dealing 24 with all matters alleged therein, and none of her acts or omissions caused any damages to Plaintiff 25 nor was Defendant negligent in any manner. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 6 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 TWENTY FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (No Causation) 3 21. As a separate and twenty-first affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 4 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that none of her acts or omissions 5 proximately caused the damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot 6 maintain any action against Defendant. 7 TWENTY SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (No Emotional Distress Damages) 9 22. As a separate and twenty second affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 10 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that emotional distress damages are 11 not recoverable, on the facts alleged. Gravillis v. Sup. Ct. (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 761. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot seek such damages from Defendant. 13 TWENTY THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Statute of Frauds) 15 23. As a separate and twenty third affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 16 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that the absence of a written 17 contract bars Plaintiff’s causes of action pursuant to Civil Code §1624. 18 TWENTY FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (No Punitive Damages) 20 24. As a separate and twenty fourth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 21 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that she did not act with 22 oppression, fraud, nor malice, of any nature whatsoever, (Civil Code §3294) and thus, punitive 23 damages cannot possibly be awarded from Defendant in favor of Plaintiff. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 7 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 TWENTY FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Right to Add Additional Affirmative Defenses) 3 25. As a separate and twenty fifth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each 4 purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant reserves the right to add additional 5 affirmative defenses that may be discovered as the case progresses. 6 7 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for relief as follows: 8 1. That the Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice and in its entirety; 9 2. That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of her Complaint and that judgment be 10 entered against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant; 11 3. That Defendant be awarded her costs incurred in defending this action; and 12 4. That Defendant be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just 13 and proper. 14 15 DATED: April 24, 2024 ZELMS ERLICH & MACK 16 17 By: 18 Rinat Klier Erlich Brian T. Smith 19 Attorneys for Defendant CAROL NAGY 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 4 20920 Warner Center Lane, Suite B, Woodland Hills, California 91367. 5 On April 24, 2024, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD- 6 KRAUSE’S UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action as follows: 7 8 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 9 10 BY E-MAIL: the foregoing above-described document(s) were electronically served to the above-mentioned party. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was 11 unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. We will provide a physical copy, upon request. 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 13 foregoing is true and correct. 14 Executed on April 24, 2024, at Woodland Hills, California. 15 16 17 Rosa E. Rojas 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 SERVICE LIST Lord-Krause v. Rowing, et al. 2 Case No.: 23CV01793 3 4 Janean Acevedo Daniels, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff KATHERINE LORD- LAW OFFICE OF KRAUSE 5 JANEAN ACEVEDO DANIELS 1160 Via de Rey 6 Goleta, California 93117 7 janean@jadanielslaw.com assistant@jadanielslaw.com 8 John C. Eck, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant MISSION ROWING 9 GRIFFITH & THORNBURGH, LLP 8 East Figueroa Street, Suite 300 10 Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2762 11 eck@g-tlaw.com cordero@g-tlaw.com 12 Steven H. Schwartz, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant CONAL GROOM 13 SCHWARTZ & JANZEN, LLP 12100 Wilshire Boulevard 14 Suite 1125 15 Los Angeles, CA 90025 sschwartz@sj-law.com 16 Luis Esparza, Esq. 17 ESPARZA LAW GROUP, P.C. Post Office Box 343 18 Santa Barbara, CA 93102 19 info@esparzalaw.com 20 Laura Loeck, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant US Rowing Association MURCHINSON & CUMMINGS 21 Mt. Diablo Plaza 2175 N. California Blvd. Ste 900 22 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 lloeck@murchisonlaw.com 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY TO PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE’S UNVERIFIED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT