Preview
1 Gregory K. Sabo, Esq., Bar No. 169760 ELECTRONICALLY FILED
David A. Napper, Esq., Bar No. 271464 Superior Court of California
2 CHAPMAN GLUCKSMAN County of Santa Barbara
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
3 11900 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 2/20/2024 10:51 AM
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90064-0704 By: Preston Frye , Deputy
4 TEL: (310) 207-7722 • FAX: (310) 207-6550
gsabo@cgdrlaw.com; dnapper@cgdrlaw.com;
5 service@cgdrlaw.com
6 Attorneys for Defendants, PATRICIA WOLLUM
and SUSAN REYNOLDS
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – ANACAPA DIVISION
10
11 MARK SELLARS, individually and as Case No.: 20CV04132
Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t
12 dated September 13, 2000, and REBECCA Assigned for All Purposes to:
MORIN, Conservator of the Estate and Hon.: Thomas Pearce Anderle
13 Person of Rosemary Free Leahy,
14 Plaintiffs, Complaint Filed: 12/11/2020
15 v. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED
16 COMPLAINT
PATRICK LEAHY; CHANNE COLES,
17 THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G.
COLES, a California corporation; Trial Date: 1/29/25
18 PATRICIA WOLLUM; SUSAN MSC: 1/3/25
REYNOLDS; HELP UNLIMITED, a
19 California corporation; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive,
20
Defendants.
21
22 Defendants, PATRICIA WOLLUM and SUSAN REYNOLDS (hereinafter “answering
23 defendants”), hereby respond to the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) of plaintiffs, (hereinafter
24
“plaintiffs”), as follows:
25
ANSWER
26
1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §431.30(d), answering defendants
27
28 deny each and every allegation of plaintiffs’ TAC and the whole thereof, and further deny that
0161.165 1
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum alleged, or in any sum whatsoever.
2 2. Answering defendants further deny that plaintiff was damaged in any sum alleged
3
or in any sum whatsoever from any act, omission, fault, conduct or liability on the part of answering
4
defendants, whether negligent, careless, unlawful, or of any nature alleged or otherwise.
5
3. Answering defendants further deny that it was in any way negligent, careless,
6
7 reckless, wanton or unlawful, vis-a-vis the incident that allegedly gives rise to this lawsuit.
8 4. Answering defendants further alleges the following affirmative defenses, in
9 response to plaintiffs’ TAC:
10
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES:
11
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12
1. Failure to State a Cause of Action. Plaintiffs’ TAC, and each and every purported
13
cause of action alleged therein, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against
14
answering defendants.
15
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16
2. Statute of Limitations. Plaintiffs’ TAC, and each and every purported cause of
17
action alleged therein, is barred by applicable statutes of limitation, including without limitation
18
California Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, et seq., et al.
19
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20
3. Failure to Mitigate. Plaintiffs have failed and neglected to mitigate their alleged
21
damages, and is therefore barred from any recovery against answering defendants.
22
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23
4. Contribution/Comparative Fault. Plaintiffs alleged damages, if any, were the
24
direct and proximate result of the negligence of parties, persons, businesses, corporations and/or
25
entities other than answering defendants. Accordingly, the liability of answering defendants, if any,
26
is limited only and in direct proportion to the percentage of fault, if any, attributable to answering
27
defendants.
28
0161.165 2
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 5. Contributory Negligence. Plaintiffs were negligent, careless, reckless and
3 conducted themselves so as to directly and proximately contribute to the occurrence of the incident,
4 which negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and conduct bars plaintiffs’ recovery of any relief or
5 damages against answering defendants.
6 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 6. Estoppel. Plaintiffs engaged in conduct and activities that estop and bar plaintiffs
8 from recovering any relief or damages against answering defendants.
9 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 7. Waiver. Plaintiffs engaged in conduct and activities sufficient to constitute a waiver
11 of any alleged breach of duty, negligence, act, omission, or any other alleged conduct, if any,
12 against answering defendants.
13 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 8. Intervening/Superseding Causes. Plaintiffs alleged damages were proximately
15 caused by or contributed to by the acts of other defendants, cross-defendants, persons and/or other
16 entities, and that said acts were an intervening and superseding cause of the damages, if any, of
17 which the plaintiffs complain, thus barring plaintiffs from any recovery against answering
18 defendants.
19 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 9. Assumption of the Risk. At all relevant times, plaintiffs expressly, voluntarily, and
21 knowingly assumed all risks about which plaintiffs complain in the TAC. Consequently, such
22 assumption of the risk now bars plaintiffs from recovering any relief or damages against answering
23 defendants.
24 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 10. Active/Primary Liability. Plaintiffs’ actions and conduct, as alleged and described
26 in plaintiffs’ TAC, was such that any and all liability based thereon was active and primary, thereby
27 barring any relief or recovery against answering defendants.
28
0161.165 3
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 11. Laches. Plaintiffs waited an extended and unreasonable period of time before
3 asserting claims against answering defendants. Therefore, plaintiffs are barred from asserting such
4 late and stale claims, or from recovering any relief or damages against answering defendants.
5 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 12. Unclean Hands. Plaintiffs are barred from recovering any relief or damages against
7 answering defendants due to plaintiffs’ unclean hands.
8 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 13. Justifiable Conduct. The conduct of answering defendants in regard to the matters
10 alleged in plaintiffs’ TAC was justified. Plaintiffs are therefore barred from any relief or recovery
11 against defendants.
12 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 14. Complete Performance. Answering defendants properly and completely, and fully
14 performed and discharged any and all obligations and duties arising out of the matters alleged in
15 plaintiffs’ unverified. Plaintiffs are therefore barred from any relief or recovery against defendants.
16 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 15. Unintended/Abnormal Use. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any, were proximately
18 caused and contributed to by the unintended and abnormal manner or use of his vehicle, and not
19 from any act, omission or conduct of answering defendants.
20 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 16. Misuse/Modification. To the extent there was any defect in any product or vehicle
22 referenced in plaintiffs’ TAC, such defect, if any, did not exist at the time the product left the
23 possession, custody or control of answering defendants, and that any alleged defect in the product
24 was caused or created by the misuse, abuse, change, modification, alteration, improper use, and/or
25 improper maintenance of plaintiff, persons, and entities other than answering defendants.
26 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 17. Failure to Notify. Answering defendants are informed and believe, and on that
28 basis alleges that if any defects or inadequacies existed in the product involved in the incident
0161.165 4
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 alleged in plaintiffs’ TAC, that plaintiffs failed to timely notify answering defendants of such
2 defects or inadequacies and failed to give answering defendants timely opportunity to address such
3 defects or inadequacies. Such failure to notify by plaintiffs bar them from recovering any damages
4 against answering defendants.
5 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 18. Lack of Equity. As between plaintiffs and answering defendants, the equities do
7 not preponderate in favor of plaintiffs so as to allow recovery or relief by plaintiffs against
8 answering defendants.
9 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 19. Unavoidable Incident or Condition. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any, were the
11 direct and proximate result of an unavoidable incident or condition beyond the reach or control of
12 answering defendants. Consequently, answering defendants are without fault nor liable for
13 plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any.
14 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 20. Lack of Standing or Capacity. Plaintiffs may lack standing and/or capacity to sue.
16 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 21. Several Liability. Answering defendants is informed and believes, and on that
18 basis alleges that along with the plaintiffs, other defendants are responsible for any claimed
19 economic and/or non-economic damages of plaintiffs. Accordingly, pursuant to California Civil
20 Code §1431, plaintiffs’ recovery of non-economic damages, if any, against answering defendants
21 is barred except for any non-economic damages specifically apportioned and/or attributed to
22 answering defendants.
23 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 22. Restriction on Damages. Plaintiff alleged damages, if any, is barred in whole or in
25 part by the statutory terms and provisions of California Civil Code §3333.4(a)(3), and plaintiff’s
26 failure to comply with the provisions thereof.
27 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28 23. Spoliation. Plaintiffs and/other defendants, cross-defendants and/or non-parties
0161.165 5
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 spoliated the subject product or vehicle involved in the incident alleged in plaintiffs’ TAC, by
2 among other things, delaying notification of the accident to answering defendants; delaying
3 notification of any alleged defects in any product or vehicle to answering defendants; utilizing any
4 product or vehicles involved in the incident without regard to the rights of answering defendants;
5 inspecting any product or vehicle involved in the incident without regard to the rights of answering
6 defendants; altering, amending, modifying, changing, and/or destroying any product or vehicle
7 involved in the incident without regard to the rights of answering defendants; and/or failing to
8 maintain proper care, custody and control of the product or vehicle involved in the incident without
9 regard to the rights of answering defendants. Such acts and conduct have inexorably prejudiced
10 answering defendants, which acts and conduct bar plaintiff from any rights, remedies or damages
11 as against answering defendants.
12 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 24. Improper Defendants. Answering defendants is informed and believes, and on
14 that basis alleges that the plaintiffs have asserted claims and causes of action against defendants
15 who are not proper parties to this lawsuit.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16
17 25. Reservation of Rights. Answering defendants presently possesses insufficient
18 knowledge and/or information upon which to form a belief of whether answering defendants may
19 have additional and as yet unstated additional affirmative defenses. Answering defendants therefore
20
reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates that such
21
would be appropriate.
22
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23
24 26. Plaintiffs’ violation of Penal Code Section 632. Plaintiffs engaged in prohibited
25 conduct by intentional eavesdropping on or recording of confidential communications without the
26 consent of all parties to a confidential communication thereby rendering all evidence resulting
27 therefrom inadmissible and claims barred that follow from the fruit of the poisonous tree.
28
0161.165 6
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 WHEREFORE, answering defendants pray as follows:
2 (1) That plaintiffs take nothing by way of their TAC;
3
(2) That judgment be entered in favor of answering defendants and against plaintiffs;
4
(3) That answering defendants be awarded its costs of the suit incurred herein; and.
5
(4) That answering defendants be awarded such other and further relief as the Court
6
7 deems just and proper.
8
9 DATED: February 20, 2024 CHAPMAN GLUCKSMAN
A Professional Corporation
10
11
By:
12 GREG K. SABO
DAVID A. NAPPER
13 Attorneys for Defendants, SUSAN
REYNOLDS and PATRICIA WOLLUM
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0161.165 7
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 11900 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite
4 800, Los Angeles, California 90064.
5
On February 20, 2024, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANTS’
6 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT on the parties in this action
by placing a true copy(ies) or the original(s) thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as
7 follows:
8 See Attached Service List
9
10 BY MAIL
I placed said document in an envelope addressed as shown on the service list. I am "readily
11 familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing
with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, said correspondence will be
12 deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day in the ordinary course of
business. I sealed said envelope and placed it for collection and mailing on the date stated
13 below to the addressed stated on the attached service list, following the firm's ordinary
business practices, and,
14
15 ESERVICE. Transmitting a copy of the foregoing document(s) via internet/electronic
mail to a Court Approved e-filing/e-service portal ONELEGAL for service on all parties
16 in this case via their email addresses pursuant to the General Court Order authorizing e-
service of documents
17
ELECTRONIC MAIL By transmitting a copy of the foregoing document(s) via
18 internet/electronic mail from my email address kwindrim@cgdrlaw.com for service on all
19 parties in this case via their email addresses as shown below pursuant to [California Code
of Civil Procedure §1010.6(e) or pursuant to agreement between the parties].
20
STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21 foregoing is true and correct.
22
Executed on February 20, 2024, at Los Angeles, California.
23
24
KERI WINDRIM
25
26
27
28
0601.045 1
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
SANTA BARBARA SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 20CV04132
2
3 Our File No. 0161.165
4 SERVICE LIST
5 David J. Tappeiner. SBN 243979 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Mark Sellars
RIMON LAW, P.C.
6 701 Anacapa Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
7 Tel: (805) 892-7177; Fax: (805) 456-0415
david.tappeiner@rimonlaw.com
8
Patrick Leahy Defendant
9 PO Box 6882
Santa Maria, CA 93456-6882
10 patsprod@yahoo.com
11 R. Chris Kroes Attorneys for Defendants Channe Coles and
THE LAW OFFICES OF McCARTHY & Law Office of Channe Coles
12
KROES
13 125 East Victoria Street, Suite A
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
14 chris@mccarthykroes.com
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0601.045 2
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 Gregory K. Sabo, Esq., Bar No. 169760 ELECTRONICALLY FILED David A. Napper, Esq., Bar No. 271464 Superior Court of California 2 CHAPMAN GLUCKSMAN County of Santa Barbara A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 3 11900 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD, SUITE 800 2/20/2024 10:51 AM LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90064-0704 By: Preston Frye , Deputy 4 TEL: (310) 207-7722 • FAX: (310) 207-6550 gsabo@cgdrlaw.com; dnapper@cgdrlaw.com; 5 service@cgdrlaw.com 6 Attorneys for Defendants, PATRICIA WOLLUM and SUSAN REYNOLDS 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – ANACAPA DIVISION 10 11 MARK SELLARS, individually and as Case No.: 20CV04132 Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t 12 dated September 13, 2000, and REBECCA Assigned for All Purposes to: MORIN, Conservator of the Estate and Hon.: Thomas Pearce Anderle 13 Person of Rosemary Free Leahy, 14 Plaintiffs, Complaint Filed: 12/11/2020 15 v. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED 16 COMPLAINT PATRICK LEAHY; CHANNE COLES, 17 THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES, a California corporation; Trial Date: 1/29/25 18 PATRICIA WOLLUM; SUSAN MSC: 1/3/25 REYNOLDS; HELP UNLIMITED, a 19 California corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 20 Defendants. 21 22 Defendants, PATRICIA WOLLUM and SUSAN REYNOLDS (hereinafter “answering 23 defendants”), hereby respond to the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) of plaintiffs, (hereinafter 24 “plaintiffs”), as follows: 25 ANSWER 26 1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §431.30(d), answering defendants 27 28 deny each and every allegation of plaintiffs’ TAC and the whole thereof, and further deny that 0161.165 1 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum alleged, or in any sum whatsoever. 2 2. Answering defendants further deny that plaintiff was damaged in any sum alleged 3 or in any sum whatsoever from any act, omission, fault, conduct or liability on the part of answering 4 defendants, whether negligent, careless, unlawful, or of any nature alleged or otherwise. 5 3. Answering defendants further deny that it was in any way negligent, careless, 6 7 reckless, wanton or unlawful, vis-a-vis the incident that allegedly gives rise to this lawsuit. 8 4. Answering defendants further alleges the following affirmative defenses, in 9 response to plaintiffs’ TAC: 10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES: 11 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 1. Failure to State a Cause of Action. Plaintiffs’ TAC, and each and every purported 13 cause of action alleged therein, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against 14 answering defendants. 15 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 2. Statute of Limitations. Plaintiffs’ TAC, and each and every purported cause of 17 action alleged therein, is barred by applicable statutes of limitation, including without limitation 18 California Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, et seq., et al. 19 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 3. Failure to Mitigate. Plaintiffs have failed and neglected to mitigate their alleged 21 damages, and is therefore barred from any recovery against answering defendants. 22 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 4. Contribution/Comparative Fault. Plaintiffs alleged damages, if any, were the 24 direct and proximate result of the negligence of parties, persons, businesses, corporations and/or 25 entities other than answering defendants. Accordingly, the liability of answering defendants, if any, 26 is limited only and in direct proportion to the percentage of fault, if any, attributable to answering 27 defendants. 28 0161.165 2 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 5. Contributory Negligence. Plaintiffs were negligent, careless, reckless and 3 conducted themselves so as to directly and proximately contribute to the occurrence of the incident, 4 which negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and conduct bars plaintiffs’ recovery of any relief or 5 damages against answering defendants. 6 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 6. Estoppel. Plaintiffs engaged in conduct and activities that estop and bar plaintiffs 8 from recovering any relief or damages against answering defendants. 9 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 7. Waiver. Plaintiffs engaged in conduct and activities sufficient to constitute a waiver 11 of any alleged breach of duty, negligence, act, omission, or any other alleged conduct, if any, 12 against answering defendants. 13 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 8. Intervening/Superseding Causes. Plaintiffs alleged damages were proximately 15 caused by or contributed to by the acts of other defendants, cross-defendants, persons and/or other 16 entities, and that said acts were an intervening and superseding cause of the damages, if any, of 17 which the plaintiffs complain, thus barring plaintiffs from any recovery against answering 18 defendants. 19 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 9. Assumption of the Risk. At all relevant times, plaintiffs expressly, voluntarily, and 21 knowingly assumed all risks about which plaintiffs complain in the TAC. Consequently, such 22 assumption of the risk now bars plaintiffs from recovering any relief or damages against answering 23 defendants. 24 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 10. Active/Primary Liability. Plaintiffs’ actions and conduct, as alleged and described 26 in plaintiffs’ TAC, was such that any and all liability based thereon was active and primary, thereby 27 barring any relief or recovery against answering defendants. 28 0161.165 3 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 11. Laches. Plaintiffs waited an extended and unreasonable period of time before 3 asserting claims against answering defendants. Therefore, plaintiffs are barred from asserting such 4 late and stale claims, or from recovering any relief or damages against answering defendants. 5 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 12. Unclean Hands. Plaintiffs are barred from recovering any relief or damages against 7 answering defendants due to plaintiffs’ unclean hands. 8 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 13. Justifiable Conduct. The conduct of answering defendants in regard to the matters 10 alleged in plaintiffs’ TAC was justified. Plaintiffs are therefore barred from any relief or recovery 11 against defendants. 12 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 14. Complete Performance. Answering defendants properly and completely, and fully 14 performed and discharged any and all obligations and duties arising out of the matters alleged in 15 plaintiffs’ unverified. Plaintiffs are therefore barred from any relief or recovery against defendants. 16 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 15. Unintended/Abnormal Use. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any, were proximately 18 caused and contributed to by the unintended and abnormal manner or use of his vehicle, and not 19 from any act, omission or conduct of answering defendants. 20 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 16. Misuse/Modification. To the extent there was any defect in any product or vehicle 22 referenced in plaintiffs’ TAC, such defect, if any, did not exist at the time the product left the 23 possession, custody or control of answering defendants, and that any alleged defect in the product 24 was caused or created by the misuse, abuse, change, modification, alteration, improper use, and/or 25 improper maintenance of plaintiff, persons, and entities other than answering defendants. 26 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 17. Failure to Notify. Answering defendants are informed and believe, and on that 28 basis alleges that if any defects or inadequacies existed in the product involved in the incident 0161.165 4 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 alleged in plaintiffs’ TAC, that plaintiffs failed to timely notify answering defendants of such 2 defects or inadequacies and failed to give answering defendants timely opportunity to address such 3 defects or inadequacies. Such failure to notify by plaintiffs bar them from recovering any damages 4 against answering defendants. 5 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 18. Lack of Equity. As between plaintiffs and answering defendants, the equities do 7 not preponderate in favor of plaintiffs so as to allow recovery or relief by plaintiffs against 8 answering defendants. 9 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 19. Unavoidable Incident or Condition. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any, were the 11 direct and proximate result of an unavoidable incident or condition beyond the reach or control of 12 answering defendants. Consequently, answering defendants are without fault nor liable for 13 plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any. 14 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 20. Lack of Standing or Capacity. Plaintiffs may lack standing and/or capacity to sue. 16 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 21. Several Liability. Answering defendants is informed and believes, and on that 18 basis alleges that along with the plaintiffs, other defendants are responsible for any claimed 19 economic and/or non-economic damages of plaintiffs. Accordingly, pursuant to California Civil 20 Code §1431, plaintiffs’ recovery of non-economic damages, if any, against answering defendants 21 is barred except for any non-economic damages specifically apportioned and/or attributed to 22 answering defendants. 23 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 22. Restriction on Damages. Plaintiff alleged damages, if any, is barred in whole or in 25 part by the statutory terms and provisions of California Civil Code §3333.4(a)(3), and plaintiff’s 26 failure to comply with the provisions thereof. 27 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28 23. Spoliation. Plaintiffs and/other defendants, cross-defendants and/or non-parties 0161.165 5 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 spoliated the subject product or vehicle involved in the incident alleged in plaintiffs’ TAC, by 2 among other things, delaying notification of the accident to answering defendants; delaying 3 notification of any alleged defects in any product or vehicle to answering defendants; utilizing any 4 product or vehicles involved in the incident without regard to the rights of answering defendants; 5 inspecting any product or vehicle involved in the incident without regard to the rights of answering 6 defendants; altering, amending, modifying, changing, and/or destroying any product or vehicle 7 involved in the incident without regard to the rights of answering defendants; and/or failing to 8 maintain proper care, custody and control of the product or vehicle involved in the incident without 9 regard to the rights of answering defendants. Such acts and conduct have inexorably prejudiced 10 answering defendants, which acts and conduct bar plaintiff from any rights, remedies or damages 11 as against answering defendants. 12 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 24. Improper Defendants. Answering defendants is informed and believes, and on 14 that basis alleges that the plaintiffs have asserted claims and causes of action against defendants 15 who are not proper parties to this lawsuit. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 17 25. Reservation of Rights. Answering defendants presently possesses insufficient 18 knowledge and/or information upon which to form a belief of whether answering defendants may 19 have additional and as yet unstated additional affirmative defenses. Answering defendants therefore 20 reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates that such 21 would be appropriate. 22 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 24 26. Plaintiffs’ violation of Penal Code Section 632. Plaintiffs engaged in prohibited 25 conduct by intentional eavesdropping on or recording of confidential communications without the 26 consent of all parties to a confidential communication thereby rendering all evidence resulting 27 therefrom inadmissible and claims barred that follow from the fruit of the poisonous tree. 28 0161.165 6 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 WHEREFORE, answering defendants pray as follows: 2 (1) That plaintiffs take nothing by way of their TAC; 3 (2) That judgment be entered in favor of answering defendants and against plaintiffs; 4 (3) That answering defendants be awarded its costs of the suit incurred herein; and. 5 (4) That answering defendants be awarded such other and further relief as the Court 6 7 deems just and proper. 8 9 DATED: February 20, 2024 CHAPMAN GLUCKSMAN A Professional Corporation 10 11 By: 12 GREG K. SABO DAVID A. NAPPER 13 Attorneys for Defendants, SUSAN REYNOLDS and PATRICIA WOLLUM 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0161.165 7 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 11900 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 4 800, Los Angeles, California 90064. 5 On February 20, 2024, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANTS’ 6 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT on the parties in this action by placing a true copy(ies) or the original(s) thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as 7 follows: 8 See Attached Service List 9 10 BY MAIL I placed said document in an envelope addressed as shown on the service list. I am "readily 11 familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, said correspondence will be 12 deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day in the ordinary course of business. I sealed said envelope and placed it for collection and mailing on the date stated 13 below to the addressed stated on the attached service list, following the firm's ordinary business practices, and, 14 15 ESERVICE. Transmitting a copy of the foregoing document(s) via internet/electronic mail to a Court Approved e-filing/e-service portal ONELEGAL for service on all parties 16 in this case via their email addresses pursuant to the General Court Order authorizing e- service of documents 17 ELECTRONIC MAIL By transmitting a copy of the foregoing document(s) via 18 internet/electronic mail from my email address kwindrim@cgdrlaw.com for service on all 19 parties in this case via their email addresses as shown below pursuant to [California Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6(e) or pursuant to agreement between the parties]. 20 STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 21 foregoing is true and correct. 22 Executed on February 20, 2024, at Los Angeles, California. 23 24 KERI WINDRIM 25 26 27 28 0601.045 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 SANTA BARBARA SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 20CV04132 2 3 Our File No. 0161.165 4 SERVICE LIST 5 David J. Tappeiner. SBN 243979 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Mark Sellars RIMON LAW, P.C. 6 701 Anacapa Street, Suite B Santa Barbara, CA 93101 7 Tel: (805) 892-7177; Fax: (805) 456-0415 david.tappeiner@rimonlaw.com 8 Patrick Leahy Defendant 9 PO Box 6882 Santa Maria, CA 93456-6882 10 patsprod@yahoo.com 11 R. Chris Kroes Attorneys for Defendants Channe Coles and THE LAW OFFICES OF McCARTHY & Law Office of Channe Coles 12 KROES 13 125 East Victoria Street, Suite A Santa Barbara, CA 93101 14 chris@mccarthykroes.com 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0601.045 2 PROOF OF SERVICE