Preview
1 MARY KAY GLASPY (SBN 157167)
MGlaspy@mgmlaw.com
2 MANNING GROSS + MASSENBURG LLP
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 750 ELECTRONICALLY
3 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 947-1300 F I L E D
4 Superior Court of California,
Facsimile: (925) 947-1594 County of San Francisco
5 Attorneys for Defendants 06/18/2020
Clerk of the Court
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and BY: EDWARD SANTOS
6 Deputy Clerk
KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba THE PALACE HOTEL
7
8
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
JAMES KNUTSON, Case No. CGC-20-584265
11
Plaintiff,
12 DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT
v. INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA
13 HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba THE
OKTA, INC.; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO
14 INC.; KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
dba THE PALACE HOTEL; and DOES 1
15 through 20, inclusive,
Complaint Filed: April 30, 2020
16 Defendants. Trial Date: Not Set
17
18
19 COME NOW, defendants MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS &
20 RESORTS, L.P. dba THE PALACE HOTEL (hereinafter “Defendants”), and answer the
21 Unverified Complaint filed by plaintiff JAMES KNUTSON (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), as follows:
22 GENERAL DENIAL
23 Answering the allegations contained in each and every paragraph of the Complaint herein,
24 these answering defendants hereby deny each and every, all and singular, generally and
25 specifically, the allegations therein contained, and further specifically deny that said Plaintiff has
26 been damaged in any sum, sums, or at all.
27 Defendants hereby assert the following separate and distinct, affirmative defenses:
28 ///
1
DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba
THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Failure to State a Cause of Action)
3 The Complaint, and all causes of action, contentions, and/or allegations contained therein,
4 fails to set forth facts and allegations sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these
5 answering defendants.
6 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Statute of Limitations)
8 The action is barred by various statutory defined periods of limitation, including, but not
9 limited to, the following separate and distinct sections of the California Code of Civil Procedure;
10 337, 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340, 343, et seq.
11 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Comparative Fault)
13 Plaintiff was careless and negligent in and about the matters referred to in the Complaint,
14 and said carelessness and negligence on the part of the Plaintiff proximately contributed to and/or
15 was the sole proximate contributing cause of all damages or injuries purportedly resulting or arising
16 therefrom, if any there were.
17 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Assumption of Risk)
19 At all times and places mentioned in the Complaint, Plaintiff was fully aware of all of the
20 facts, matters and circumstances surrounding said matters, and knowingly and voluntarily assumed
21 the risk of injury and/or damages, if any there were.
22 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Third Party Comparative Fault)
24 Any finding of negligence against these answering defendants should be compared to the
25 negligence of all other parties to this action, including the Plaintiff, cross-defendants and other third
26 parties, and reduced accordingly.
27 ///
28 ///
2
DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba
THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Failure to Mitigate)
3 Plaintiff was under an active duty to use reasonable care and diligence to minimize his
4 losses and has failed to mitigate his damages in this action.
5 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Trivial Risk)
7 The condition complained of was trivial as a matter of law, and therefore Plaintiff cannot
8 state a claim against these answering defendants.
9 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (De Minimus)
11 The condition complained of was de minimus as a matter of law, and therefore Plaintiff
12 cannot state a claim against these answering defendants.
13 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Misjoinder and/or non-joinder)
15 In the event of misjoinder and/or non-joinder of parties, and specifically wherein there is an
16 omitted party to the action who has an interest in the subject matter and in whose absence complete
17 relief cannot be accorded, Defendants specifically reserve all rights under applicable law including,
18 but not limited to, those under Code of Civil Procedure §389.
19 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Laches)
21 The action is barred by the doctrine of laches.
22 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (No Causation)
24 The Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, is barred on the ground that
25 Defendants, and their acts complained of in the Complaint, were not the direct and proximate cause
26 of any of the alleged damages purportedly suffered by Plaintiff.
27 ///
28 ///
3
DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba
THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Plaintiff’s Unreasonable Conduct)
3 Plaintiff should be denied recovery herein, because his conduct was manifestly
4 unreasonable.
5 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (No Duty to Aid or Rescue)
7 Defendants had no duty to warn, aid or rescue Plaintiff relative to the alleged dangerous
8 condition of which he complains.
9 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (No Disclosure of Private Facts)
11 Defendants, at no time, disclosed or contributed to the disclosure of any information
12 protected by Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
13 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (No Severe Emotional Distress)
15 Defendants did not, at any time, take any action that was so extreme or outrageous that
16 such action caused plaintiff to suffer from severe emotional distress. Further, Defendants took no
17 action with the intent of causing plaintiff severe emotional distress.
18 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Reservation of Additional Affirmative Defenses)
20 Because Plaintiff’s claims are framed in broad and conclusory language, Defendants
21 reserve the right to assert other affirmative defenses as may be warranted as discovery in this
22 action proceeds.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
4
DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba
THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 PRAYER
2 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows:
3 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of the Complaint;
4 2. That Defendants be dismissed with costs of suit incurred herein; and
5 3. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
6
7 DATED: June 18, 2020 MANNING GROSS + MASSENBURG LLP
8
9 MARY KAY GLASPY
Attorneys for Defendants
10 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and
KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba
11 THE PALACE HOTEL
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba
THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, I am over the age of 18
3 and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 750,
Walnut Creek, California 94596.
4
On June 18, 2020, I served on the parties of record in this action the foregoing document
5 described as:
6
DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS,
7 L.P. dba THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
8 [X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: By e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the
e-mail address(es) listed below. Pursuant to notice by the County of Contra Costa, to
9 shelter in place during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, this office will be working
remotely, not able to send physical mail, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No
10 electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was
received within a reasonable time after the transmission.
11
[X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
12 above is true and correct.
13 Executed on this 18th day of June, 2020, at Walnut Creek, California.
14
_______________________________
15
Jen Nolan
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba
THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 SERVICE LIST
2 Darrell M. Padgette
NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
3 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
4 Tel.: (844) 622-6469
Fax: (213) 622-6019
5
dpadgette@njlawfirm.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7 JAMES KNUTSON
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba
THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
Preview
1 MARY KAY GLASPY (SBN 157167) MGlaspy@mgmlaw.com 2 MANNING GROSS + MASSENBURG LLP 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 750 ELECTRONICALLY 3 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 947-1300 F I L E D 4 Superior Court of California, Facsimile: (925) 947-1594 County of San Francisco 5 Attorneys for Defendants 06/18/2020 Clerk of the Court MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and BY: EDWARD SANTOS 6 Deputy Clerk KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba THE PALACE HOTEL 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 JAMES KNUTSON, Case No. CGC-20-584265 11 Plaintiff, 12 DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT v. INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA 13 HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba THE OKTA, INC.; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO 14 INC.; KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT dba THE PALACE HOTEL; and DOES 1 15 through 20, inclusive, Complaint Filed: April 30, 2020 16 Defendants. Trial Date: Not Set 17 18 19 COME NOW, defendants MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & 20 RESORTS, L.P. dba THE PALACE HOTEL (hereinafter “Defendants”), and answer the 21 Unverified Complaint filed by plaintiff JAMES KNUTSON (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), as follows: 22 GENERAL DENIAL 23 Answering the allegations contained in each and every paragraph of the Complaint herein, 24 these answering defendants hereby deny each and every, all and singular, generally and 25 specifically, the allegations therein contained, and further specifically deny that said Plaintiff has 26 been damaged in any sum, sums, or at all. 27 Defendants hereby assert the following separate and distinct, affirmative defenses: 28 /// 1 DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Failure to State a Cause of Action) 3 The Complaint, and all causes of action, contentions, and/or allegations contained therein, 4 fails to set forth facts and allegations sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these 5 answering defendants. 6 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Statute of Limitations) 8 The action is barred by various statutory defined periods of limitation, including, but not 9 limited to, the following separate and distinct sections of the California Code of Civil Procedure; 10 337, 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340, 343, et seq. 11 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Comparative Fault) 13 Plaintiff was careless and negligent in and about the matters referred to in the Complaint, 14 and said carelessness and negligence on the part of the Plaintiff proximately contributed to and/or 15 was the sole proximate contributing cause of all damages or injuries purportedly resulting or arising 16 therefrom, if any there were. 17 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Assumption of Risk) 19 At all times and places mentioned in the Complaint, Plaintiff was fully aware of all of the 20 facts, matters and circumstances surrounding said matters, and knowingly and voluntarily assumed 21 the risk of injury and/or damages, if any there were. 22 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Third Party Comparative Fault) 24 Any finding of negligence against these answering defendants should be compared to the 25 negligence of all other parties to this action, including the Plaintiff, cross-defendants and other third 26 parties, and reduced accordingly. 27 /// 28 /// 2 DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Failure to Mitigate) 3 Plaintiff was under an active duty to use reasonable care and diligence to minimize his 4 losses and has failed to mitigate his damages in this action. 5 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Trivial Risk) 7 The condition complained of was trivial as a matter of law, and therefore Plaintiff cannot 8 state a claim against these answering defendants. 9 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (De Minimus) 11 The condition complained of was de minimus as a matter of law, and therefore Plaintiff 12 cannot state a claim against these answering defendants. 13 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Misjoinder and/or non-joinder) 15 In the event of misjoinder and/or non-joinder of parties, and specifically wherein there is an 16 omitted party to the action who has an interest in the subject matter and in whose absence complete 17 relief cannot be accorded, Defendants specifically reserve all rights under applicable law including, 18 but not limited to, those under Code of Civil Procedure §389. 19 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Laches) 21 The action is barred by the doctrine of laches. 22 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (No Causation) 24 The Complaint, and each cause of action contained therein, is barred on the ground that 25 Defendants, and their acts complained of in the Complaint, were not the direct and proximate cause 26 of any of the alleged damages purportedly suffered by Plaintiff. 27 /// 28 /// 3 DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Plaintiff’s Unreasonable Conduct) 3 Plaintiff should be denied recovery herein, because his conduct was manifestly 4 unreasonable. 5 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (No Duty to Aid or Rescue) 7 Defendants had no duty to warn, aid or rescue Plaintiff relative to the alleged dangerous 8 condition of which he complains. 9 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (No Disclosure of Private Facts) 11 Defendants, at no time, disclosed or contributed to the disclosure of any information 12 protected by Plaintiff’s right to privacy. 13 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (No Severe Emotional Distress) 15 Defendants did not, at any time, take any action that was so extreme or outrageous that 16 such action caused plaintiff to suffer from severe emotional distress. Further, Defendants took no 17 action with the intent of causing plaintiff severe emotional distress. 18 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Reservation of Additional Affirmative Defenses) 20 Because Plaintiff’s claims are framed in broad and conclusory language, Defendants 21 reserve the right to assert other affirmative defenses as may be warranted as discovery in this 22 action proceeds. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 4 DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 PRAYER 2 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows: 3 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of the Complaint; 4 2. That Defendants be dismissed with costs of suit incurred herein; and 5 3. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. 6 7 DATED: June 18, 2020 MANNING GROSS + MASSENBURG LLP 8 9 MARY KAY GLASPY Attorneys for Defendants 10 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba 11 THE PALACE HOTEL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, I am over the age of 18 3 and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 750, Walnut Creek, California 94596. 4 On June 18, 2020, I served on the parties of record in this action the foregoing document 5 described as: 6 DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, 7 L.P. dba THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 8 [X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: By e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed below. Pursuant to notice by the County of Contra Costa, to 9 shelter in place during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, this office will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No 10 electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. 11 [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 12 above is true and correct. 13 Executed on this 18th day of June, 2020, at Walnut Creek, California. 14 _______________________________ 15 Jen Nolan 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 SERVICE LIST 2 Darrell M. Padgette NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP 3 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 4 Tel.: (844) 622-6469 Fax: (213) 622-6019 5 dpadgette@njlawfirm.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 JAMES KNUTSON 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 DEFENDANTS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P. dba THE PALACE HOTEL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT