arrow left
arrow right
  • KELLY ARMSTRONG ET AL VS. JENNY DIEP ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • KELLY ARMSTRONG ET AL VS. JENNY DIEP ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • KELLY ARMSTRONG ET AL VS. JENNY DIEP ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • KELLY ARMSTRONG ET AL VS. JENNY DIEP ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • KELLY ARMSTRONG ET AL VS. JENNY DIEP ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • KELLY ARMSTRONG ET AL VS. JENNY DIEP ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • KELLY ARMSTRONG ET AL VS. JENNY DIEP ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • KELLY ARMSTRONG ET AL VS. JENNY DIEP ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
						
                                

Preview

1 LAW OFFICE OF CATHERINE WALSH ILLISE SCHULMAN, (SBN 177117) 2 1800 Sutter Street, Suite 260 ELECTRONICALLY 3 Concord, CA 94520 FILED Tel: 925-825-9500; Fax 925-825-9716 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 4 ischulman@geico.com 05/15/2020 5 Clerk of the Court Attorneys for Defendant BY: MADONNA CARANTO JENNY DIEP Deputy Clerk 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 8 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 9 10 KELLY ARMSTRONG AND LIONEL CASE NO. CGC20583743 ARMSTRONG, 11 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 JENNY DIEP AND DOES 1 TO 10, 15 INCLUSIVE, (Date Complaint Filed: March 16, 2020) 16 Defendants. _____________________________________/ 17 18 Defendant JENNY DIEP, answering the Complaint on file herein, alleges as follows: 19 Pursuant to the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure, this answering 20 defendant generally denies every allegation of each cause of action alleged therein, and further 21 denies that plaintiffs suffered injuries or damages in the amount alleged, or in any other amount. 22 FOR A FIRST SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE 23 OF ACTION, IT IS ALLEGED: 24 The Complaint and each cause of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause 25 of action against this answering defendant. 26 FOR A SECOND SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH 27 CAUSE OF ACTION, IT IS ALLEGED: 28 1 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Sensitivity: Confidential 1 The Complaint and each cause of action therein is barred by the applicable statutes of 2 limitation, including but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure, §§335.1, 337(1-3), 3 337.1(a-f), 337.15(a-g), 338(1-7), 339(1-10, 340(1-5), 340.5 and 364(a-f). 4 FOR A THIRD SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE 5 OF ACTION, IT IS ALLEGED: 6 Civil Code §§1431.1, et. seq., limit general damages and abate joint and several liability. 7 This defendant requests that the Court apportion the damages, if any, and require this answering 8 defendant to pay only her fair and legal percentage of liability as determined by the trier of fact 9 and/or law. 10 FOR A FOURTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH 11 CAUSE OF ACTION, IT IS ALLEGED: 12 Any and all events, injuries, loss, damages and expenditures referred to in the Complaint 13 were directly and proximately caused and contributed to by the carelessness and negligence of 14 plaintiffs, and the extent of damages sustained by the plaintiffs, if any, should be reduced in 15 proportion to the amount of negligence of the plaintiffs. 16 FOR A FIFTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE 17 OF ACTION, IT IS ALLEGED: 18 The accident, injury, and damages alleged in the Complaint were either wholly or in part 19 proximately caused by the negligence and fault of persons, corporations or entities other than this 20 answering defendant, and the negligence of such other persons, corporations, and/or entities 21 comparatively reduces the percentage of negligence, if any, attributed to this answering 22 defendant. 23 FOR A SIXTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE 24 OF ACTION, IT IS ALLEGED: 25 That by the exercise of reasonable effort, plaintiffs could have mitigated the amount of 26 damages they suffered; but plaintiffs failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to 27 exercise reasonable efforts to mitigate the damages. 28 2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Sensitivity: Confidential 1 FOR A SEVENTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH 2 CAUSE OF ACTION, IT IS ALLEGED: 3 That the alleged accident, injuries and damages, if any, were proximately caused by 4 plaintiffs’ implied agreement to voluntarily assume the risk of a known danger. The risks 5 encountered by plaintiffs were inherent in the activities in question, and were therefore 6 reasonable risks. Thus, plaintiffs’ reasonable implied assumptions of the risks act as a complete 7 bar to their recovery. 8 FOR A EIGHTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH 9 CAUSE OF ACTION, IT IS ALLEGED: 10 That the plaintiffs are barred from recovering any and all non-economic damages, 11 pursuant to the provisions of California Civil Code Section 3333.4 [second enacted]. 12 WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays: 13 1. That plaintiffs take nothing by reason of the Complaint; 14 2. That defendant has judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs of 15 suit herein incurred; and 16 3. For such other and further relief as to the Court seems just and proper. 17 18 DATED: May 15, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF CATHERINE WALSH 19 20 21 _________________________________ 22 ILLISE SCHULMAN Attorney for Defendant 23 JENNY DIEP 24 25 26 27 28 3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Sensitivity: Confidential 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 [Armstrong v. Diep] San Francisco Superior Court Unlimited 3 CASE NO.: CGC20583743] 4 5 The undersigned declares: 6 I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County of Contra 7 Costa, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. I 8 am employed by the Law Office of Catherine Walsh, and my business address is 1800 Sutter 9 Street, Suite 260, Concord, CA 94520. 10 On May 15, 2020, I served the attached ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the 11 interested parties in this action at the following addresses as indicated below: 12 [ X ] BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: By e-mailing the documents to the persons at the e-mail 13 address(es) listed based on notice previously provided that, during the Coronavirus 14 (COVID-19) pandemic, this office will be primarily working remotely, unable to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message 15 or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission 16 17 For Plaintiffs KELLY ARMSTRONG AND LIONEL ARMSTRONG Albert Thuesen 18 Coit Law Group 75 Broadway, Ste. 202 19 San Francisco, CA 94111 20 415-787-2648 415-329-2648 21 Email: alt@coitlawgroup.com 22 Executed on May 15, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of 23 the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 24 25 26 ____________________________ 27 JAMIE FERNANE 28 1 Sensitivity: Confidential