Preview
JEFFREY M. VUCINICH, ESQ. BAR#: 67906
jvucinich@clappmoroney.com
DANIEL D. MARCUS, ESQ. BAR#: 312740
dmarcus@clappmoroney.com
CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN and SCHELEY
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1111 Bayhill Drive, Suite 300
San Bruno, CA 94066
(650) 989-5400 (650) 989-5499 FAX
Attorneys for Defendant
SUGARCRM, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
CARLA DEARMITT, | Case No. 20CV367431
Plaintiff, | Case assigned to Hon. Thang N. Barrett in
Dept. 21 for all purposes
vs.
DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.’S
CITY OF CUPERTIONO; SUGARCRM, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
Defendants. | Complaint filed: 06/18/2020
| Trial date: N/A
Defendant, SUGARCRM, INC., in answer to the unverified Complaint of plaintiff,
CARLA DEARMITT, herewith denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations of said
complaint, and each alleged cause of action thereof, and in that connection, this defendant denies
that plaintiff has been injured or damaged in any of the sums mentioned in the complaint, or in any
other amount, or at all, by reason of any act or omission of this defendant.
AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
COMPLAINT, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF, this answering
1
DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTdefendant alleges that said complaint, and each alleged cause of action thereof, fails to state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant.
AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT,
AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF, this answering defendant alleges that
plaintiff was herself careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the complaint, and
each alleged cause of action thereof, and that this carelessness and negligence on said plaintiff's
own part proximately contributed to the happening of the loss and damages complained of, if any
there were. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, plaintiffs own comparative negligence
shall reduce any and all damages sustained by said plaintiff.
AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT,
AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF, this answering defendant alleges that
said damages sustained by plaintiff was cither wholly or in part the fault of others, whether that
fault be the proximate result of negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, breach of contract
or any other type of fault caused by persons, firms, corporations or entities other than this
answering defendant and said negligence or fault comparatively reduces the percentage of fault or
negligence, if any, by this answering defendant.
AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT,
AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF, this answering defendant alleges that
plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.
AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT,
AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF. , this answering defendant alleges that
the complaint and each alleged cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action in that said complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by the statute of
limitations as stated in Part Two, Title IL, Chapter 3, of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
2
DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF°S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTbeginning with Section 335, and continuing through Section 349.4 and, more particularly, but not
limited, to Sections 337, 337.1, 337.15, 337.5, 338, 339, 340 and 343.
AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT,
AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF, this answering defendant alleges that
the provisions of the "Fair Responsibility Act of 1986" (commonly known as Proposition 51, Civil
Code Sections 1430, 1431, 1431.1, 1431.2, 1431,3, 1431.4, 1431.5 and 1432) are applicable to this
action to the extent plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any there were or are, were proximately
caused or contributed to by the carelessness, negligence or fault of persons or entities other than
this answering defendant.
AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
COMPLAINT, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF, this answering
defendant is informed and believes and thereon allege that plaintiff, with full appreciation of the
particular risks involved, nevertheless knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risks and hazards of
the activity complained of and the damages, if any, resulting therefrom.
AS A EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT,
AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF, this answering defendant alleges that
plaintiff's complaint, to the extent that it seeks exemplary or punitive damages pursuant to Civil
Code Section 3294, violates defendants! right to protection from "excessive fines" as provided in
the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 17, of the Constitution
of the State of California, and violates defendants’ right to substantive due process as provided in
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the
State of California, and therefore fails to state a cause of action supporting the punitive or
exemplary damages claimed.
Hf
3
DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.°S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTWHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays that plaintiff take nothing by way of her
unverified Complaint, that defendant have judgment for their costs of suit incurred, herein,
together with such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Dated: July 27, 2020 CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN
and SCHELEY
By:
JEFFREY M. VUCINICH, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendant
SUGARCRM, INC.
4
DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTYA Dn B ww
DEARMITT, CARLA vy. CITY OF CUPERTINO, et al.
Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 20CV367431
PROOF OF SERVICE - Civil
[Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 1011, 1013, 1031a, 2015.5}
METHOD OF SERVICE:
By Personal Service o By Mail o By Overnight Delivery
By Messenger Service © By Facsimile By E-Mail/Electronic Transmission
1. Iam a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County of San Mateo, State of
California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action.
2. My place of employment is 1111 Bayhill Drive, Suite 300, San Bruno, CA 94066.
3. On the date set forth below, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the document
described as:
DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED
COMPLAINT
4, I served the document on the persons below, as follows:
Brian L. Larsen, Esq.
Law Offices of Brian L. Larsen
530 Jackson Street, 2" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94133
Tel: (415) 398-5000
Fax: (415) 398-5080
email: blarsen50\ 2
Attorneys for Plaintiff CA.
5. The document was served by the following means (specify):
a. Oo BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I personally delivered the documents to the
persons at the addresses listed in item 4. (1) For a party represented by
an_attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's
office by leaving the documents in an envelope or package clearly
labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or an
individual in charge of the office. (2) For a party, delivery was made
to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with
some person not less than 18 years of age between the hours of eight
in the morning and six in the evening.
b. oO BY UNITED STATES MAIL. I enclosed the documents in a sealed
envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item
4 and (specify one):
(1) 8 deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Services,
with the postage fully prepaid.
(2) 0 placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary
business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice
5
DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTfor collecting and Processing correspondence for mailing. On the
same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it
is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States
Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid,
I am resident or employed in the County where the mailing occurred. The envelope or
package was placed in the mail at San Bruno, California, County of San Mateo.
c Oo BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY. I enclosed the documents in an envelope
or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the
persons at the addresses in item 4, I place the envelope or package for
collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop
box of the overnight delivery carrier.
d. a BY MESSENGER SERVICE. | served the documents by placing them in
an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in
item 4 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service.
e. a BY FAX TRANSMISSION. Based on an agreement of the parties to
accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at
the fax numbers listed in item 4. No error was reported by the fax machine
that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed
out, is attached.
f. 5 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Based on a court
order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic
transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the email
addresses listed in item 4. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after
the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
transmission was unsuccessful.
s (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
a (Federal) I declare that | am employed in the offices of a membpr of the bar of this court at
whose direction this service was made. | declare under penalty of/perjurythat the foregoing is true
and correct.
Executed on July 27, 2020, 2020, at San Bruno, Califorhia, Cc
gidia Gomez
6
DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
Preview
JEFFREY M. VUCINICH, ESQ. BAR#: 67906 jvucinich@clappmoroney.com DANIEL D. MARCUS, ESQ. BAR#: 312740 dmarcus@clappmoroney.com CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN and SCHELEY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1111 Bayhill Drive, Suite 300 San Bruno, CA 94066 (650) 989-5400 (650) 989-5499 FAX Attorneys for Defendant SUGARCRM, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION CARLA DEARMITT, | Case No. 20CV367431 Plaintiff, | Case assigned to Hon. Thang N. Barrett in Dept. 21 for all purposes vs. DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.’S CITY OF CUPERTIONO; SUGARCRM, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT Defendants. | Complaint filed: 06/18/2020 | Trial date: N/A Defendant, SUGARCRM, INC., in answer to the unverified Complaint of plaintiff, CARLA DEARMITT, herewith denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations of said complaint, and each alleged cause of action thereof, and in that connection, this defendant denies that plaintiff has been injured or damaged in any of the sums mentioned in the complaint, or in any other amount, or at all, by reason of any act or omission of this defendant. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF, this answering 1 DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTdefendant alleges that said complaint, and each alleged cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant. AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff was herself careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the complaint, and each alleged cause of action thereof, and that this carelessness and negligence on said plaintiff's own part proximately contributed to the happening of the loss and damages complained of, if any there were. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, plaintiffs own comparative negligence shall reduce any and all damages sustained by said plaintiff. AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF, this answering defendant alleges that said damages sustained by plaintiff was cither wholly or in part the fault of others, whether that fault be the proximate result of negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, breach of contract or any other type of fault caused by persons, firms, corporations or entities other than this answering defendant and said negligence or fault comparatively reduces the percentage of fault or negligence, if any, by this answering defendant. AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages. AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF. , this answering defendant alleges that the complaint and each alleged cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that said complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by the statute of limitations as stated in Part Two, Title IL, Chapter 3, of the California Code of Civil Procedure, 2 DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF°S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTbeginning with Section 335, and continuing through Section 349.4 and, more particularly, but not limited, to Sections 337, 337.1, 337.15, 337.5, 338, 339, 340 and 343. AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF, this answering defendant alleges that the provisions of the "Fair Responsibility Act of 1986" (commonly known as Proposition 51, Civil Code Sections 1430, 1431, 1431.1, 1431.2, 1431,3, 1431.4, 1431.5 and 1432) are applicable to this action to the extent plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any there were or are, were proximately caused or contributed to by the carelessness, negligence or fault of persons or entities other than this answering defendant. AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF, this answering defendant is informed and believes and thereon allege that plaintiff, with full appreciation of the particular risks involved, nevertheless knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risks and hazards of the activity complained of and the damages, if any, resulting therefrom. AS A EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's complaint, to the extent that it seeks exemplary or punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code Section 3294, violates defendants! right to protection from "excessive fines" as provided in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 17, of the Constitution of the State of California, and violates defendants’ right to substantive due process as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California, and therefore fails to state a cause of action supporting the punitive or exemplary damages claimed. Hf 3 DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.°S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTWHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays that plaintiff take nothing by way of her unverified Complaint, that defendant have judgment for their costs of suit incurred, herein, together with such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. Dated: July 27, 2020 CLAPP, MORONEY, VUCINICH, BEEMAN and SCHELEY By: JEFFREY M. VUCINICH, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant SUGARCRM, INC. 4 DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTYA Dn B ww DEARMITT, CARLA vy. CITY OF CUPERTINO, et al. Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 20CV367431 PROOF OF SERVICE - Civil [Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 1011, 1013, 1031a, 2015.5} METHOD OF SERVICE: By Personal Service o By Mail o By Overnight Delivery By Messenger Service © By Facsimile By E-Mail/Electronic Transmission 1. Iam a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County of San Mateo, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. 2. My place of employment is 1111 Bayhill Drive, Suite 300, San Bruno, CA 94066. 3. On the date set forth below, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the document described as: DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT 4, I served the document on the persons below, as follows: Brian L. Larsen, Esq. Law Offices of Brian L. Larsen 530 Jackson Street, 2" Floor San Francisco, CA 94133 Tel: (415) 398-5000 Fax: (415) 398-5080 email: blarsen50\ 2 Attorneys for Plaintiff CA. 5. The document was served by the following means (specify): a. Oo BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses listed in item 4. (1) For a party represented by an_attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not less than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. b. oO BY UNITED STATES MAIL. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 4 and (specify one): (1) 8 deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Services, with the postage fully prepaid. (2) 0 placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice 5 DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTfor collecting and Processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, I am resident or employed in the County where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at San Bruno, California, County of San Mateo. c Oo BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 4, I place the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. d. a BY MESSENGER SERVICE. | served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in item 4 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. e. a BY FAX TRANSMISSION. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed in item 4. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached. f. 5 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the email addresses listed in item 4. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. s (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. a (Federal) I declare that | am employed in the offices of a membpr of the bar of this court at whose direction this service was made. | declare under penalty of/perjurythat the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 27, 2020, 2020, at San Bruno, Califorhia, Cc gidia Gomez 6 DEFENDANT SUGARCRM, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT