arrow left
arrow right
  • MARK THOMASEE vs JOHN SKALISKY et al Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited(06)  document preview
  • MARK THOMASEE vs JOHN SKALISKY et al Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited(06)  document preview
  • MARK THOMASEE vs JOHN SKALISKY et al Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited(06)  document preview
  • MARK THOMASEE vs JOHN SKALISKY et al Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited(06)  document preview
  • MARK THOMASEE vs JOHN SKALISKY et al Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited(06)  document preview
  • MARK THOMASEE vs JOHN SKALISKY et al Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited(06)  document preview
  • MARK THOMASEE vs JOHN SKALISKY et al Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited(06)  document preview
  • MARK THOMASEE vs JOHN SKALISKY et al Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited(06)  document preview
						
                                

Preview

oOo YN DN BF WwW wv ANTHONY F. PINELLI (CA Bar No. 111968) GINA D. HUETTEL (CA Bar No. 157165) WILLIAM H. COKE (CA Bar No. 195515) WILLIAMS, PINELLI & CULLEN, LLP 1960 The Alameda, Suite 195 San Jose, California 95126 Telephone: (408) 288-3868 Facsimile: (408) 288-3860 Attorneys for Defendants, John R. Skalisky and Deborah Dworkin (incorrectly sued as Debra Skalisky) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA - UNLIMITED Mark Thomasee, CASE NO. 19CV353511 Plaintiff, SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEBORAH Vv. DWORKIN John R. Skalisky, Deborah Dworkin (incorrectly sued as Debra Skalisky); and DOES 1 - 30, inclusive, Defendants. COMES NOW defendant, Deborah Dworkin, who incorrectly answered as Deborah Dworking and corrects her name to Deborah Dworkin and answering the complaint on file herein, admits, denies, and alleges as follows: These answering defendant deny each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the allegations in said complaint. Further answering said complaint, these answering defendants deny that plaintiff have sustained damages in any sum or sums, or otherwise, or at all, due to any act or omission on the part of these answering defendants. AS A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT AND TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION THEREIN, these answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's complaint, and each cause of action therein are barred by the provisions of the Statute -1- SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEBORAH DWORKINSO Oe RD DW FWY we Oo yn = Ss of Limitations, in particular but not restricted to, CCP §335.1 and each and every subdivision thereof. AS A SECOND, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's complaint, and each cause of action therein are barred by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations, in particular but not restricted to, C.C.P. §337 and each and every subdivision thereof. AS A THIRD, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant allege that plaintiff's complaint, and each cause of action therein are barred by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations, in particular but not restricted to, CCP §337.2 and each and every subdivision thereof. AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THECOMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's complaint, and each cause of action therein are barred by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations, in particular but not restricted to, CCP§338 and each and every subdivision thereof. AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant allege that plaintiffs complaint, and each cause of action therein are barred by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations, in particular but not restricted to, CCP §340 and each and every subdivision thereof. AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant allege that plaintiff's complaint, and each cause of action therein are barred by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations, in particular but not restricted to, CCP §343 and each and every subdivision thereof. AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's complaint, and each cause of action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering defendants. -2- SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEBORAH DWORKINAS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT AND TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION THEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's complaint, and each cause of action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action upon which punitive damages may be sought as against these answering defendants. AS A NINTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff was himself careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the complaint, and that said carelessness and negligence proximately contributed to the injuries, loss, and damages complained of, if any there were. AS A TENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the sole and/or partial proximate cause of the incident was due to the negligence, strict liability, and fraud of other persons and other parties, for whose conduct these answering defendants are not responsible and these answering defendants request that the court or trier of fact apportion comparative fault among those responsible persons and parties under the principles of American Motorcycle Association vs. Superior Court of Los Angeles, (1978) 20 C. 3d 578. AS AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffhas failed to mitigate his damages, if any there were, and that plaintiff's failure has proximately and concurrently contributed to the happening of the events referred to in plaintiffs complaint and the damages alleged, if any there were. AS A TWELFTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, plaintiff's complaint is barred by the Doctrine of Waiver. AS A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, plaintiff's complaint is barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel. Mit -3- SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEBORAH DWORKIN0 ON DW BF WY — Oo AS A FOURTEENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, plaintiff's complaint is barred by the Doctrine of Laches. AS A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff lacked clean hands with respect to the transaction or transactions alleged in the complaint and are therefore not entitled to invoke the equity jurisdiction of this court. AS A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff fails to uphold their obligations pursuant to Civil Code §1941.2 and each subdivision thereof. AS A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's complaint is governed by Civil Code §1942 and each subdivision thereof. AS AN EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's complaint is governed by Civil Code §3482. AS A NINETEENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's complaint is barred by the failure and/or lack of consideration and California Civil Code §1541. AS A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the complaint is barred because of mutual and unilateral mistakes. AS A TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the complaint is barred because defendant fully performed all conditions and covenants required to be performed by them unless and until prevented from doing so by plaintiff. Il -4- SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEBORAH DWORKINCo eo It DW FF WN AS A TWENTY-SECOND, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the complaint is barred by the principals of accord and satisfaction and by California Civil Code §§1521 - 1524 inclusive. AS A TWENTY-THIRD, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the complaint is barred by the failure of a condition precedent to be performed by the plaintiff. AS A TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that any performance under the contract, if required, was excused and plaintiff's claim is barred by the Doctrine of Commercial Frustration in that defendant was not required to perform the contract, if any, under the conditions that existed at the time for performance, if any. AS A TWENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that prior to the commencement of this action, these answering defendants duly performed, satisfied and discharged all duties and obligations they may have owed to the plaintiff arising out of any and all agreements, representations or contracts made by her on behalf of these answering defendants and this action is therefore barred by the provisions of the Civil Code §§1473 - 1477, inclusive. AS A TWENTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that defendants performed each of the obligations to plaintiff, pursuant to any and all contracts and agreements described in the complaint, and pursuant to the novations reach between defendants and plaintiff herein (Civil Code § 1530). AS A TWENTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ complaint is barred by Civil Code §430.10(g). Mf -5- SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEBORAH DWORKINSoS Oo we NIN DH BF WwW Ww AS A TWENTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that to the degree that plaintiffs claims are predicated on breach of warranty, such claims are barred by plaintiff's failure to give timely or proper notice thereof. AS A TWENTY-NINTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that damages claimed by plaintiff, if any, will be subject to set off and proration based on acts and/or omissions of the plaintiff. AS A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that no privy of contract exists between the plaintiff and these answering defendants. AS A THIRTY-FIRST, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff has no legal proper standing to pursue their allegations herein, barring recovery. Defendants complied with all applicable requirements of City of Santa Clara Municipal Codes. AS A THIRTY-SECOND, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the complaint fails to state a cause of action sufficient to allege a cause of action between defendants and any alleged third party beneficiary, including plaintiff herein, pursuant to California Civil Code §1559. AS A THIRTY-THIRD, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT e that the complaint, and each cause of action therein, is barred by the applicable Statute of Frauds including but not limited to California Civil Code §1624. AS A THIRTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, these answering defendants allege that the complaint and each cause of action therein, is barred by California Code of Civil Procedure §1908 and the Doctrine and Res Judicata. It -6- SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEBORAH DWORKINoOo 0 Ome IW DH BF Ww eH fF Ww NY = AS A THIRTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the complaint, or portions thereof, are subject to the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel. AS A THIRTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the premises mentioned in the complaint were not used by the plaintiff in the manner in which they were intended to be used, and, as a proximate result of said misuse, plaintiff sustained the damages alleged in the complaint, if any there were. AS A THIRTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff's acceptance of conditions found on the property was with full knowledge of those conditions and thus constitutes a waiver of objections, claims and causes of action. AS A THIRTY-EIGHT, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff consented to all acts of defendant. AS A THIRTY-NINTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs complaint is barred by C.C.P. §339. AS A FORTIETH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that at all times alleged herein, plaintiff did not have a valid lease. Dated: July 2, 2020 WILLIAMS, PINELLI & CULLEN, LLP By: ANTHONY F. PINELLI WILLIAM H. COKE Attorneys for Defendants, John R. Skalisky and Deborah Dworkin (incorrectly sued as Debra Skalisky) -T- SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEBORAH DWORKIN11 Nn Thomasee v. Skalisky, et al Santa Clara County Superior Court No. 19CV353511 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1960 The Alameda, Suite 195, San Jose, CA 95126. On the date set forth below, I served the following documents: SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEBORAH DWORKIN on the interested parties to said action by the following means: (BY MAIL) By placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary busin in the United States Mail as the Williams, Pinelli & Cullen, San Jose, CA, addressed as shov el Tam readi miliar wi for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service, and in the ordinary business, correspondence will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service the same day it was placed for collection and processing. (BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION) | caused such documents to be delivered by facsimile transmission this date to the offices of the addressee(s). to the fax number noted herein. (BY HAND DELIVERY) | caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date to the offices of the addressee(s). BY EMAIL (E-Service) | caused said document(s) to be transmitted electronically to the interested parties at x the email address(es) as stated on the attached service. (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) | caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to an overnight delivery carrier with delivery fees provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 2, 2020 at San Jose, California. C hasty Uhlan CHRISTINA M. ER NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), FAX OR EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) OF PARTIES SERVED: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Law Offices of Andrew Wolff, P.C. 1615 Broadway, 4" Floor Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 834-3300/(510) 834-3377 - fax# andrew@awolfflaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Mark Thomasee Proof of Service