Preview
Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575)
Raeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622)
Matthew C. Salmonsen (SBN 302854)
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104
San Jose, California 95112-4610
Telephone Number: (408) 294-6100
Facsimile Number: (408) 294-6190
Email Address: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant
MARIA CANUL
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC Case No. 16-CV-300096
(Limited Civil Case)
Plaintiff,
DEFENDANT MARIA CANUL’S ANSWER
TO COMPLAINT OF VELOCITY
MARIA CANUL INVESTMENTS, LLC
Defendant.
Complaint Filed: September 20
Trial Date: Not Set
COMES NOW Defendant, MARIA ANTONIA CANUL (hereinafter “Defendant”), by
and through her attorney of record, Fred W. Schwinn of the Consumer Law Center, Inc., and for herself
alone and for no other parties to this action, hereby generally denies and answers the Complaint filed
herein by Plaintiff, VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC (hereinafter “Plaintiff’).
GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 92(b) and 431.30(d), this
answering Defendant denies, generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive, each and
every cause of action and allegation contained in the Complaint, and the Complaint as a whole, and
further generally and specifically denies that Plaintiff has sustained and loss, injury, or damage as a
proximate result of any act, breach or omission on the part of this Defendant.
///
DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the Complaint, and each and every cause of action contained in it, fails to
state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the Plaintiff is estopped to assert such causes of action in that, by Plaintiff's
own acts and omissions, Plaintiff induced Defendant to take certain actions and Plaintiff implicitly or
explicitly consented to all alleged acts of Defendant.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that some or all of Plaintiff's causes of action are barred by the doctrine of
laches.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the Plaintiff has waived any and all claims it has or may have against the
Defendant answering herein.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the Complaint, and the causes of action set forth therein, are barred by the
DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure §§
337, 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340, 343,47 U.S.C. 415, 10 Del. Code § 8106, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-
246(4) and N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 508:4
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Assumption of Risk)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the Plaintiff may not recover for the damages referred to in the Complaint (if
occurring at all as alleged or otherwise) or that such recovery should be reduced on the grounds that
Plaintiff knew of the risks involved and voluntarily assumed those risks.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate its alleged damages, if any, and recovery of
any such damages must be reduced accordingly.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Performance Excused)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the Plaintiff failed to fully perform its obligations, and that such failures
relieved and excused performance by Defendant.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Liability of Third Parties)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the damages suffered by Plaintiff, if any, were proximately caused or
contributed to by the acts or omissions of other third parties and not by the wrongful conduct of
Defendant. Should Plaintiff recover any sum herein, such amount should be reduced in proportion to
DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096the extent that the negligence or other legal fault of other third parties, proximately caused or
contributed to Plaintiff's damages, if any.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the Complaint is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands in that Plaintiff has
acted in such a manner as to prevent it from recovering.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Consent)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that recovery is barred by the Plaintiffs consent to the acts of the Defendant
complained of, and by the Plaintiff’s receipt of benefits from those acts.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unsatisfied Conditions Precedent)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the Complaint is barred by Plaintiffs own failure to perform, or to satisfy,
some or all of the conditions precedent to any further obligations of the Defendant under the alleged
contracts or agreement.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Setoff)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that cross-demands for money have existed between the parties and that said
cross-demands should be setoff against each other, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Causation by Complaining Party)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096information and belief that Plaintiff's alleged damages, if there were any, were wholly or partly
contributed to any proximately caused by Plaintiff's own conduct and actions.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Release)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the Complaint is barred by Plaintiff's release of Defendant from and against
any and all claims, actions, causes of action, liabilities, liens, demands, obligations, losses, fees, costs or
expenses of any kind arising from the subject matter underlying the Plaintiffs claims against the
Defendant.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Accord and Satisfaction)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the agreement set out in the Complaint, if made at all, is barred and made
invalid by an accord and satisfaction, including but not limited to, the provisions of California Civil
Code § 1521, et seq
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Frauds)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the agreement set out in the Complaint, if made at all, is barred and made
invalid by the Statute of Frauds, including but not limited to, the provisions of California Civil Code §
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unconscionability)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the agreement set out in the Complaint, if made at all, was both
DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096substantively unconscionable and procedurally unconscionable at the time it was entered into, including
but not limited to, the provisions of California Civil Code § 1670.5.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Ratification)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that Plaintiff is barred from recovery because it ratified, in whole or in part,
Defendant’s alleged wrongful acts.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Illegal Contract)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that each and every one of Plaintiff's causes of action must fail because an
illegal contract is void.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Consideration)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that each an every one of Plaintiff's causes of action must fail for lack of
consideration or failure of consideration.
TWENTY- SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Full Performance)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that all duties and obligations arising out of any and all agreements as between
Defendant and Plaintiff were duly performed, satisfied, and discharged, and, therefore, theses actions
are barred by California Civil Code § 1473.
TWENTY- THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Extinction by Unauthorized Alteration)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096information and belief that the written contract sued upon was intentionally destroyed, canceled or
materially altered, by Plaintiff or its assignor or with its consent, thereby extinguishing all executory
obligations of the contract in Plaintiff’s favor, pursuant to Cal. Civil Code
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Spoliation
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that each and every one of Plaintiff's causes of action must fail because Plaintiff,
or others, either intentionally or negligently, failed to preserve and/or spoiled the primary evidence to
this litigation as against Defendant, thus failing to give Defendant any opportunity to inspect said
evidence, thereby severely damaging and prejudicing Defendant’s ability to present his/her defense.
Plaintiff should be barred from introducing secondary or lesser evidence, and any recovery should be
diminished accordingly.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Compulsory Joinder)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that Plaintiff has failed to join one or more indispensable parties in violation of
Code of Civil Procedure 389(a). Because Plaintiff has failed to join one or more indispensable
parties, Defendant may be exposed to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise
inconsistent obligations.
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that Plaintiff is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C.
1692a(6), attempting to collect a consumer “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5), and
that Plaintiff has failed to comply with one or more provisions of the federal Fair Debt Collection
DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that Plaintiff is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by California Civil Code
1788.2(c), attempting to collect a “consumer debt” as that term is defined by California Civil Code
1788.2(f), and that Plaintiff has failed to comply with one or more provisions of the Rosenthal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Fair Debt Buying Practices Act)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that Plaintiff is a “debt buyer” as that term is defined by California Civil Code
1788.50(a)(1), attempting to collect a “charged-off consumer debt” as that term is defined by California
Civil Code —1788.50(a)(2), and that Plaintiff has failed to comply with one or more provisions of
California Civil Code
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Reservation of Rights)
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on
information and belief that the Complaint is stated in conclusory terms and therefore Defendant cannot
fully anticipate all affirmative defenses that may be applicable in this section. Accordingly, Defendant
reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses if, and to the extent, such affirmative defenses
are applicable in this section.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment against Plaintiff as follows:
a) That Plaintiff take nothing by way of its action;
DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096Come YN DH FB BW NY
RN NY NY KY NR NK KN NY Se Se Be Be Se Be Be eB eB
ect Dw BF YB YH =F So we AY DH BW NHN SF
b) That Defendant be awarded the costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this
matter; and
c) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: February 19, 2019
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
By: /s/ Fred W. Schwinn
E] Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575)
ORaeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622)
0 Matthew C. Salmonsen (SBN 302854)
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104
San Jose, California 95112-4610
Telephone Number: (408) 294-6100
Facsimile Number: (408) 294-6190
Email Address: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant
MARIA ANTONIA CANUL
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
-9-
Case No. 16-CV-300096
Preview
Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) Raeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622) Matthew C. Salmonsen (SBN 302854) CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. 1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104 San Jose, California 95112-4610 Telephone Number: (408) 294-6100 Facsimile Number: (408) 294-6190 Email Address: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant MARIA CANUL SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC Case No. 16-CV-300096 (Limited Civil Case) Plaintiff, DEFENDANT MARIA CANUL’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF VELOCITY MARIA CANUL INVESTMENTS, LLC Defendant. Complaint Filed: September 20 Trial Date: Not Set COMES NOW Defendant, MARIA ANTONIA CANUL (hereinafter “Defendant”), by and through her attorney of record, Fred W. Schwinn of the Consumer Law Center, Inc., and for herself alone and for no other parties to this action, hereby generally denies and answers the Complaint filed herein by Plaintiff, VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC (hereinafter “Plaintiff’). GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 92(b) and 431.30(d), this answering Defendant denies, generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive, each and every cause of action and allegation contained in the Complaint, and the Complaint as a whole, and further generally and specifically denies that Plaintiff has sustained and loss, injury, or damage as a proximate result of any act, breach or omission on the part of this Defendant. /// DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the Complaint, and each and every cause of action contained in it, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the Plaintiff is estopped to assert such causes of action in that, by Plaintiff's own acts and omissions, Plaintiff induced Defendant to take certain actions and Plaintiff implicitly or explicitly consented to all alleged acts of Defendant. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that some or all of Plaintiff's causes of action are barred by the doctrine of laches. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the Plaintiff has waived any and all claims it has or may have against the Defendant answering herein. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the Complaint, and the causes of action set forth therein, are barred by the DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337, 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340, 343,47 U.S.C. 415, 10 Del. Code § 8106, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01- 246(4) and N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 508:4 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Assumption of Risk) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the Plaintiff may not recover for the damages referred to in the Complaint (if occurring at all as alleged or otherwise) or that such recovery should be reduced on the grounds that Plaintiff knew of the risks involved and voluntarily assumed those risks. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate its alleged damages, if any, and recovery of any such damages must be reduced accordingly. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Performance Excused) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the Plaintiff failed to fully perform its obligations, and that such failures relieved and excused performance by Defendant. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Liability of Third Parties) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the damages suffered by Plaintiff, if any, were proximately caused or contributed to by the acts or omissions of other third parties and not by the wrongful conduct of Defendant. Should Plaintiff recover any sum herein, such amount should be reduced in proportion to DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096the extent that the negligence or other legal fault of other third parties, proximately caused or contributed to Plaintiff's damages, if any. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the Complaint is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands in that Plaintiff has acted in such a manner as to prevent it from recovering. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Consent) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that recovery is barred by the Plaintiffs consent to the acts of the Defendant complained of, and by the Plaintiff’s receipt of benefits from those acts. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unsatisfied Conditions Precedent) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the Complaint is barred by Plaintiffs own failure to perform, or to satisfy, some or all of the conditions precedent to any further obligations of the Defendant under the alleged contracts or agreement. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Setoff) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that cross-demands for money have existed between the parties and that said cross-demands should be setoff against each other, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Causation by Complaining Party) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096information and belief that Plaintiff's alleged damages, if there were any, were wholly or partly contributed to any proximately caused by Plaintiff's own conduct and actions. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Release) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the Complaint is barred by Plaintiff's release of Defendant from and against any and all claims, actions, causes of action, liabilities, liens, demands, obligations, losses, fees, costs or expenses of any kind arising from the subject matter underlying the Plaintiffs claims against the Defendant. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Accord and Satisfaction) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the agreement set out in the Complaint, if made at all, is barred and made invalid by an accord and satisfaction, including but not limited to, the provisions of California Civil Code § 1521, et seq SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Frauds) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the agreement set out in the Complaint, if made at all, is barred and made invalid by the Statute of Frauds, including but not limited to, the provisions of California Civil Code § EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unconscionability) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the agreement set out in the Complaint, if made at all, was both DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096substantively unconscionable and procedurally unconscionable at the time it was entered into, including but not limited to, the provisions of California Civil Code § 1670.5. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Ratification) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that Plaintiff is barred from recovery because it ratified, in whole or in part, Defendant’s alleged wrongful acts. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Illegal Contract) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that each and every one of Plaintiff's causes of action must fail because an illegal contract is void. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Consideration) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that each an every one of Plaintiff's causes of action must fail for lack of consideration or failure of consideration. TWENTY- SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Full Performance) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that all duties and obligations arising out of any and all agreements as between Defendant and Plaintiff were duly performed, satisfied, and discharged, and, therefore, theses actions are barred by California Civil Code § 1473. TWENTY- THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Extinction by Unauthorized Alteration) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096information and belief that the written contract sued upon was intentionally destroyed, canceled or materially altered, by Plaintiff or its assignor or with its consent, thereby extinguishing all executory obligations of the contract in Plaintiff’s favor, pursuant to Cal. Civil Code TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Spoliation As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that each and every one of Plaintiff's causes of action must fail because Plaintiff, or others, either intentionally or negligently, failed to preserve and/or spoiled the primary evidence to this litigation as against Defendant, thus failing to give Defendant any opportunity to inspect said evidence, thereby severely damaging and prejudicing Defendant’s ability to present his/her defense. Plaintiff should be barred from introducing secondary or lesser evidence, and any recovery should be diminished accordingly. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Compulsory Joinder) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that Plaintiff has failed to join one or more indispensable parties in violation of Code of Civil Procedure 389(a). Because Plaintiff has failed to join one or more indispensable parties, Defendant may be exposed to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that Plaintiff is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6), attempting to collect a consumer “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5), and that Plaintiff has failed to comply with one or more provisions of the federal Fair Debt Collection DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that Plaintiff is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by California Civil Code 1788.2(c), attempting to collect a “consumer debt” as that term is defined by California Civil Code 1788.2(f), and that Plaintiff has failed to comply with one or more provisions of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that Plaintiff is a “debt buyer” as that term is defined by California Civil Code 1788.50(a)(1), attempting to collect a “charged-off consumer debt” as that term is defined by California Civil Code —1788.50(a)(2), and that Plaintiff has failed to comply with one or more provisions of California Civil Code TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Reservation of Rights) As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges on information and belief that the Complaint is stated in conclusory terms and therefore Defendant cannot fully anticipate all affirmative defenses that may be applicable in this section. Accordingly, Defendant reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses if, and to the extent, such affirmative defenses are applicable in this section. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment against Plaintiff as follows: a) That Plaintiff take nothing by way of its action; DEFENDANT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No. 16-CV-300096Come YN DH FB BW NY RN NY NY KY NR NK KN NY Se Se Be Be Se Be Be eB eB ect Dw BF YB YH =F So we AY DH BW NHN SF b) That Defendant be awarded the costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this matter; and c) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: February 19, 2019 CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. By: /s/ Fred W. Schwinn E] Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) ORaeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622) 0 Matthew C. Salmonsen (SBN 302854) CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. 1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104 San Jose, California 95112-4610 Telephone Number: (408) 294-6100 Facsimile Number: (408) 294-6190 Email Address: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant MARIA ANTONIA CANUL DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -9- Case No. 16-CV-300096