Preview
27
28
Vincent Galvin #104448
Lauren O. Miller #279448
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200
San Jose, California 95110-1364
Telephone: (408) 279-5393
Facsimile: (408) 279-5845
vincent.galvin@bowmanandbrooke.com
lauren. miller@bowmanandbrooke.com
Attorneys for Defendant
Tesla, Inc.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as successor Case No. 19CV346663
in interest to WEI LUNG HUANG, deceased;
TRINITY HUANG, a minor; TRISTAN HUANG,
a minor; HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN
HUANG,
TESLA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff,
vs.
TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS INC. THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 through
100,
Defendants.
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) for itself alone, and for no other parties, answers the plaintiffs’
Complaint (“Complaint”) as follows:
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, defendant Tesla denies each of the
allegations contained in plaintiffs’ Complaint, and every cause of action of it, and further denies that
plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum or sums, or at all.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State Cause of Action)
4. Neither the Complaint nor any of the causes of action stated in it allege facts sufficient
to constitute a cause of action against Tesla.
21025330 4
TESLA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND27
28
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Fault)
2. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that plaintiffs, plaintiffs’
decedent and others whose conduct was imputable to plaintiffs and/or plaintiffs’ decedent were
negligent or otherwise at fault for the matters and things alleged in the Complaint and that negligence
and fault contributed directly and proximately to the happening of the incident and to plaintiffs’
damages, if any, so that plaintiffs’ recovery, if any, shall be diminished by the proportion of said
negligence and fault.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Assumption of Risk)
3. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that plaintiffs, plaintiffs’
decedent and others whose conduct was imputable to plaintiffs and/or plaintiffs’ decedent at the time
and place alleged in the Complaint knowingly, voluntarily and freely placed themselves in an unsafe
and dangerous position, and therefore assumed alll resulting risks of injuries.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Third Party Liability)
4. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the damages plaintiffs
allege, if any, were either wholly or partially caused or contributed to by the persons, firms,
corporations, or entities other than Tesla either named or unnamed, and Tesla is entitled to an
apportionment among all such parties according to their responsibilities for such injuries and damages,
if any, sustained by plaintiffs and/or plaintiffs’ decedent.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Fair Responsibility Act)
5. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges Tesla’s liability, if any, is
limited pursuant to Civil Code Section 1431, et seq., and any damages awarded to plaintiffs against
Tesla should be reduced accordingly.
Ml
il
21025330 2
TESLA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND27
28
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Intervening/Superseding Actions)
6. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the injuries and damages
allegedly sustained by plaintiffs and/or plaintiffs’ decedent, if any, were the direct and proximate result
of the intervening and superseding actions of third parties, whether named or unnamed, and not Tesla.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(State-of-the-Art)
7. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that at the time the vehicle
referred to in plaintiffs’ Complaint was originally sold and delivered, it comported with the state-of-the
art at the time of manufacture and complied with all applicable government standards and
requirements.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Abuse/Alteration/Modification)
8. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the vehicle referred to in
the Complaint was abused, altered and/or modified after being placed into the stream of commerce in
a manner which was not reasonably foreseeable to Tesla. That abuse, alteration, and/or modification
reasonably caused or contributed to the happening of the alleged incident and to the injuries, loss, and
damages, if any.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Misuse of Product/Improper Maintenance)
9. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the vehicle referred to in
the Complaint was misused or improperly maintained. That misuse or improper maintenance
reasonably caused or contributed to the happening of the alleged incident and to the injuries, loss, and
damages, if any.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Mitigation of Damages)
10. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that plaintiffs have failed to
mitigate their damages, if any, in the manner and to the extent required by law.
21025330 3
TESLA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND27
28
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Preserve Evidence/Spoliation of Evidence)
41. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that plaintiffs’ claims are
barred in whole or in part because plaintiffs, their counsel or their representatives knew of the
existence or likelihood of litigation and intentionally or negligently failed to preserve crucial evidence.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Preemption)
12. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that plaintiffs’ defect claims are
barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of preemption.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Additional Warnings)
13. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that no additional warnings
would have, or could have prevented the alleged incident, the injuries, loss and damages alleged by
plaintiffs.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
14. Tesla alleges, on information and belief, that plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in
part by the statute of limitations, including, but not limited to those contained in Code of Civil Procedure
Sections 335.1, 337, and 338.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Standing)
45. Tesla alleges that it is not liable to plaintiffs because plaintiffs lack standing.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Duty to Recall)
16. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that Tesla had no duty to issue
a recall related to the vehicie given the circumstances and facts alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint.
Ml
Ml
21025330
4
TESLA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; JURY DEMANDfully kn
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Additional Affirmative Defenses Reserved Pending Discovery)
17. Tesla alleges that it may have additional affirmative defenses available that are not now
jown. Tesla reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses after they have been
determined.
Dated:
WHEREFORE, defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) prays as follows:
1, Plaintiffs take nothing by their Complaint;
2. For judgment in favor of defendant Tesla;
3. For its costs; and
4, For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.
July 8, 2019 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
Lauren O. Miller
Attorneys for Defendant
Tesla, Inc.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Tesla, Inc. demands a trial by jury on all issues.
Dated: July 8, 2019 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
Lauren O. Miller
Attorneys for Defendant
Tesla, Inc.
21025330 5
TESLA, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND27
28
Sz Hua Huang, et al. v. Tesla, Inc., et al.
Case No. 19CV346663
PROOF OF SERVICE
| am over 18 years of age, not a party to this action and employed in San Jose, California at
1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200, San Jose, California 951 10-1355.
On the date indicated below, | served the foregoing documents described as TESLA,
INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND on all interested parties, or
through their attorneys of record, in the manner noted, addressed as follows:
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
B. Mark Fong
Seema Bhatt
Minami Tamaki LLP
360 Post Street, 8" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-4903
415.788.9000
415, 398.3887 Fax
mfong@minamitamaki.com
sbhatt@minamitamaki.com
Michael A. Kelly
Doris Cheng
Andrew P. McDevitt
Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger
650 California Street, 26'" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
415. 981.7210
415.391.6965 Fax
mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com
dcheng@walkuplawoffice.com
amcdevitt@walkuplawoffice.com
_X_ VIAFIRST CLASS MAIL. | caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at San Jose,
California, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid thereof. | am readily familiar with the firms
business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States
Postal Service. The mail is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary
course of business. | am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the
postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for
mailing in affidavit.
___ VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE. The documents were enveloped, properly
labeled, and caused to be deposited into an overnight delivery (Federal Express, United Parcel
Service, etc.) receptacle or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express
service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope or a package designated by the express service
carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served, at
the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the case and served on that
person; otherwise, at that person's place of residence.
21025562____ BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The document was served electronically and the transmission
was reporied as complete and without error.
__ VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION. The document was served on the above party in this
action by causing a true copy of said document to be transmitted by facsimile to the number listed
adjacent to the name on this Proof of Service. The transmission was reported as complete and
without error.
VIA PERSONAL SERVICE. | caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date to the
offices of the addressee(s).
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
true and correct, and that this declaration was executed-on-JU
State of California.that the foregoing is
Ann Scoleri
21025562
Preview
27 28 Vincent Galvin #104448 Lauren O. Miller #279448 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, California 95110-1364 Telephone: (408) 279-5393 Facsimile: (408) 279-5845 vincent.galvin@bowmanandbrooke.com lauren. miller@bowmanandbrooke.com Attorneys for Defendant Tesla, Inc. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as successor Case No. 19CV346663 in interest to WEI LUNG HUANG, deceased; TRINITY HUANG, a minor; TRISTAN HUANG, a minor; HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN HUANG, TESLA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND Plaintiff, vs. TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS INC. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) for itself alone, and for no other parties, answers the plaintiffs’ Complaint (“Complaint”) as follows: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, defendant Tesla denies each of the allegations contained in plaintiffs’ Complaint, and every cause of action of it, and further denies that plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum or sums, or at all. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State Cause of Action) 4. Neither the Complaint nor any of the causes of action stated in it allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Tesla. 21025330 4 TESLA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND27 28 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Fault) 2. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ decedent and others whose conduct was imputable to plaintiffs and/or plaintiffs’ decedent were negligent or otherwise at fault for the matters and things alleged in the Complaint and that negligence and fault contributed directly and proximately to the happening of the incident and to plaintiffs’ damages, if any, so that plaintiffs’ recovery, if any, shall be diminished by the proportion of said negligence and fault. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Assumption of Risk) 3. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ decedent and others whose conduct was imputable to plaintiffs and/or plaintiffs’ decedent at the time and place alleged in the Complaint knowingly, voluntarily and freely placed themselves in an unsafe and dangerous position, and therefore assumed alll resulting risks of injuries. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Third Party Liability) 4. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the damages plaintiffs allege, if any, were either wholly or partially caused or contributed to by the persons, firms, corporations, or entities other than Tesla either named or unnamed, and Tesla is entitled to an apportionment among all such parties according to their responsibilities for such injuries and damages, if any, sustained by plaintiffs and/or plaintiffs’ decedent. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fair Responsibility Act) 5. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges Tesla’s liability, if any, is limited pursuant to Civil Code Section 1431, et seq., and any damages awarded to plaintiffs against Tesla should be reduced accordingly. Ml il 21025330 2 TESLA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND27 28 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Intervening/Superseding Actions) 6. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the injuries and damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs and/or plaintiffs’ decedent, if any, were the direct and proximate result of the intervening and superseding actions of third parties, whether named or unnamed, and not Tesla. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (State-of-the-Art) 7. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that at the time the vehicle referred to in plaintiffs’ Complaint was originally sold and delivered, it comported with the state-of-the art at the time of manufacture and complied with all applicable government standards and requirements. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Abuse/Alteration/Modification) 8. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the vehicle referred to in the Complaint was abused, altered and/or modified after being placed into the stream of commerce in a manner which was not reasonably foreseeable to Tesla. That abuse, alteration, and/or modification reasonably caused or contributed to the happening of the alleged incident and to the injuries, loss, and damages, if any. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Misuse of Product/Improper Maintenance) 9. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that the vehicle referred to in the Complaint was misused or improperly maintained. That misuse or improper maintenance reasonably caused or contributed to the happening of the alleged incident and to the injuries, loss, and damages, if any. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Mitigation of Damages) 10. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any, in the manner and to the extent required by law. 21025330 3 TESLA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND27 28 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Preserve Evidence/Spoliation of Evidence) 41. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part because plaintiffs, their counsel or their representatives knew of the existence or likelihood of litigation and intentionally or negligently failed to preserve crucial evidence. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Preemption) 12. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that plaintiffs’ defect claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of preemption. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Additional Warnings) 13. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that no additional warnings would have, or could have prevented the alleged incident, the injuries, loss and damages alleged by plaintiffs. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 14. Tesla alleges, on information and belief, that plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the statute of limitations, including, but not limited to those contained in Code of Civil Procedure Sections 335.1, 337, and 338. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Standing) 45. Tesla alleges that it is not liable to plaintiffs because plaintiffs lack standing. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Duty to Recall) 16. Tesla is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that Tesla had no duty to issue a recall related to the vehicie given the circumstances and facts alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint. Ml Ml 21025330 4 TESLA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; JURY DEMANDfully kn SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Additional Affirmative Defenses Reserved Pending Discovery) 17. Tesla alleges that it may have additional affirmative defenses available that are not now jown. Tesla reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses after they have been determined. Dated: WHEREFORE, defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) prays as follows: 1, Plaintiffs take nothing by their Complaint; 2. For judgment in favor of defendant Tesla; 3. For its costs; and 4, For such other and further relief as the court deems proper. July 8, 2019 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Lauren O. Miller Attorneys for Defendant Tesla, Inc. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Tesla, Inc. demands a trial by jury on all issues. Dated: July 8, 2019 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Lauren O. Miller Attorneys for Defendant Tesla, Inc. 21025330 5 TESLA, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND27 28 Sz Hua Huang, et al. v. Tesla, Inc., et al. Case No. 19CV346663 PROOF OF SERVICE | am over 18 years of age, not a party to this action and employed in San Jose, California at 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200, San Jose, California 951 10-1355. On the date indicated below, | served the foregoing documents described as TESLA, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND on all interested parties, or through their attorneys of record, in the manner noted, addressed as follows: Attorneys for Plaintiffs B. Mark Fong Seema Bhatt Minami Tamaki LLP 360 Post Street, 8" Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-4903 415.788.9000 415, 398.3887 Fax mfong@minamitamaki.com sbhatt@minamitamaki.com Michael A. Kelly Doris Cheng Andrew P. McDevitt Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger 650 California Street, 26'" Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 415. 981.7210 415.391.6965 Fax mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com dcheng@walkuplawoffice.com amcdevitt@walkuplawoffice.com _X_ VIAFIRST CLASS MAIL. | caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at San Jose, California, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid thereof. | am readily familiar with the firms business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. The mail is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. | am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. ___ VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE. The documents were enveloped, properly labeled, and caused to be deposited into an overnight delivery (Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc.) receptacle or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope or a package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the case and served on that person; otherwise, at that person's place of residence. 21025562____ BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The document was served electronically and the transmission was reporied as complete and without error. __ VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION. The document was served on the above party in this action by causing a true copy of said document to be transmitted by facsimile to the number listed adjacent to the name on this Proof of Service. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. VIA PERSONAL SERVICE. | caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date to the offices of the addressee(s). | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the true and correct, and that this declaration was executed-on-JU State of California.that the foregoing is Ann Scoleri 21025562