Preview
cow oN DA WN =
N NY N YN YB RQ eet
IA Ue YD YH = SOON DH BW YD
28
atl D= POEL, LEVY,
SELEN BL ARNEAL, ELP
ATTORNEYS ATLAW.
2600 South ain Pe
Sue 235,
ite.
waint Crack, C9458
‘depen: (925) 934-6402
acs: (825) 934-6060
David M. Levy (Bar No. 161834)
Courtney B. McFate (Bar No. 286094) ELECTRONICALLY
VAN DE POEL, LEVY, ALLEN & ARNEAL, LLP FILED
1600 South Main Plaza, Suite 325 c LF
Walnut Creek, California 94596 Se Geen Fence
Telephone: (925) 934-6102 ounly oF San Francisco
Facsimile: (925) 934-6060 SEP 23 2014
Email: dlevy@vanlevylaw.com Clerk of the Court
BY: ROMY RISK
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, Deputy Clerk
STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS, a California corporation
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
88 TOWNSEND STREET OWNERS CASE NO.: CGC-13-531203
ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit mutual
benefit corporation,
ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN
Plaintiff, ARCHITECTS TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
vs. DAMAGES
699 SECOND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a
California limited liability company; CANNON Complaint Filed: May 6, 2013
CONSTRUCTORS, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1-150, inclusive,
Defendants.
Defendant and Cross-Complainant, STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS, a California
corporation (hereinafter referred to as “this Answering Defendant”) answering for itself alone, hereby
answers the Third Amended Complaint of Plaintiff, 88 TOWNSEND STREET OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the
Third Amended Complaint”) as follows:
GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §431.30, this Answering Defendant
denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in cach cause of action of the
{0117053 1. DOC;1} 1
ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR, DAMAGESOo me NM DA UW Bw
10
28
ati DE Por, Levy,
ALLEN & ARNEAL, LLP]
Third Amended Complaint and further denies the Plaintiff has been damaged or will be damaged in
any sum or sums whatsoever, or at all.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1. The Third Amended Complaint in its entirety and each and every cause of action
therein, fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Answering
Defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that any damage or injury allegedly suffered by Plaintiff was
proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence or fault of Plaintiff, Plaintiffs agents,
representatives and/or employees; and this Answering Defendant is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that said party was careless and negligent. Thus, if Plaintiff is entitled to recover at
all for any damages alleged, such recovery must be diminished to the extent that said damages are
attributable to the negligence of Plaintiff, Plaintiff's agents, representatives and/or employees.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, other parties, or
any of them, were caused or contributed to by the negligence or fault of persons or entities other than
this Answering Defendant, thereby entitling this Answering Defendant to an appropriate proration of
damages in accordance with the provisions of California law.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended. Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that the alleged injuries and damages for which Plaintiff seeks
recovery were the result of causes independent of any acts or omissions by this Answering
Defendant.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that any and all of the injuries and damages asserted by Plaintiff was
{01170534.DOC;1} 2
~ ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESOo OW DW B® WwW Bm
RN MYM HY NN Ye Be ee Be oe eB ee
NI HAA BON fF SO we BA A Rw wD S& S
28
VAN 0B POEL, LEW,
ALLEN B ARNEAL, LLP]
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Wiakk Cesk, CA 95556,
Tedephore: (925) 934-6102
Facsimiet 325} 934-6050
caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, by the negligence or fault of Plaintiff or others, and said
acts and omissions entitle this Answering Defendant to contribution from said individuals and
entities, and each of them.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that if this Answering Defendant is found to have been negligent or
liable in any manner, such conduct was passive and secondary, while the negligence of Plaintiff or
others was active and primary, and such conduct bars, in whole or in part, the recovery requested or
any recovery at all against this Answering Defendant.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that the negligence of Plaintiff or other parties or entities constitutes an
intervening and superseding cause of injuries and damages, if any, thereby barring or reducing
Plaintiff's recovery herein.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that the Third Amended Complaint is barred in whole or in part by
reason of Plaintiff's inequitable conduct and/or unclean hands, and the court should not give Plaintiff
relief based upon the facts alleged.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that the Third Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action
stated therein are barred under the doctrines of waiver and release.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that the Third Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action
stated therein are barred by the doctrine of laches.
fit
{01176531.DOC;1} 3
"ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENIAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESOo Oe NI DH BW N
N NN NN NR Dm ee
I DA uw BOY = SO we IQA HAH FF WH HEH DS
28
VAN DE POEL, LEVY,
ALLEN & ARNEAL, LLP]
ATTORNEYS ATLA
1600 South Main Pasa
‘Sule 325
Wat Creek, CA 94596
Fedepione: (925) 934-6102
Facsinle: G25} 934-2050
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that the Third Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action
stated therein are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that the Third Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action
stated therein are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that the Third Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action
stated therein are barred as a result of the Plaintiff's failure to mitigate their damages, if any were
suffered, and by their gratuitously incurring unjustified expense.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges by way of a plea of comparative negligence that the Plaintiff was
negligent in and about the matters and activities alleged in the Third Amended Complaint, and that
said negligence contributed to and was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages,
if any. If the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages against this Answering Defendant, their
recovery should be diminished in proportion to the Plaintiffs own fault.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that this Answering Defendant
is entitled to indemnification by apportionment against all other parties and persons whose
negligence contributed to the alleged damages.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that any and all mandatory
{01170531.DOC,1} 4
: ANSWER. OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES_
oc mw ND mH BR RYN
‘Van pe Pout, Levy,
ALLEN & ARNEAL, LLP
walt Crk, Ca 94896
felepiene: (925) 934-6102
acca: (S25) 934-6069
duties imposed on this Answering Defendant and/or its agents or employees, the failure of which
allegedly created the condition which is the subject of this Complaint were performed with
reasonable care and diligence.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that this Answering Defendant
is not vicariously liable for any damages caused by the acts or omissions of the other Defendants.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the injuries and damages
complained of by the Plaintiff, if there were any, are properly attributable to a modification,
alteration or other change to the work and/or material for which this Answering Defendant is legally
responsible, which modification, alteration or change was not performed by or for, or consented to
or approved by, this Answering Defendant, or any agent, servant or employee of this Answering
Defendant. Accordingly, any recovery against this Answering Defendant should be barred or
otherwise diminished.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19. Any recovery sought by Plaintiff against this Answering Defendant is barred by the
limitations period set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure, beginning with § 335 and
continuing through § 349.4, more particularly, but not limited to, the following §§ 337 1, 2 and 3;
337.1(a)-(); 337.15(a)-(g); 338(a), (b), (c), (d) and (j); 339 1 and 3; 340(a), (b), (c) and (e); 340.8
(a)-(c), and 343 and all other subparts of said sections; and by §§ 2607(3)(a), 2725(1) and (2) of the
Uniform Commercial Code of the State of California and by all other applicable statutes of
limitations.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Plaintiff or others failed
to perform the type and degree of maintenance necessary to protect the improvement to property that
{01170531,.D0C;1} 5
ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESSO we HM A HW BW YD me
om IN DA A kw DY
Noe Nyy YN YY
IA aA oS | S
28
‘VAN DE POEL, LEW,
AULEN 8 ARNEAL, LLP]
Walnut Creek, CA 4506,
Fetepnone: (925) 2345102
Facsiite: 925) 24-060
is at issue from deterioration. Such failure to maintain the improvement bars or otherwise
diminishes the claim or recovery of Plaintiff.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that this Answering Defendant
has appropriately, completely and fully performed and discharged any and all obligations and legal
duties arising out of the matters alleged in the Third Amended Complaint.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that at the times and places
mentioned in the Third Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff failed to exercise the quality and quantity
of care and caution which a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would have
exercised for the protection of himself and his property, and that said failure and negligence by the
Plaintiff proximately caused and contributed to the damages, if any, sustained by the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff's recovery, therefore, if any, should be reduced by an amount proportionate to the extent to
which Plaintiff's negligence contributed to the happening of the alleged injury, damage and/or loss.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the Plaintiff was already
in breach of their contractual duties, if any contract existed, at or before the time of the alleged acts
or omissions by this Answering Defendant and, therefore, no act or omission of this Answering
Defendant was a direct or proximate cause of any of the matters alleged in the Third Amended
Complaint.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that it performed each of its
obligations pursuant to any and all contracts and agreements described in the Third Amended
Complaint, if any there were, except those obligations this Answering Defendant was prevented
{0117053 L.DOC:1} 6
HITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES‘VAN DE POEL, LEVY,
MULBN Bk ARNEAL, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAN
2600 South Main Pave
Sule 235
Walt Crack, Ch 459%
Felephone: (925) 934-6102
csi: (925) 934-6269
and/or excused from performing by the acts and/or omissions of Plaintiff, and/or other individuals or
entities.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that if it is determined that this Answering Defendant did not perform
one or more obligations under any contract or agreement, this Answering Defendant contends that
Plaintiff did not perform their obligations under each contract or agreement as aforesaid, which
obligations were a condition precedent to any performance by this Answering Defendant in each
instance.
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that the acts or omissions alleged to have been committed by this
Answering Defendant were justified as part of the regular course of business and the fulfillment of
its own contractual obligations,
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that the contractual relationship alleged in the Third Amended
Complaint did not exist between this Answering Defendant and the Plaintiff and that the absence of
such a contractual relationship bars any recovery by the Plaintiff against this Answering Defendant.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that the contractual relationship alleged by the Plaintiff did not exist
between this Answering Defendant and any other defendant or person, and that the absence of such a
contractual relationship bars any recovery by the Plaintiff against this Answering Defendant.
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
29. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that the Third Amended Complaint, and each purported cause of
action stated therein, are barred because Plaintiff failed to give this Answering Defendant reasonable
{01170531.DOC;1}) 72 2 me NIN DW BW Dm
VAN DE POEL, LEVY,
ALLEN & ARMEAL, LLP!
‘dephone:(625)9346102
esi: (875) 924-660
and timely notice of the alleged breaches and/or defects, and failed to afford this Answering
Defendant any opportunity to fulfill its obligations.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
30. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that any damages or injuries sustained by the Plaintiff was a part of the
business risk assumed by the Plaintiff upon entering the alleged contractual relationships.
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
31. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant alleges that, at all material times, the Plaintiff knew the hazards involved as
related in the Third Amended Complaint, had full knowledge of the conditions existing, appreciated
the danger thereof, and voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently assumed said the associated risks,
and that the risks voluntarily assumed by the Plaintiff was the sole or partial proximate cause of the
alleged damages of which Plaintiff now complains. The risks encountered by the Plaintiff were
inherent in the activity in question and were, therefore, a reasonable risk. The Plaintiffs assumption
of the risk therefore acts as a complete bar to their recovery.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
32. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the Plaintiff's right to
recover damages, if any such tight exists or existed, are barred or limited by the terms of the
contracts between the Plaintiff and this Answering Defendant.
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
33. As a further and separate affirmative defense io the Third Amended Complaint, this
Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the Third Amended
Complaint is barred by the arbitration requirement in the contracts between the Plaintiff and this
Answering Defendant.
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
34. This Answering Defendant has not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable
affirmative defenses and reserves the right to assert and rely on such other applicable affirmative
{01170531.DOC;1} 8oD WY DH BRB BR Dm
12
VAN DE POEL, LEVY,
ALLEN Be ARNEAL, LLP}
defenses as may come available or apparent during discovery proceedings and further reserves the
right to amend its answer and defenses accordingly and to delete defenses it determines is not
applicable.
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
35. This Answering Defendant alleges that said Complaint, and each and every cause of
action alleged therein, is barred by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 5536.25, 6703, 6703.1, 6735 and
6735.1.
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
36. Asa defense to the Third Amended Complaint and each cause of action thereof, this
Answering Defendant alleges that it is not responsible for the sequencing, means or methods of
construction, nor is this Answering Defendant responsible for the contractor’s failure to carry out the
work in accordance with the contract documents, manufacturer’s recommendations and/or industry
standards.
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
37. This Answering Defendant alleges that if there were any warranties between this
Answering Defendant and Plaintiff, which is expressly denied, that Plaintiff did not, prior to the
service of the Third Amended Complaint in this action, give this Answering Defendant reasonable
notice of the alleged breach of warranties, and Plaintiff is therefore barred from asserting a claim for
breach of any warranties.
THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
38. This Answering Defendant and Plaintiff are not a joint, concurrent or successive
tortfeasors and therefore no right of equitable indemnity exists between them.
THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
39. Prior to the commencement of this action, this Answering Defendant duly performed,
satisfied and discharged all duties and obligations it may have owed arising out of any and all
agreements, representations or contracts that may have been made by it or on its behalf and this
action is therefore barred by the provisions of California Civil Code §§1473 through 1477.
{0117053 1.DOC;
AINT FOR DAMAGESCO we ND DA mH BY HY
NWN DDD DD ND Dea
NAA B YW ND SF DO we NI DH BW HY S
28
VAN DE POEL, LEW,
ALLEN & ARNEAL, LLP]
accent: (925) 984-6060
FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
40. The operative Complaint is barred by the following provisions of the Uniform
Commercial Code: §§ 1201(25)(c), 2601, 2602(1), 2513(1)(3), 2510(4), 2605(1)(a) and (b),
2606(1){a) and (b), 2607, 2715(2)(a) and 2719(3).
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
41. The Third Amended Complaint and cach cause of action thereof are barred by
Business and Professions Code sections 6735(b) and 6735.1.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
42, This Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges there is a
defect or misjoinder of parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(d).
FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
43. | The Third Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action therein are barred
on the grounds that the alleged contract, if found to exist, is unenforceable in accordance with
California Civil Code Sections 1667 and 1668.
FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
44. All activities of this Answering Defendant alleged in the Third Amended Complaint
conform to statutes, governmental regulations and industry standards based upon the state of the
knowledge existing at the time alleged in the Third Amended Complaint.
FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
45. Some or all of the claims asserted by Plaintiff are barred by the economic loss
doctrine and Aas vs, Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4" 627.
FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
46. Plaintiff and other persons or entities failed to notify this Answering Defendant of
changed field conditions or other conditions which necessitated clarifications, adjustments,
modifications or other changes during the construction phase of the subject project, and Answering
Defendant consequently has no responsibility or this Answering Defendant’s alleged responsibility
is limited, for the damages complained of in the Third Amended Complaint.
{01170531.DOC;1} 10
ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES=
Oe YN A BR wR
ROR a a a a a
=m OS OB mw IA AR ON SS
N Ne i
8 eR RB
28
VAN D8 POR, LEY,
ALLEN & ARAREAL, LLP!
matter.
N
“FORTY- SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
: 47. This Answreting ‘Defendant complied with the applicable standard of care on the
subj ject project and is therefore free from actionable fault.
: -FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. :
48, This ‘Answering Defendant’s work product, if any, was ‘approved by qualified
governmental and/or administrative personnel whose determinations i in that regard are binding in this
WHEREFORE, this Answering Defendant prays as follows: :
od That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of its Complaint;
Be. _ For costs of suit incurred herein; and ee
3. For such other and farther relief as the Court may deem us and proper.
DATED:: September 23,2014. - VAN DE POEL, LEVY, ALLEN & ARNEAL, LLP
By: Citheyalcfeta
. DAVID M.AZEVY ~
COURTNEY B. McFATE. >
_ Attorneys for Defendant,
ST ERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS, a
California corporation
; :{01170531.D00;1} :
ANSWER OF STERNBERG Bi NIAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES : .me,
OO NN RR
RMON NM OR me ea a
WO. BOON ss SO Fm NIN OU OR WOR ew OS
‘Telephone: (925) 934-6102 |
Facsimile: (525) 934-6260 |
PROOF OF SERVICE
: am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, Tam over the: age of 18 and
not a se ty to the within action. My business address is at Van De Poel, Levy & Allen, LLP, 1600.”
South Main Plaza, Suite 325, Walnut Creek, CA 94596.
On September 23, 2014, I served, the foregoing document(s) described as:
ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO PLAINTIFFS THIRD -
. |, AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. . os
on all other parties and/or their attomey(s) of xecord to this action as follows:
ee, SEE ATTACHED ELECTRONIC SERVICE LIST ***
[%] --| By FILE & SERVE XPRESS ELECTRONIC SERVICE. Complying with Code of
_ | Civil Procedure section 1010.6, [ caused such documents (s) to be electronically served
through the Lexis-Nexis File & Serve Xpress.system for the above-entitled case to the
patties on the Service List maintained on Lexis-Nexis File & Serve Xpmss’s website for this
case. Upon completion of said transmission of said document(s), a certified teceipt is
issued to filing party acknowledging receipt by Lexis-Nexis File & Serve Xpress’s system.
The file transmission was reported as complete and copy of the Lexis-Nexis File & Serve
'| Xpress Receipt will be maintained with original documents i in our office.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the fran is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
/ ‘Executed on September 23, 2014, at Walnut Creek, Contra. Costa County, California.
a ae Phu G. Bhi
{01051125.DOC;mee
Oe NW OR
NN NR Nee
AW PY YN SY SO KP RQ AAR YO MN S'S
Facsimile: (925) 24-6080
"SERVICE LIST
Case: > oa 8 "Townsend Street Owners Association vs. .699 Second Devalopaien ot, Te, et ot
Coutt: “San Francisco County Superior Court Action No.: CGC-13- 531203 oe
Representing: | Sternberg Benjamin Architects, a California corporation
(‘Thomas E. Miller, fsq.
‘Rachel M. Miller, ee
David F. M:
Matthew T. pe ie :
THE MILLER LAW IRM
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 930°
San Francisco, CA 9 4104 >
Telephone: (415) 437-1800
Facsimile: _ *: (415) 437-0177
Email 3
Attomeys for PLAL
Steven M. Cyitanovic, Esq. :
HAIGHT BROWN & & BONESTEEL LLP. -
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 200 -
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415) 546-7500
Facsimile: 415) 546-7505
Email: . scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Attomeys for 699 SECOND
DEVELOPMENT, LLC; CANNON
CONSTRUCT ‘ORS, ING
James J. Ficenec, Esq. -
ARCHER NORRIS
2033 North Main Street, Suite 800
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3759
Telephone: - .. (925) 930-6600
Facsimile: (925) 930-6620
Email: ~ » jficenec@archi
2emornis.com
Attomeys.for MARVIN. WINDOWS, INC,
Steven E. Wicionald, ‘Esq. »
James L- Shea, Esq.
Colin W. ‘Larson, Bs
"| BLEDSOE, CATHCART, DIESTEL,
PEDERSEN, & TREPPA, LLP.
601 California Street, 16" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108 .
Telephone: ~ (415) 981-5411 -
Facsimile: -- (445) 981-0352 °
Email: smedonald@bledsoclaw.com
jshea@bledsoelaw.com
clarsonidibk w.com so
Attorneys for BLOMBERG BUILDING
MATERIALS, INC. dba BLOMBERG
| WINDOW SYSTEMS
Gregory G. Dahl, Esq. David Henni sen, Esq. -
LAW OFFICES OF ‘TIMOTHY R. WAGNER || DH MEDIA’
1655 Grant Street, Suite 800-B . ~ me 227 North et S Street Suite 100
Concord, CA. 94520 > . San Jose, CA 95113 .
Telephone: 25) 681-3600 Telephone: . -.(408) 849-4146
Facsimile: 866 386-1186 -- Toll Free: °°. (888) 464-4717 «
Email: i ~ 0.) Facsimile: (408) 912-2499 : :
Co-Counsel for B MBERG: SULLDING Emaik © dave(@dhmediation.com »
MATERIALS, INC. dba BLOMBERG : SPECIAL MASTER > oe
WINDOW SYSTEMS. | . . 0 Check only if sent
Esquire Deposition Solutions
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415) 591-3333.
Fatsimile: ~~ (415) 591-3335
CUMENT DEPOSITORY -
Check only if sent me
{01051125.DOC;1}
“Proof of. Service Os
Preview
cow oN DA WN = N NY N YN YB RQ eet IA Ue YD YH = SOON DH BW YD 28 atl D= POEL, LEVY, SELEN BL ARNEAL, ELP ATTORNEYS ATLAW. 2600 South ain Pe Sue 235, ite. waint Crack, C9458 ‘depen: (925) 934-6402 acs: (825) 934-6060 David M. Levy (Bar No. 161834) Courtney B. McFate (Bar No. 286094) ELECTRONICALLY VAN DE POEL, LEVY, ALLEN & ARNEAL, LLP FILED 1600 South Main Plaza, Suite 325 c LF Walnut Creek, California 94596 Se Geen Fence Telephone: (925) 934-6102 ounly oF San Francisco Facsimile: (925) 934-6060 SEP 23 2014 Email: dlevy@vanlevylaw.com Clerk of the Court BY: ROMY RISK Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, Deputy Clerk STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS, a California corporation IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 88 TOWNSEND STREET OWNERS CASE NO.: CGC-13-531203 ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation, ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN Plaintiff, ARCHITECTS TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR vs. DAMAGES 699 SECOND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California limited liability company; CANNON Complaint Filed: May 6, 2013 CONSTRUCTORS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-150, inclusive, Defendants. Defendant and Cross-Complainant, STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS, a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as “this Answering Defendant”) answering for itself alone, hereby answers the Third Amended Complaint of Plaintiff, 88 TOWNSEND STREET OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Third Amended Complaint”) as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §431.30, this Answering Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in cach cause of action of the {0117053 1. DOC;1} 1 ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR, DAMAGESOo me NM DA UW Bw 10 28 ati DE Por, Levy, ALLEN & ARNEAL, LLP] Third Amended Complaint and further denies the Plaintiff has been damaged or will be damaged in any sum or sums whatsoever, or at all. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1. The Third Amended Complaint in its entirety and each and every cause of action therein, fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Answering Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that any damage or injury allegedly suffered by Plaintiff was proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence or fault of Plaintiff, Plaintiffs agents, representatives and/or employees; and this Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said party was careless and negligent. Thus, if Plaintiff is entitled to recover at all for any damages alleged, such recovery must be diminished to the extent that said damages are attributable to the negligence of Plaintiff, Plaintiff's agents, representatives and/or employees. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, other parties, or any of them, were caused or contributed to by the negligence or fault of persons or entities other than this Answering Defendant, thereby entitling this Answering Defendant to an appropriate proration of damages in accordance with the provisions of California law. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended. Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the alleged injuries and damages for which Plaintiff seeks recovery were the result of causes independent of any acts or omissions by this Answering Defendant. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that any and all of the injuries and damages asserted by Plaintiff was {01170534.DOC;1} 2 ~ ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESOo OW DW B® WwW Bm RN MYM HY NN Ye Be ee Be oe eB ee NI HAA BON fF SO we BA A Rw wD S& S 28 VAN 0B POEL, LEW, ALLEN B ARNEAL, LLP] ATTORNEYS AT LAW Wiakk Cesk, CA 95556, Tedephore: (925) 934-6102 Facsimiet 325} 934-6050 caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, by the negligence or fault of Plaintiff or others, and said acts and omissions entitle this Answering Defendant to contribution from said individuals and entities, and each of them. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that if this Answering Defendant is found to have been negligent or liable in any manner, such conduct was passive and secondary, while the negligence of Plaintiff or others was active and primary, and such conduct bars, in whole or in part, the recovery requested or any recovery at all against this Answering Defendant. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the negligence of Plaintiff or other parties or entities constitutes an intervening and superseding cause of injuries and damages, if any, thereby barring or reducing Plaintiff's recovery herein. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the Third Amended Complaint is barred in whole or in part by reason of Plaintiff's inequitable conduct and/or unclean hands, and the court should not give Plaintiff relief based upon the facts alleged. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the Third Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred under the doctrines of waiver and release. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the Third Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred by the doctrine of laches. fit {01176531.DOC;1} 3 "ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENIAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESOo Oe NI DH BW N N NN NN NR Dm ee I DA uw BOY = SO we IQA HAH FF WH HEH DS 28 VAN DE POEL, LEVY, ALLEN & ARNEAL, LLP] ATTORNEYS ATLA 1600 South Main Pasa ‘Sule 325 Wat Creek, CA 94596 Fedepione: (925) 934-6102 Facsinle: G25} 934-2050 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the Third Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the Third Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the Third Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred as a result of the Plaintiff's failure to mitigate their damages, if any were suffered, and by their gratuitously incurring unjustified expense. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges by way of a plea of comparative negligence that the Plaintiff was negligent in and about the matters and activities alleged in the Third Amended Complaint, and that said negligence contributed to and was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, if any. If the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages against this Answering Defendant, their recovery should be diminished in proportion to the Plaintiffs own fault. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that this Answering Defendant is entitled to indemnification by apportionment against all other parties and persons whose negligence contributed to the alleged damages. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that any and all mandatory {01170531.DOC,1} 4 : ANSWER. OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES_ oc mw ND mH BR RYN ‘Van pe Pout, Levy, ALLEN & ARNEAL, LLP walt Crk, Ca 94896 felepiene: (925) 934-6102 acca: (S25) 934-6069 duties imposed on this Answering Defendant and/or its agents or employees, the failure of which allegedly created the condition which is the subject of this Complaint were performed with reasonable care and diligence. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that this Answering Defendant is not vicariously liable for any damages caused by the acts or omissions of the other Defendants. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the injuries and damages complained of by the Plaintiff, if there were any, are properly attributable to a modification, alteration or other change to the work and/or material for which this Answering Defendant is legally responsible, which modification, alteration or change was not performed by or for, or consented to or approved by, this Answering Defendant, or any agent, servant or employee of this Answering Defendant. Accordingly, any recovery against this Answering Defendant should be barred or otherwise diminished. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19. Any recovery sought by Plaintiff against this Answering Defendant is barred by the limitations period set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure, beginning with § 335 and continuing through § 349.4, more particularly, but not limited to, the following §§ 337 1, 2 and 3; 337.1(a)-(); 337.15(a)-(g); 338(a), (b), (c), (d) and (j); 339 1 and 3; 340(a), (b), (c) and (e); 340.8 (a)-(c), and 343 and all other subparts of said sections; and by §§ 2607(3)(a), 2725(1) and (2) of the Uniform Commercial Code of the State of California and by all other applicable statutes of limitations. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Plaintiff or others failed to perform the type and degree of maintenance necessary to protect the improvement to property that {01170531,.D0C;1} 5 ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESSO we HM A HW BW YD me om IN DA A kw DY Noe Nyy YN YY IA aA oS | S 28 ‘VAN DE POEL, LEW, AULEN 8 ARNEAL, LLP] Walnut Creek, CA 4506, Fetepnone: (925) 2345102 Facsiite: 925) 24-060 is at issue from deterioration. Such failure to maintain the improvement bars or otherwise diminishes the claim or recovery of Plaintiff. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that this Answering Defendant has appropriately, completely and fully performed and discharged any and all obligations and legal duties arising out of the matters alleged in the Third Amended Complaint. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that at the times and places mentioned in the Third Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff failed to exercise the quality and quantity of care and caution which a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would have exercised for the protection of himself and his property, and that said failure and negligence by the Plaintiff proximately caused and contributed to the damages, if any, sustained by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff's recovery, therefore, if any, should be reduced by an amount proportionate to the extent to which Plaintiff's negligence contributed to the happening of the alleged injury, damage and/or loss. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the Plaintiff was already in breach of their contractual duties, if any contract existed, at or before the time of the alleged acts or omissions by this Answering Defendant and, therefore, no act or omission of this Answering Defendant was a direct or proximate cause of any of the matters alleged in the Third Amended Complaint. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that it performed each of its obligations pursuant to any and all contracts and agreements described in the Third Amended Complaint, if any there were, except those obligations this Answering Defendant was prevented {0117053 L.DOC:1} 6 HITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES‘VAN DE POEL, LEVY, MULBN Bk ARNEAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAN 2600 South Main Pave Sule 235 Walt Crack, Ch 459% Felephone: (925) 934-6102 csi: (925) 934-6269 and/or excused from performing by the acts and/or omissions of Plaintiff, and/or other individuals or entities. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that if it is determined that this Answering Defendant did not perform one or more obligations under any contract or agreement, this Answering Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not perform their obligations under each contract or agreement as aforesaid, which obligations were a condition precedent to any performance by this Answering Defendant in each instance. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the acts or omissions alleged to have been committed by this Answering Defendant were justified as part of the regular course of business and the fulfillment of its own contractual obligations, TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the contractual relationship alleged in the Third Amended Complaint did not exist between this Answering Defendant and the Plaintiff and that the absence of such a contractual relationship bars any recovery by the Plaintiff against this Answering Defendant. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the contractual relationship alleged by the Plaintiff did not exist between this Answering Defendant and any other defendant or person, and that the absence of such a contractual relationship bars any recovery by the Plaintiff against this Answering Defendant. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 29. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the Third Amended Complaint, and each purported cause of action stated therein, are barred because Plaintiff failed to give this Answering Defendant reasonable {01170531.DOC;1}) 72 2 me NIN DW BW Dm VAN DE POEL, LEVY, ALLEN & ARMEAL, LLP! ‘dephone:(625)9346102 esi: (875) 924-660 and timely notice of the alleged breaches and/or defects, and failed to afford this Answering Defendant any opportunity to fulfill its obligations. THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 30. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that any damages or injuries sustained by the Plaintiff was a part of the business risk assumed by the Plaintiff upon entering the alleged contractual relationships. THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 31. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that, at all material times, the Plaintiff knew the hazards involved as related in the Third Amended Complaint, had full knowledge of the conditions existing, appreciated the danger thereof, and voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently assumed said the associated risks, and that the risks voluntarily assumed by the Plaintiff was the sole or partial proximate cause of the alleged damages of which Plaintiff now complains. The risks encountered by the Plaintiff were inherent in the activity in question and were, therefore, a reasonable risk. The Plaintiffs assumption of the risk therefore acts as a complete bar to their recovery. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 32. Asa further and separate affirmative defense to the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the Plaintiff's right to recover damages, if any such tight exists or existed, are barred or limited by the terms of the contracts between the Plaintiff and this Answering Defendant. THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 33. As a further and separate affirmative defense io the Third Amended Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the Third Amended Complaint is barred by the arbitration requirement in the contracts between the Plaintiff and this Answering Defendant. THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 34. This Answering Defendant has not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable affirmative defenses and reserves the right to assert and rely on such other applicable affirmative {01170531.DOC;1} 8oD WY DH BRB BR Dm 12 VAN DE POEL, LEVY, ALLEN Be ARNEAL, LLP} defenses as may come available or apparent during discovery proceedings and further reserves the right to amend its answer and defenses accordingly and to delete defenses it determines is not applicable. THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 35. This Answering Defendant alleges that said Complaint, and each and every cause of action alleged therein, is barred by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 5536.25, 6703, 6703.1, 6735 and 6735.1. THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 36. Asa defense to the Third Amended Complaint and each cause of action thereof, this Answering Defendant alleges that it is not responsible for the sequencing, means or methods of construction, nor is this Answering Defendant responsible for the contractor’s failure to carry out the work in accordance with the contract documents, manufacturer’s recommendations and/or industry standards. THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 37. This Answering Defendant alleges that if there were any warranties between this Answering Defendant and Plaintiff, which is expressly denied, that Plaintiff did not, prior to the service of the Third Amended Complaint in this action, give this Answering Defendant reasonable notice of the alleged breach of warranties, and Plaintiff is therefore barred from asserting a claim for breach of any warranties. THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 38. This Answering Defendant and Plaintiff are not a joint, concurrent or successive tortfeasors and therefore no right of equitable indemnity exists between them. THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 39. Prior to the commencement of this action, this Answering Defendant duly performed, satisfied and discharged all duties and obligations it may have owed arising out of any and all agreements, representations or contracts that may have been made by it or on its behalf and this action is therefore barred by the provisions of California Civil Code §§1473 through 1477. {0117053 1.DOC; AINT FOR DAMAGESCO we ND DA mH BY HY NWN DDD DD ND Dea NAA B YW ND SF DO we NI DH BW HY S 28 VAN DE POEL, LEW, ALLEN & ARNEAL, LLP] accent: (925) 984-6060 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 40. The operative Complaint is barred by the following provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code: §§ 1201(25)(c), 2601, 2602(1), 2513(1)(3), 2510(4), 2605(1)(a) and (b), 2606(1){a) and (b), 2607, 2715(2)(a) and 2719(3). FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 41. The Third Amended Complaint and cach cause of action thereof are barred by Business and Professions Code sections 6735(b) and 6735.1. FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 42, This Answering Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges there is a defect or misjoinder of parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(d). FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 43. | The Third Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action therein are barred on the grounds that the alleged contract, if found to exist, is unenforceable in accordance with California Civil Code Sections 1667 and 1668. FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 44. All activities of this Answering Defendant alleged in the Third Amended Complaint conform to statutes, governmental regulations and industry standards based upon the state of the knowledge existing at the time alleged in the Third Amended Complaint. FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 45. Some or all of the claims asserted by Plaintiff are barred by the economic loss doctrine and Aas vs, Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4" 627. FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 46. Plaintiff and other persons or entities failed to notify this Answering Defendant of changed field conditions or other conditions which necessitated clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes during the construction phase of the subject project, and Answering Defendant consequently has no responsibility or this Answering Defendant’s alleged responsibility is limited, for the damages complained of in the Third Amended Complaint. {01170531.DOC;1} 10 ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES= Oe YN A BR wR ROR a a a a a =m OS OB mw IA AR ON SS N Ne i 8 eR RB 28 VAN D8 POR, LEY, ALLEN & ARAREAL, LLP! matter. N “FORTY- SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE : 47. This Answreting ‘Defendant complied with the applicable standard of care on the subj ject project and is therefore free from actionable fault. : -FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. : 48, This ‘Answering Defendant’s work product, if any, was ‘approved by qualified governmental and/or administrative personnel whose determinations i in that regard are binding in this WHEREFORE, this Answering Defendant prays as follows: : od That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of its Complaint; Be. _ For costs of suit incurred herein; and ee 3. For such other and farther relief as the Court may deem us and proper. DATED:: September 23,2014. - VAN DE POEL, LEVY, ALLEN & ARNEAL, LLP By: Citheyalcfeta . DAVID M.AZEVY ~ COURTNEY B. McFATE. > _ Attorneys for Defendant, ST ERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS, a California corporation ; :{01170531.D00;1} : ANSWER OF STERNBERG Bi NIAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES : .me, OO NN RR RMON NM OR me ea a WO. BOON ss SO Fm NIN OU OR WOR ew OS ‘Telephone: (925) 934-6102 | Facsimile: (525) 934-6260 | PROOF OF SERVICE : am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, Tam over the: age of 18 and not a se ty to the within action. My business address is at Van De Poel, Levy & Allen, LLP, 1600.” South Main Plaza, Suite 325, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. On September 23, 2014, I served, the foregoing document(s) described as: ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO PLAINTIFFS THIRD - . |, AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. . os on all other parties and/or their attomey(s) of xecord to this action as follows: ee, SEE ATTACHED ELECTRONIC SERVICE LIST *** [%] --| By FILE & SERVE XPRESS ELECTRONIC SERVICE. Complying with Code of _ | Civil Procedure section 1010.6, [ caused such documents (s) to be electronically served through the Lexis-Nexis File & Serve Xpress.system for the above-entitled case to the patties on the Service List maintained on Lexis-Nexis File & Serve Xpmss’s website for this case. Upon completion of said transmission of said document(s), a certified teceipt is issued to filing party acknowledging receipt by Lexis-Nexis File & Serve Xpress’s system. The file transmission was reported as complete and copy of the Lexis-Nexis File & Serve '| Xpress Receipt will be maintained with original documents i in our office. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the fran is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. / ‘Executed on September 23, 2014, at Walnut Creek, Contra. Costa County, California. a ae Phu G. Bhi {01051125.DOC;mee Oe NW OR NN NR Nee AW PY YN SY SO KP RQ AAR YO MN S'S Facsimile: (925) 24-6080 "SERVICE LIST Case: > oa 8 "Townsend Street Owners Association vs. .699 Second Devalopaien ot, Te, et ot Coutt: “San Francisco County Superior Court Action No.: CGC-13- 531203 oe Representing: | Sternberg Benjamin Architects, a California corporation (‘Thomas E. Miller, fsq. ‘Rachel M. Miller, ee David F. M: Matthew T. pe ie : THE MILLER LAW IRM 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 930° San Francisco, CA 9 4104 > Telephone: (415) 437-1800 Facsimile: _ *: (415) 437-0177 Email 3 Attomeys for PLAL Steven M. Cyitanovic, Esq. : HAIGHT BROWN & & BONESTEEL LLP. - Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 200 - San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415) 546-7500 Facsimile: 415) 546-7505 Email: . scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Attomeys for 699 SECOND DEVELOPMENT, LLC; CANNON CONSTRUCT ‘ORS, ING James J. Ficenec, Esq. - ARCHER NORRIS 2033 North Main Street, Suite 800 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3759 Telephone: - .. (925) 930-6600 Facsimile: (925) 930-6620 Email: ~ » jficenec@archi 2emornis.com Attomeys.for MARVIN. WINDOWS, INC, Steven E. Wicionald, ‘Esq. » James L- Shea, Esq. Colin W. ‘Larson, Bs "| BLEDSOE, CATHCART, DIESTEL, PEDERSEN, & TREPPA, LLP. 601 California Street, 16" Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 . Telephone: ~ (415) 981-5411 - Facsimile: -- (445) 981-0352 ° Email: smedonald@bledsoclaw.com jshea@bledsoelaw.com clarsonidibk w.com so Attorneys for BLOMBERG BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. dba BLOMBERG | WINDOW SYSTEMS Gregory G. Dahl, Esq. David Henni sen, Esq. - LAW OFFICES OF ‘TIMOTHY R. WAGNER || DH MEDIA’ 1655 Grant Street, Suite 800-B . ~ me 227 North et S Street Suite 100 Concord, CA. 94520 > . San Jose, CA 95113 . Telephone: 25) 681-3600 Telephone: . -.(408) 849-4146 Facsimile: 866 386-1186 -- Toll Free: °°. (888) 464-4717 « Email: i ~ 0.) Facsimile: (408) 912-2499 : : Co-Counsel for B MBERG: SULLDING Emaik © dave(@dhmediation.com » MATERIALS, INC. dba BLOMBERG : SPECIAL MASTER > oe WINDOW SYSTEMS. | . . 0 Check only if sent Esquire Deposition Solutions 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415) 591-3333. Fatsimile: ~~ (415) 591-3335 CUMENT DEPOSITORY - Check only if sent me {01051125.DOC;1} “Proof of. Service Os