Preview
DUM
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Aug-26-2013 11:53 am
Case Number: CGC-13-531203
Filing Date: Aug-22-2013 11:47 am
Filed by: MEREDITH GRIER
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04177753
ANSWER
88 TOWNSEND STREET OWNERS ASOCIATION, VS. 699 SECOND
DEVELOPMENT LLC, et al
001004177753
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.0 ON DA BBN |
NN NN NK KY HS Be Be Be Be Se eB we Se
DA nA BF wWwNH =F SOD MON DAH FB WHS
27
Wilt Creek, CA 94596
“Telehone: (925) 9346102
David M. Levy (Bar No. 161834) San Fi wl LL
VAN DE POEL, LEVY & ALLEN, LLP MY Stineriog Coure
1600 South Main Plaza, Suite 325 AUG 222613
Walnut Creek, California 94596 CLE C019
Telephone: (925) 934-6102 By. Rk IF HERG
Facsimile: (925) 934-6060 : OURT
Email: dlevy@vanlevylaw.com eA
lerk
Attorneys for Defendant,
STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS, a California corporation
(sued herein as DOE 101)
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 COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES
vs.
699 SECOND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Complaint Filed: May 6, 2013
California limited liability company, CANNON
CONSTRUCTORS, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1-150, inclusive,
Defendants.
Facsiite: (925) 934-6060
Defendant, STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS, a California corporation (sued herein
as DOE 101) (hereinafter referred to as “this Answering Defendant”) answering for itself alone,
hereby answers the Complaint of Plaintiff, 88 TOWNSEND STREET OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a
California non-profit mutual benefit corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the 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 each cause of action of the
Complaint and further denies the Plaintiff has been damaged or will be damaged in any sum or sums
whatsoever, or at all.
{01051111.DOC;1} 1
COMPLAINT FOR D.
GES
ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITE!om IN DH BF WN =|
NF Oo
RYN NN NN NY SF =F BF BF Be Be
DA vA BON FF SO wKXI A HA BW
27
Walnut Creek, CA 99596
“Telephone: (925) 9346102
acs: (925) 934-6060
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1. The 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 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, Plaintiff's 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 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 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 Complaint, this Answering
Defendant alleges that any and all of the injuries and damages asserted by Plaintiff was 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.
//1
{01051111.DOC;1} 2
ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES28
VANDE Poe,
Lew & ALLEN, LP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Wont Creek, CA 94596
‘Telephone: (925) 9346102
Facile: (925) 934-6060
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 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 Complaint, this Answering
Defendant alleges that the Complaint is barred in whole or in part by reason of Plaintiffs 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 Complaint, this Answering
Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred
under the doctrines of waiver and release.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Answering
Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred by
the doctrine of laches.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Answering
Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred by
the doctrine of res judicata.
{01051111.DOC;1} 3
ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoC Oo YN DM FB WN
NN NN N KH NY He Se Be Be eB we em Be He
DA vn Bw Nn fF Sow NIA HW BRB wWwNH SK STS
27
Wiainut Creek, CA 94596,
Tebeghone: (925) 934-6102
Facsiiie: (825) 934-6060
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Answering
Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred by
the doctrine of estoppel.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Answering
Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred as
a result of the Plaintiffs 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 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 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 Plaintiff's own fault.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 Complaint, this Answering
Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that any and all mandatory 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.
{01051111.D0C;1} 4
ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES0 Om YN DH BF WN
RN NY KR NK KY S| Be Be Be eB Be Be ew ee
DA nA YW NHN —- SOC we AD UN BRB wBwNH KF
27
walt Creek, CA 94596
Tebegone: (925) 934-6102
Facile: (925) 934-6060
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 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)-(f); 337.15(a)-(g); 338(a), (b), (c), (d) and (j); 339 1 and 3; 340(a), (b), (c) and (€); 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 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 is at issue
from deterioration. Such failure to maintain the improvement bars or otherwise diminishes the claim
or recovery of Plaintiff.
//1
{01051111.DOC;1} 5
ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCo Oo ND HW BRB WN
oS
11
Walnut Creek, CA #596
“Telephone: (925) 9346102
Facsimile: (925) 334-6060 |
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 Complaint.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Answering
Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that at the times and places mentioned in
the 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. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 Complaint.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 Complaint, if any there were,
except those obligations this Answering Defendant was prevented and/or excused from performing
by the acts and/or omissions of Plaintiff, and/or other individuals or entities.
//1
///
{01051111.DOC;1} 6
ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESw
28
VAN DE Poet,
LEW ALLEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1600 South Mas Para
“ute 325
aut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 934-6102
Facsne: (925) 934-6060 |
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 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. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Answering
Defendant alleges that the contractual relationship alleged in the 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. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 Complaint, this Answering
Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each purported cause of action stated therein, are barred
because Plaintiff failed to give this Answering Defendant reasonable and timely notice of the alleged
breaches and/or defects, and failed to afford this Answering Defendant any opportunity to fulfill its
obligations.
//1
{01051111.DOC;1} 7
~ ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCoN AH RB WHE
Rw RYN YK KR NN SY Se ew Be ewe we Be eB Be
IDA A FB wN = SO we NAN DAH BRB BH KY OO
28
VANE Poe,
Lew & ALEN, LLP
[ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
3600 South Main Para
Ste 325
Walnut Cesk, CA 94596
“Telephone: (925) 9346102
Facamile: (925) 334-6060
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
30. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 Complaint, this Answering
Defendant alleges that, at all material times, the Plaintiff knew the hazards involved as related in the
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 Plaintiff's assumption of the risk
therefore acts as a complete bar to their recovery.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
32. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Answering
Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the Plaintiffs right to recover
damages, if any such right 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 to the Complaint, this Answering
Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the 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
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.
{01051111.DO0C;1} 8
"ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCm ADAH PB WN |
RB NN N NN ND Be He He ee Se ee eH
DA aA Bw Nn = SOD OXI DH RB WH SF Oo
27
Telephone: (925) 934-6102
Facsnie: (625) 934-6060
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. As a defense to the 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 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.
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(1), 2605(1)(a) and (b),
2606(1)(a) and (b), 2607, 2715(2)(a) and 2719(3).
{01051111.DOC;1} 9
ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCo oN nw
Telephone: (925) 94-6102
Facsimile: (925) 934-6060
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
41. | The Complaint and each 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 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 Complaint conform to
statutes, governmental regulations and industry standards based upon the state of the knowledge
existing at the time alleged in the 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 Complaint.
FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
47. This Answering Defendant complied with the applicable standard of care on the
subject project and is therefore free from actionable fault.
//1
//1
{01051111.D0C;1} 10
ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESe e
1 FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 48. | This Answering Defendant’s work product, if any, was approved by qualified
3 || governmental and/or administrative personnel whose determinations in that regard are binding in this
4]! matter.
5 WHEREFORE, this Answering Defendant prays as follows:
6 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of its Complaint;
7 2. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
8 3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
9
10|| DATED: August 2 2013 VAN DE PO! ee & ALLEN, LLP
11
12
13 eg
STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS, a
14 California corporation (sued herein as DOE 101)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VAN DE POEL,
eee {01051111.DOC;1} 11
$600 Sea Man Pasa nn ne
rahi ~ ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESom YN DH FB WN
RN NY NR N KN KR SF Se Se Be Be ese Be Se eH
DA A Bw N £=§ SO we RA DH BwWwNH KF Oo
“Telephone: (925) 9346102
Facsimile; (925) 24-6060
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a yey 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 August 21, 2013, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS
TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
on all other parties and/or their attorney(s) of record to this action as follows:
** SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST ***
[xX] By United States Postal Service: I am a resident of, or employed in, the county where
the mailing occurs; I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the cause. I am
readily familiar with the business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence
for mailing with the United States Postal Service. The envelope was placed for deposit in
the United States Postal Service at Van De Poel, Levy & Allen, LLP, in Walnut Creek,
California on August 21, 2013. The envelope was sealed and placed for collection and
mailing with first-class prepaid postage on that date following ordinary business practices.
Service made pursuant to CCP § 1013a(3), upon motion of a py, served, shall be
presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope is
more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit.
[] By Facsimile: By faxing a copy of the above-referenced document(s) to the addressee at
the number set forth beneath their above-listed address. At the completion of the
transmission, a Transmission Report was generated, confirming transmission and receipt
by the addresse(es).
[ ] By Personal Delivery: By personally delivering a true copy thereof to the person(s) and
at the address(es) set forth baow.
[] By Overnight Delivery: At the address(es) listed herein above.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Executed on August 21, 2013, at Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, California.
Phyllis A. Hawkins Hal i ‘ Kawhint>
ignatare
{01051125.DOC;1} 1
Proof of Service‘Telephone: (925) 934-6102
Facsenie: (925) 934-6060
SERVICE LIST
Case: 88 Townsend Street Owners Association vs. 699 Second Development, LLC, et al.
Court: San Francisco County Superior Court Action No.: CGC-13-531203
Representing: | Sternberg Benjamin Architects, a California corporation
Thomas E. Miller, Esq. Steven M. Cvitanovic, Esq.
Rachel M. Miller, Esq.
David F. Mangini, Esq.
Matthew T. Mil
THE MILLER
235 Montgomei
ller, Esq.
LAW FIRM
ty Street, Suite 930
San Francisco, CA 9 4104
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Email:
(415) 437-1800
(415) 437-0177
tmiller(@constructiondefects.com
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP
71 Stevenson Street, 20" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2981
Telephone: — (415) 546-7500
Facsimile: (415) 546-7505
Email: scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Attorneys for 699 SECOND
DEVELOPMENT, LLC; CANNON
CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
{01051125.DOC;1}
: Proof of Service
Preview
DUM SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Aug-26-2013 11:53 am Case Number: CGC-13-531203 Filing Date: Aug-22-2013 11:47 am Filed by: MEREDITH GRIER Juke Box: 001 Image: 04177753 ANSWER 88 TOWNSEND STREET OWNERS ASOCIATION, VS. 699 SECOND DEVELOPMENT LLC, et al 001004177753 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.0 ON DA BBN | NN NN NK KY HS Be Be Be Be Se eB we Se DA nA BF wWwNH =F SOD MON DAH FB WHS 27 Wilt Creek, CA 94596 “Telehone: (925) 9346102 David M. Levy (Bar No. 161834) San Fi wl LL VAN DE POEL, LEVY & ALLEN, LLP MY Stineriog Coure 1600 South Main Plaza, Suite 325 AUG 222613 Walnut Creek, California 94596 CLE C019 Telephone: (925) 934-6102 By. Rk IF HERG Facsimile: (925) 934-6060 : OURT Email: dlevy@vanlevylaw.com eA lerk Attorneys for Defendant, STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS, a California corporation (sued herein as DOE 101) 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES vs. 699 SECOND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Complaint Filed: May 6, 2013 California limited liability company, CANNON CONSTRUCTORS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-150, inclusive, Defendants. Facsiite: (925) 934-6060 Defendant, STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS, a California corporation (sued herein as DOE 101) (hereinafter referred to as “this Answering Defendant”) answering for itself alone, hereby answers the Complaint of Plaintiff, 88 TOWNSEND STREET OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the 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 each cause of action of the Complaint and further denies the Plaintiff has been damaged or will be damaged in any sum or sums whatsoever, or at all. {01051111.DOC;1} 1 COMPLAINT FOR D. GES ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITE!om IN DH BF WN =| NF Oo RYN NN NN NY SF =F BF BF Be Be DA vA BON FF SO wKXI A HA BW 27 Walnut Creek, CA 99596 “Telephone: (925) 9346102 acs: (925) 934-6060 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1. The 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 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, Plaintiff's 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 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 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 Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that any and all of the injuries and damages asserted by Plaintiff was 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. //1 {01051111.DOC;1} 2 ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES28 VANDE Poe, Lew & ALLEN, LP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Wont Creek, CA 94596 ‘Telephone: (925) 9346102 Facile: (925) 934-6060 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 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 Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint is barred in whole or in part by reason of Plaintiffs 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 Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred under the doctrines of waiver and release. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred by the doctrine of laches. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. {01051111.DOC;1} 3 ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoC Oo YN DM FB WN NN NN N KH NY He Se Be Be eB we em Be He DA vn Bw Nn fF Sow NIA HW BRB wWwNH SK STS 27 Wiainut Creek, CA 94596, Tebeghone: (925) 934-6102 Facsiiie: (825) 934-6060 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein are barred as a result of the Plaintiffs 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 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 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 Plaintiff's own fault. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that any and all mandatory 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. {01051111.D0C;1} 4 ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES0 Om YN DH BF WN RN NY KR NK KY S| Be Be Be eB Be Be ew ee DA nA YW NHN —- SOC we AD UN BRB wBwNH KF 27 walt Creek, CA 94596 Tebegone: (925) 934-6102 Facile: (925) 934-6060 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 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)-(f); 337.15(a)-(g); 338(a), (b), (c), (d) and (j); 339 1 and 3; 340(a), (b), (c) and (€); 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 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 is at issue from deterioration. Such failure to maintain the improvement bars or otherwise diminishes the claim or recovery of Plaintiff. //1 {01051111.DOC;1} 5 ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCo Oo ND HW BRB WN oS 11 Walnut Creek, CA #596 “Telephone: (925) 9346102 Facsimile: (925) 334-6060 | TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 Complaint. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that at the times and places mentioned in the 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. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 Complaint. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 Complaint, if any there were, except those obligations this Answering Defendant was prevented and/or excused from performing by the acts and/or omissions of Plaintiff, and/or other individuals or entities. //1 /// {01051111.DOC;1} 6 ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESw 28 VAN DE Poet, LEW ALLEN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1600 South Mas Para “ute 325 aut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 934-6102 Facsne: (925) 934-6060 | TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 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. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the contractual relationship alleged in the 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. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each purported cause of action stated therein, are barred because Plaintiff failed to give this Answering Defendant reasonable and timely notice of the alleged breaches and/or defects, and failed to afford this Answering Defendant any opportunity to fulfill its obligations. //1 {01051111.DOC;1} 7 ~ ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCoN AH RB WHE Rw RYN YK KR NN SY Se ew Be ewe we Be eB Be IDA A FB wN = SO we NAN DAH BRB BH KY OO 28 VANE Poe, Lew & ALEN, LLP [ATTORNEYS AT LAW. 3600 South Main Para Ste 325 Walnut Cesk, CA 94596 “Telephone: (925) 9346102 Facamile: (925) 334-6060 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 30. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the 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 Complaint, this Answering Defendant alleges that, at all material times, the Plaintiff knew the hazards involved as related in the 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 Plaintiff's assumption of the risk therefore acts as a complete bar to their recovery. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 32. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the Plaintiffs right to recover damages, if any such right 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 to the Complaint, this Answering Defendant is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the 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 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. {01051111.DO0C;1} 8 "ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCm ADAH PB WN | RB NN N NN ND Be He He ee Se ee eH DA aA Bw Nn = SOD OXI DH RB WH SF Oo 27 Telephone: (925) 934-6102 Facsnie: (625) 934-6060 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. As a defense to the 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 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. 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(1), 2605(1)(a) and (b), 2606(1)(a) and (b), 2607, 2715(2)(a) and 2719(3). {01051111.DOC;1} 9 ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCo oN nw Telephone: (925) 94-6102 Facsimile: (925) 934-6060 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 41. | The Complaint and each 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 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 Complaint conform to statutes, governmental regulations and industry standards based upon the state of the knowledge existing at the time alleged in the 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 Complaint. FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 47. This Answering Defendant complied with the applicable standard of care on the subject project and is therefore free from actionable fault. //1 //1 {01051111.D0C;1} 10 ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESe e 1 FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 48. | This Answering Defendant’s work product, if any, was approved by qualified 3 || governmental and/or administrative personnel whose determinations in that regard are binding in this 4]! matter. 5 WHEREFORE, this Answering Defendant prays as follows: 6 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of its Complaint; 7 2. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 8 3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 9 10|| DATED: August 2 2013 VAN DE PO! ee & ALLEN, LLP 11 12 13 eg STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS, a 14 California corporation (sued herein as DOE 101) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VAN DE POEL, eee {01051111.DOC;1} 11 $600 Sea Man Pasa nn ne rahi ~ ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESom YN DH FB WN RN NY NR N KN KR SF Se Se Be Be ese Be Se eH DA A Bw N £=§ SO we RA DH BwWwNH KF Oo “Telephone: (925) 9346102 Facsimile; (925) 24-6060 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a yey 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 August 21, 2013, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: ANSWER OF STERNBERG BENJAMIN ARCHITECTS TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES on all other parties and/or their attorney(s) of record to this action as follows: ** SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST *** [xX] By United States Postal Service: I am a resident of, or employed in, the county where the mailing occurs; I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the cause. I am readily familiar with the business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. The envelope was placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service at Van De Poel, Levy & Allen, LLP, in Walnut Creek, California on August 21, 2013. The envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing with first-class prepaid postage on that date following ordinary business practices. Service made pursuant to CCP § 1013a(3), upon motion of a py, served, shall be presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing contained in the affidavit. [] By Facsimile: By faxing a copy of the above-referenced document(s) to the addressee at the number set forth beneath their above-listed address. At the completion of the transmission, a Transmission Report was generated, confirming transmission and receipt by the addresse(es). [ ] By Personal Delivery: By personally delivering a true copy thereof to the person(s) and at the address(es) set forth baow. [] By Overnight Delivery: At the address(es) listed herein above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on August 21, 2013, at Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, California. Phyllis A. Hawkins Hal i ‘ Kawhint> ignatare {01051125.DOC;1} 1 Proof of Service‘Telephone: (925) 934-6102 Facsenie: (925) 934-6060 SERVICE LIST Case: 88 Townsend Street Owners Association vs. 699 Second Development, LLC, et al. Court: San Francisco County Superior Court Action No.: CGC-13-531203 Representing: | Sternberg Benjamin Architects, a California corporation Thomas E. Miller, Esq. Steven M. Cvitanovic, Esq. Rachel M. Miller, Esq. David F. Mangini, Esq. Matthew T. Mil THE MILLER 235 Montgomei ller, Esq. LAW FIRM ty Street, Suite 930 San Francisco, CA 9 4104 Telephone: Facsimile: Email: (415) 437-1800 (415) 437-0177 tmiller(@constructiondefects.com Attorneys for PLAINTIFF HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP 71 Stevenson Street, 20" Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2981 Telephone: — (415) 546-7500 Facsimile: (415) 546-7505 Email: scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Attorneys for 699 SECOND DEVELOPMENT, LLC; CANNON CONSTRUCTORS, INC. {01051125.DOC;1} : Proof of Service