Preview
Sally A Williams, State Bar No 129181
555 Soquel Above, Suite 380
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
Phone 831.459.6096
Fax 831 426.7068
Sally @sallywilliamslaw.com
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
SHANNON GAINES, Case No.: 17-CV-308393
Plaintiff,
we ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T.
. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. BY
GABRIEL RAMOS RODRIGUEZ, DBA
T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. and °
DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, GOLDEN STATE PLASTERING
Defendants.
T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC,
CROSS-COMPLAINANT,
VS
ROES 1-300, Inclusive,
CROSS-DEFENDANTS.
Cross-defendant Gabriel Ramos Rodriguez, dba Golden State Plastering (hereinafter
“Cross-defendant”) and responds to the Cross-complaint of T. Miller Construction, (hereinafter
“Cross-complainant”) as follows: Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 431.30, Cross-
defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in the
Cross-Complaint. Cross-complainant agreed to dismiss the following causes of action against
Cross-defendant: the Third Cause of Action for Breach of Contract; the Fourth Cause of Action
for Express Contractual Indemnity; the Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Contract Re:
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. BY GABRIEL RAMOS
RODRIGUEZ, DBAGOLDEN STATE PLASTERING - 1Insurance Requirements; the Seventh Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief: Duty to Defend;
and the Eighth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief: Duty to Indemnify.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
AS FIRST AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Cross-complaint and all causes
of action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that Cross-complainant is barred from
recovery herein because of the fact that the Cross-complaint, and each and every cause of action
thereof, are vague, ambiguous and uncertain and fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action against Cross-defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Legal Duty)
As a Second and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action
contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that it owed no legal duty with respect to allegations
raised in the Cross-complaint.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Breach or Legal Duty)
As a Third and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action
contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that, even if Cross-defendant owed a legal duty with
respect to allegations raised in the Cross-complaint, no such duty was breached by any acts or
duties and obligations if any, owed to Cross-complainant arising out of any all agreements,
representation, or contracts made by them or in behalf of Cross-defendant.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Causation)
As a Fourth and Separate affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action
contained therein, Cross-defendant denies that any acts of omission on its part actually and/or
proximately caused or contributed in any manner to any injuries, losses, or damaged, if any,
which are alleged in the Cross-complaint.
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. BY GABRIEL RAMOS
RODRIGUEZ, DBAGOLDEN STATE PLASTERING - 227
28
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Alternative Cause)
As a Fifth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action
contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that the claims in the Cross-complaint are barred or
limited by superseding, intervening, and /or independents causes, actions, omissions, and/or
circumstances of Co-cross-defendant(s), third parties, and/or other forces, over which this Cross-
defendant has no control.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Damages)
As a Sixth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action
contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that the Cross-complainant did not suffer actionable
damages, or that any injuries actually suffered are de minimus and/or speculative and insufficient
to warrant relief.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Fault)
As a Seventh and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action
contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that the Cross-complainant is barred from, or limited
in, any recovery on the basis that the Plaintiffs, or Cross-complainant’s negligence was a
proximate cause of the injuries and/or damages referred to in the Cross-complaint. In the event a
finding is made that negligence or fault exists on the part of Cross-defendant, which proximately
contributed to Cross-complainant’s injuries and/ or damages, Cross-complainant’s recovery, if
any, should be reduced on the basis of Plaintiffs or Cross-complainant’s comparative fault,
which contributed to any such injuries and / or damage.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Indemnification)
As an Eighth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action
contained therein, Cross-defendant is entitled to indemnification by apportionment against all
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. BY GABRIEL RAMOS
RODRIGUEZ, DBAGOLDEN STATE PLASTERING - 3other parties and persons whose negligence contributed to the happening of the claimed accident
or alleged injuries, losses, or damages, if any, in the Cross-complaint.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Negligence of Others)
As a Ninth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action
contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that the damages, if any, sustained by Cross-
complainant, were proximately caused or contributed to by the actions of Cross-complainant and
/ or other persons or entities in this litigation and / or not yet made parties to this litigation.
Therefore, it is necessary that the proportionate degree of negligence or fault of each and every
said person or entity be determined and prorated such that any judgment rendered against the
answering Cross-defendant be reduced by that degree of negligence or fault found to exist as to
Cross-complainant, other Cross-defendants, the Plaintiff, and/or other persons or entities.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Negligence of Cross-complainant and Co-Cross-defendants)
As a Tenth and Separate affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action
contained therein, Cross-defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that parties
both served and unserved, named and unnamed, and Cross-complainant were in some manner or
percentage responsible for the injuries and / or non-economic damages claimed in the Complaint
and Cross-complaint, and Cross-defendant requests an order from the trier of fact setting forth
separate judgments, against each and every party, named and unnamed, served and unserved, and
Cross-complainant, for the amount of all non-economic damages that may be recovered by
Cross-complainant in direct proportion to the percentage of fault on each party, named and
unnamed, served and unserved, and Cross-complainant, pursuant to Civil Code Section 1431.2.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
As an Eleventh and Separate affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action
contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that Cross-complainant, through its conduct, acts, and
omissions, is estopped from asserting or recovering under any causes of actions alleged against
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. BY GABRIEL RAMOS
RODRIGUEZ, DBAGOLDEN STATE PLASTERING - 420
28
Cross-defendant in the Cross-complaint. Cross-defendant alleges that Cross-complainant knew
or should have known of the damages claimed in the Cross-complaint but failed to take
corrective measures, thereby stopping Cross-complainant from claiming damages because of
these purported conditions and /or defects. Cross-defendant further alleges that Cross-
complainant directed, ordered, approved, and /or ratified Cross-defendant’s conduct, and Cross-
complainant is, therefore, estopped from asserting any claims herein.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Wavier)
As a Twelfth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-Complaint and all causes of action
contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that Cross-complainant, through its conduct, acts and
omissions, waived either expressly or impliedly, the claims and causes of action alleged in the
Cross-Complaint.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)
As a Thirteenth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-Complaint and all causes of
action contained therein, without peril to Cross-defendant’s denial of the existence of every
alleged claim and alleged damage, Cross-defendant alleges that Cross-complainant, while
knowing of the purported claims and damages complained of, if any there be, failed to undertake
to mitigate damages and / or increased damages that should have been mitigated by reasonable
efforts on the part of Cross-complainant and, as such recovery should be denied or reduced.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Justified Conduct)
As a Fourteenth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-Complaint and all causes of
action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that its conduct was fully justified and that it
acted in good faith at all times referenced herein.
Mit
///
Ml
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. BY GABRIEL RAMOS
RODRIGUEZ, DBAGOLDEN STATE PLASTERING - 527
28
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Offset)
As a Twenty-Second and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of
action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that he is entitled to offset because of any
tecovery made by Cross-complainant from any other party, in connection with the damages
alleged in the Cross-complaint.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unstated Additional Defenses)
As a Sixteenth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action
contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that as discovery and investigation continue, other
defenses may become apparent or available. Cross-defendant reserves the right to assert other
defenses as they become apparent and will seek to amend this Answer accordingly. No defense ig
being knowingly or intentionally waived herein.
WHEREFORE, Cross-defendant pray for relief as follows:
(a) That Cross-complainant takes nothing against Cross-defendant;
(b) That Cross-defendant recover costs of suit herein;
(c) That Cross-defendant recover reasonable attorney’s fees incurred herein; and
(d) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Date: October 20, 2019
toll Uf ueleeti
_ Sally A Williams, Attorney for Gabriel
Ramos Rodriguez, dba Golden State
Plastering
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. BY GABRIEL RAMOS
RODRIGUEZ, DBAGOLDEN STATE PLASTERING - 6DECLARATION OF SERVICE
Gaines y T. Miller Construction, Inc
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17CV308393
I, the undersigned, declare: My business address is in
the County of Santa Cruz, at 555
SOQUEL AVENUE, SUITES 370-380, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062, and I am over the age of 18
years and not a party to this action. On October 20, 2019.
forth below in the manner indicated:
1. Answer to Cross-Complaint of T. Miller
Construction, Inc. by Gabriel Ramos Rodriguez dba
Golden State Plastering
XX By email
, served the following document(s) set
By attaching a copy of the above stated documents and then
sending from my email at SallyWilliamslaw@gmail.com to the
following email(s), as provided by the listed parties below as being
good and effective emails. CCP 1010.6 and CRC Rule 2.251
PARTY
COUNSEL
EMAIL ADDRESS USED
Plaintiff: Shannon Gaines
Michael G. Ackerman
2391 The Alameda Ste 100
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Daniel Mash
McPharlin, Sprinkles & Thomas, LLP
160 W. Santa Clara St, Ste 400
San Jose, CA 95113
408.293.1900
mga@mgackerman.com
dmash@mstpartners.com
Deft. T. Miller Construction
Todd Allen Fischer
Bryan P. Kerney
Fischer Kerney LLP
2600 Garden Rd Ste 222 Monterey, CA
93940-5359
831.372.9200
taf@fk-legal.com
bpk@fk-legal.com
Cross-Deft.: Bruce Mechanical
Julie D. McElroy
Jacobsen & McElroy, PC
2401 American River Dr Ste 100,
Sacramento, CA 95825-7086
916.971.4100
imcelroy@jacobsenmcelroy.com
Cross-Deft.: Centaur Plumbing,
Inc. dba Echo Plumbing
Candice M. Hamant
Tyson & Mendes, 523 4th St, Ste 100,
San Rafael, CA 94901-3347
628.253.5075
chamant@tysonmendes.comRamsey Iron, Inc. Jordan Allen Rodman jrodman@rodman-law.com
Rodman & Associates PC.
149 Stony Cir, Ste 210
Santa Rosa, CA 95401-4105
707.278.9878
Brett Shelton Roofing Timothy James McCaffery tjm@mbhfirm.law
SDA Shelton Roofing McCaffery Hosking LLP
1777 Botelho Dr, Ste 360
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5084
925. 705 .7358
Cross-Deft.: Fernandez’s Todd Alan Jones tiones@myjllp.com
Painting Mokri, Vanis & Jones, LLP
2251 Fair Oaks Blvd, Ste 100
Sacramento, CA 95825-5530
916. 306. 0434
Kevin P. Lee klee@myjllp.com
Mokri Vanis & Jones, LLP
1401 Willow Pass Rd, Ste 840
Concord, CA 94520-7901
925. 375.1963
Southwest Door & Window of | Paul Damien Caleo pcaleo@burnhambrown.com
California, Inc. Burnham Brown, PO Box 119, Oakland,
DBA Portofino Glass Works CA 94604
510. 444. 6800
brad@wsbclawyers.com
Special Master Brad Benning
Willoughby, Stuart, Bening & Cook,
Fairmont Plaza
50 W San Fernando St Ste 400,
San Jose, CA 95113
408. 494. 9209
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed at Santa Cruz, California, October 20, 2019.
Preview
Sally A Williams, State Bar No 129181 555 Soquel Above, Suite 380 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 Phone 831.459.6096 Fax 831 426.7068 Sally @sallywilliamslaw.com SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT SHANNON GAINES, Case No.: 17-CV-308393 Plaintiff, we ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. . MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. BY GABRIEL RAMOS RODRIGUEZ, DBA T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ° DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, GOLDEN STATE PLASTERING Defendants. T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC, CROSS-COMPLAINANT, VS ROES 1-300, Inclusive, CROSS-DEFENDANTS. Cross-defendant Gabriel Ramos Rodriguez, dba Golden State Plastering (hereinafter “Cross-defendant”) and responds to the Cross-complaint of T. Miller Construction, (hereinafter “Cross-complainant”) as follows: Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 431.30, Cross- defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in the Cross-Complaint. Cross-complainant agreed to dismiss the following causes of action against Cross-defendant: the Third Cause of Action for Breach of Contract; the Fourth Cause of Action for Express Contractual Indemnity; the Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Contract Re: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. BY GABRIEL RAMOS RODRIGUEZ, DBAGOLDEN STATE PLASTERING - 1Insurance Requirements; the Seventh Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief: Duty to Defend; and the Eighth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief: Duty to Indemnify. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) AS FIRST AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that Cross-complainant is barred from recovery herein because of the fact that the Cross-complaint, and each and every cause of action thereof, are vague, ambiguous and uncertain and fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Cross-defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Legal Duty) As a Second and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that it owed no legal duty with respect to allegations raised in the Cross-complaint. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Breach or Legal Duty) As a Third and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that, even if Cross-defendant owed a legal duty with respect to allegations raised in the Cross-complaint, no such duty was breached by any acts or duties and obligations if any, owed to Cross-complainant arising out of any all agreements, representation, or contracts made by them or in behalf of Cross-defendant. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Causation) As a Fourth and Separate affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant denies that any acts of omission on its part actually and/or proximately caused or contributed in any manner to any injuries, losses, or damaged, if any, which are alleged in the Cross-complaint. ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. BY GABRIEL RAMOS RODRIGUEZ, DBAGOLDEN STATE PLASTERING - 227 28 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Alternative Cause) As a Fifth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that the claims in the Cross-complaint are barred or limited by superseding, intervening, and /or independents causes, actions, omissions, and/or circumstances of Co-cross-defendant(s), third parties, and/or other forces, over which this Cross- defendant has no control. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Damages) As a Sixth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that the Cross-complainant did not suffer actionable damages, or that any injuries actually suffered are de minimus and/or speculative and insufficient to warrant relief. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Fault) As a Seventh and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that the Cross-complainant is barred from, or limited in, any recovery on the basis that the Plaintiffs, or Cross-complainant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries and/or damages referred to in the Cross-complaint. In the event a finding is made that negligence or fault exists on the part of Cross-defendant, which proximately contributed to Cross-complainant’s injuries and/ or damages, Cross-complainant’s recovery, if any, should be reduced on the basis of Plaintiffs or Cross-complainant’s comparative fault, which contributed to any such injuries and / or damage. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Indemnification) As an Eighth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant is entitled to indemnification by apportionment against all ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. BY GABRIEL RAMOS RODRIGUEZ, DBAGOLDEN STATE PLASTERING - 3other parties and persons whose negligence contributed to the happening of the claimed accident or alleged injuries, losses, or damages, if any, in the Cross-complaint. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Negligence of Others) As a Ninth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that the damages, if any, sustained by Cross- complainant, were proximately caused or contributed to by the actions of Cross-complainant and / or other persons or entities in this litigation and / or not yet made parties to this litigation. Therefore, it is necessary that the proportionate degree of negligence or fault of each and every said person or entity be determined and prorated such that any judgment rendered against the answering Cross-defendant be reduced by that degree of negligence or fault found to exist as to Cross-complainant, other Cross-defendants, the Plaintiff, and/or other persons or entities. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Negligence of Cross-complainant and Co-Cross-defendants) As a Tenth and Separate affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that parties both served and unserved, named and unnamed, and Cross-complainant were in some manner or percentage responsible for the injuries and / or non-economic damages claimed in the Complaint and Cross-complaint, and Cross-defendant requests an order from the trier of fact setting forth separate judgments, against each and every party, named and unnamed, served and unserved, and Cross-complainant, for the amount of all non-economic damages that may be recovered by Cross-complainant in direct proportion to the percentage of fault on each party, named and unnamed, served and unserved, and Cross-complainant, pursuant to Civil Code Section 1431.2. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) As an Eleventh and Separate affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that Cross-complainant, through its conduct, acts, and omissions, is estopped from asserting or recovering under any causes of actions alleged against ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. BY GABRIEL RAMOS RODRIGUEZ, DBAGOLDEN STATE PLASTERING - 420 28 Cross-defendant in the Cross-complaint. Cross-defendant alleges that Cross-complainant knew or should have known of the damages claimed in the Cross-complaint but failed to take corrective measures, thereby stopping Cross-complainant from claiming damages because of these purported conditions and /or defects. Cross-defendant further alleges that Cross- complainant directed, ordered, approved, and /or ratified Cross-defendant’s conduct, and Cross- complainant is, therefore, estopped from asserting any claims herein. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Wavier) As a Twelfth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-Complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that Cross-complainant, through its conduct, acts and omissions, waived either expressly or impliedly, the claims and causes of action alleged in the Cross-Complaint. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate) As a Thirteenth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-Complaint and all causes of action contained therein, without peril to Cross-defendant’s denial of the existence of every alleged claim and alleged damage, Cross-defendant alleges that Cross-complainant, while knowing of the purported claims and damages complained of, if any there be, failed to undertake to mitigate damages and / or increased damages that should have been mitigated by reasonable efforts on the part of Cross-complainant and, as such recovery should be denied or reduced. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Justified Conduct) As a Fourteenth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-Complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that its conduct was fully justified and that it acted in good faith at all times referenced herein. Mit /// Ml ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. BY GABRIEL RAMOS RODRIGUEZ, DBAGOLDEN STATE PLASTERING - 527 28 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Offset) As a Twenty-Second and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that he is entitled to offset because of any tecovery made by Cross-complainant from any other party, in connection with the damages alleged in the Cross-complaint. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unstated Additional Defenses) As a Sixteenth and Separate Affirmative Defense to the Cross-complaint and all causes of action contained therein, Cross-defendant asserts that as discovery and investigation continue, other defenses may become apparent or available. Cross-defendant reserves the right to assert other defenses as they become apparent and will seek to amend this Answer accordingly. No defense ig being knowingly or intentionally waived herein. WHEREFORE, Cross-defendant pray for relief as follows: (a) That Cross-complainant takes nothing against Cross-defendant; (b) That Cross-defendant recover costs of suit herein; (c) That Cross-defendant recover reasonable attorney’s fees incurred herein; and (d) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Date: October 20, 2019 toll Uf ueleeti _ Sally A Williams, Attorney for Gabriel Ramos Rodriguez, dba Golden State Plastering ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. MILLER CONSTRUCTION, INC. BY GABRIEL RAMOS RODRIGUEZ, DBAGOLDEN STATE PLASTERING - 6DECLARATION OF SERVICE Gaines y T. Miller Construction, Inc Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17CV308393 I, the undersigned, declare: My business address is in the County of Santa Cruz, at 555 SOQUEL AVENUE, SUITES 370-380, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062, and I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. On October 20, 2019. forth below in the manner indicated: 1. Answer to Cross-Complaint of T. Miller Construction, Inc. by Gabriel Ramos Rodriguez dba Golden State Plastering XX By email , served the following document(s) set By attaching a copy of the above stated documents and then sending from my email at SallyWilliamslaw@gmail.com to the following email(s), as provided by the listed parties below as being good and effective emails. CCP 1010.6 and CRC Rule 2.251 PARTY COUNSEL EMAIL ADDRESS USED Plaintiff: Shannon Gaines Michael G. Ackerman 2391 The Alameda Ste 100 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Daniel Mash McPharlin, Sprinkles & Thomas, LLP 160 W. Santa Clara St, Ste 400 San Jose, CA 95113 408.293.1900 mga@mgackerman.com dmash@mstpartners.com Deft. T. Miller Construction Todd Allen Fischer Bryan P. Kerney Fischer Kerney LLP 2600 Garden Rd Ste 222 Monterey, CA 93940-5359 831.372.9200 taf@fk-legal.com bpk@fk-legal.com Cross-Deft.: Bruce Mechanical Julie D. McElroy Jacobsen & McElroy, PC 2401 American River Dr Ste 100, Sacramento, CA 95825-7086 916.971.4100 imcelroy@jacobsenmcelroy.com Cross-Deft.: Centaur Plumbing, Inc. dba Echo Plumbing Candice M. Hamant Tyson & Mendes, 523 4th St, Ste 100, San Rafael, CA 94901-3347 628.253.5075 chamant@tysonmendes.comRamsey Iron, Inc. Jordan Allen Rodman jrodman@rodman-law.com Rodman & Associates PC. 149 Stony Cir, Ste 210 Santa Rosa, CA 95401-4105 707.278.9878 Brett Shelton Roofing Timothy James McCaffery tjm@mbhfirm.law SDA Shelton Roofing McCaffery Hosking LLP 1777 Botelho Dr, Ste 360 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5084 925. 705 .7358 Cross-Deft.: Fernandez’s Todd Alan Jones tiones@myjllp.com Painting Mokri, Vanis & Jones, LLP 2251 Fair Oaks Blvd, Ste 100 Sacramento, CA 95825-5530 916. 306. 0434 Kevin P. Lee klee@myjllp.com Mokri Vanis & Jones, LLP 1401 Willow Pass Rd, Ste 840 Concord, CA 94520-7901 925. 375.1963 Southwest Door & Window of | Paul Damien Caleo pcaleo@burnhambrown.com California, Inc. Burnham Brown, PO Box 119, Oakland, DBA Portofino Glass Works CA 94604 510. 444. 6800 brad@wsbclawyers.com Special Master Brad Benning Willoughby, Stuart, Bening & Cook, Fairmont Plaza 50 W San Fernando St Ste 400, San Jose, CA 95113 408. 494. 9209 | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Santa Cruz, California, October 20, 2019.