Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Mar-04-2014 08:42 am
Case Number: CGC-13-530839
Filing Date: Mar-04-2014 08:42 am
Filed by: CAROL BALISTRERI
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04397642
ANSWER
KAREN ADDIEGO VS. DAVID HYMES et al
001004397642
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.© °
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (NAME AND ADDRESS):
Ronald P. St. Clair, SBN 92429
Law Offices of Ronald P. St. Clair
870 Market Street, Suite 951
San Francisco, CA 94102
ATTORNEY FOR (NAME): David Hymes
TevepHone: 415.788.1708 F
Insert name of court, judicial district or branch court, if any, and post office and street address:
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco By
Civic Center Court House .
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
PLAINTIFF:
KAREN ADDIEGO
DEFENDANT:
DAVID HYMES AND DOES 1 TO 20, inclusive
TO CROSS-COMPLAINT (name):
ANSWER—Contract CASE NUMBER:
[7] TO COMPLAINT OF (name): KAREN ADDIEGO
PLD-C-010
FOR COURT USE ONLY:
dedi E, D
ancisco.
inty of San
CGC 13 530839
1. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages:
2. DEFENDANT (name): DAVID HYMES
answers the complaint or cross-complaint as follows:
3. Check ONLY ONE of the next two boxes:
a. Defendant generally denies each statement of the complaint or cross-complaint. (Do not check this box if
the verified complaint or cross-complaint demands more than $1,000.)
b. Defendant admits that all of the statements of the complaint or cross-complaint are true EXCEPT:
(1) Defendant claims the following statements are false (use paragraph numbers or explain):
Paragraph 4.: Defendant did not convince Plaintiff to invest $75,000 in a business venture.
Both Defendant and Plaintiff discussed and convinced each other that they would each
invest money in a business venture. Defendant invested $425,000 in the business venture
and Plaintiff invested $75,000 in the business venture.
Paragraph 8: The allegations are true except that Plaintiff and Defendant did not orally
agree that if their relationship ended, then Plaintiff would be immediately due the full
amount of $75,000 from Defendant.
Continued on Attachment 3.b.(1).
(2) Defendant has no information or belief that the following statements are true, so defendant denies them (use
paragraph numbers or explain):
Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3.
[1 Continued on Attachment 3.b.(2).
{f this form is used to answer a cross-complaint, plaintiff means cross-complainant and defendant means cross-defendant,
Page 1 of 2
Fe roved for Optional U i
arene cemae ANSWER—Contract Coir em $2812
PLD-C-010 [Rev. January 1, 2007]° °
PLD-C-010
‘SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
ADDIEGO v. HYMES CGC 13 530839
ANSWER—Contract
4. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant alleges the following additional reasons that plaintiff is not
entitled to recover anything:
AS A FIRST AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, defendant
alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state a cause of action against this
answering defendant.
AS A SECOND AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, defendant
alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action therein is barred by the applicable Statute of
Limitations.
AS A THIRD AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, defendant
alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action therein is barred by the Statute of Frauds.
AS A FOURTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, defendant
alleges that there was a failure of consideration with respect to any agreements alleged in the
Complaint and each cause of action therein.
¥] Continued on Attachment 4.
5. Other
6. DEFENDANT PRAYS
a. that plaintiff take nothing.
b. for costs of suit.
Cc. other (specify):
for reasonable attorney's fees.
Ronald P, St, Clair
(Type or print name)
(Signature of paky or attorney)
PLO-C- 010 (Rev. January 1, 2007] ANSWER—Contract Page 2 of 2ADDIEGO v. HYMES
CASE NO. CGC 13 530839
Attachment 3.b.(1).
Paragraph 9:
Defendant did not cause his attorney to prepare the promissory note, a copy of which is attached
to the Complaint as Exhibit C. The subject promissory note was prepared by Plaintiff’s attorney
Leo LaRocca. Defendant executed said promissory note under duress.
Paragraph 10:
Defendant did not retain all checks received in satisfaction of the referenced judgment. Plaintiff
also received checks in satisfaction of the referenced judgment.
Paragraph 11:
Not only did Plaintiff and Defendant end their relationship, but Plaintiff was so abusive to
Defendant at the time, that Defendant obtained a Restraining Order (CLETS) after hearing
against Plaintiff in case number FDV 12-809772 on November 7, 2012 in the San Francisco
Superior Court, and it became necessary for the Sheriff to remove Plaintiff from Defendant’s
home.
Paragraph 13:
Defendant has made payments to Plaintiff in excess of the amount claimed by Plaintiff and
Plaintiff has received payments in excess of the amount claimed by Plaintiff to be proven at time
of trial.
Paragraph 14:
Defendant has not refused to pay Plaintiff any amounts.
Paragraph 15:
The allegation is false to the extent this paragraph incorporates paragraphs 4, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14
of the Complaint.
Paragraph 17:
Defendant did not promise to pay Plaintiff upon start of neighbor’s bathroom job or impending
sale ofhome. There was never an impending sale of Defendant’s home and Defendant promised
to pay Plaintiff upon completion of the bathroom job. Defendant tendered payment of $3,400 to
Plaintiff, but she refused to accept it.© °
Paragraph 18:
Plaintiff demanded that Defendant pay her $71,000 not $2,400 on or about October 3, 2012.
Paragraph 19:
Defendant tendered payment of $3,400 to Plaintiff, but she refused to accept it.
Paragraph 21:
The allegations are false to the extent this paragraph incorporates paragraphs 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14,
17, 18, and 20 of the Complaint.
Paragraph 22:
There was no oral contract entered into with Plaintiff in December 2009 at 26 Fairview Court,
San Francisco, California, as alleged, as Plaintiff and Defendant did not live nor were they
present at 26 “Fairview Court,” San Francisco, California. Defendant did not agree that he
would immediately pay Plaintiff her lost investment of $75,000.
Paragraph 25:
Defendant did not, and has not, refused to pay Plaintiff $75,000.© °
ADDIEGO v. HYMES
CASE NO. CGC 13 530839
Attachment 4.
AS A FIFTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, defendant
alleges there was a lack of consideration with respect to any agreements alleged in the Complaint
and each cause of action therein.
AS A SIXTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, defendant
alleges that he paid Plaintiff sums exceeding those alleged by Plaintiff and Plaintiff received
sums exceeding those alleged by Plaintiff.
AS A SEVENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT,
defendant alleges that Plaintiff prevented performance by defendant.VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, declare:
Ihave read Defendant David Hymes Answer-Contract and I declare under penalty of
perjury under the laws of the State of California that the responses contained therein are true
and correct, except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to
those matters I believe them to be true.
Dated: 1/21/2014 GDaved \ynor _
David Hymes GY© @
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
Tam over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. I am employed by the Law Offices of
Ronald P. St. Clair, whose business address is 870 Market Street, Suite 951, San Francisco,
California. On the date set forth below, I served a true and correct copy of this Answer-
Contract, on the persons listed below by following our ordinary business practice for service,
which is either deposited in the ordinary course of business with the U.S. Postal Service by first
class mail or served by electronic transmission from the Court, if applicable. I declare under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Alan D. West
Attorney at Law
19992 Redwood Road
Castro Valley, CA 94546
Dated: March 3, 2014 a
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Mar-04-2014 08:42 am Case Number: CGC-13-530839 Filing Date: Mar-04-2014 08:42 am Filed by: CAROL BALISTRERI Juke Box: 001 Image: 04397642 ANSWER KAREN ADDIEGO VS. DAVID HYMES et al 001004397642 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.© ° ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (NAME AND ADDRESS): Ronald P. St. Clair, SBN 92429 Law Offices of Ronald P. St. Clair 870 Market Street, Suite 951 San Francisco, CA 94102 ATTORNEY FOR (NAME): David Hymes TevepHone: 415.788.1708 F Insert name of court, judicial district or branch court, if any, and post office and street address: Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco By Civic Center Court House . 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 PLAINTIFF: KAREN ADDIEGO DEFENDANT: DAVID HYMES AND DOES 1 TO 20, inclusive TO CROSS-COMPLAINT (name): ANSWER—Contract CASE NUMBER: [7] TO COMPLAINT OF (name): KAREN ADDIEGO PLD-C-010 FOR COURT USE ONLY: dedi E, D ancisco. inty of San CGC 13 530839 1. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: 2. DEFENDANT (name): DAVID HYMES answers the complaint or cross-complaint as follows: 3. Check ONLY ONE of the next two boxes: a. Defendant generally denies each statement of the complaint or cross-complaint. (Do not check this box if the verified complaint or cross-complaint demands more than $1,000.) b. Defendant admits that all of the statements of the complaint or cross-complaint are true EXCEPT: (1) Defendant claims the following statements are false (use paragraph numbers or explain): Paragraph 4.: Defendant did not convince Plaintiff to invest $75,000 in a business venture. Both Defendant and Plaintiff discussed and convinced each other that they would each invest money in a business venture. Defendant invested $425,000 in the business venture and Plaintiff invested $75,000 in the business venture. Paragraph 8: The allegations are true except that Plaintiff and Defendant did not orally agree that if their relationship ended, then Plaintiff would be immediately due the full amount of $75,000 from Defendant. Continued on Attachment 3.b.(1). (2) Defendant has no information or belief that the following statements are true, so defendant denies them (use paragraph numbers or explain): Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3. [1 Continued on Attachment 3.b.(2). {f this form is used to answer a cross-complaint, plaintiff means cross-complainant and defendant means cross-defendant, Page 1 of 2 Fe roved for Optional U i arene cemae ANSWER—Contract Coir em $2812 PLD-C-010 [Rev. January 1, 2007]° ° PLD-C-010 ‘SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: ADDIEGO v. HYMES CGC 13 530839 ANSWER—Contract 4. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant alleges the following additional reasons that plaintiff is not entitled to recover anything: AS A FIRST AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state a cause of action against this answering defendant. AS A SECOND AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action therein is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. AS A THIRD AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, defendant alleges that the Complaint and each cause of action therein is barred by the Statute of Frauds. AS A FOURTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, defendant alleges that there was a failure of consideration with respect to any agreements alleged in the Complaint and each cause of action therein. ¥] Continued on Attachment 4. 5. Other 6. DEFENDANT PRAYS a. that plaintiff take nothing. b. for costs of suit. Cc. other (specify): for reasonable attorney's fees. Ronald P, St, Clair (Type or print name) (Signature of paky or attorney) PLO-C- 010 (Rev. January 1, 2007] ANSWER—Contract Page 2 of 2ADDIEGO v. HYMES CASE NO. CGC 13 530839 Attachment 3.b.(1). Paragraph 9: Defendant did not cause his attorney to prepare the promissory note, a copy of which is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C. The subject promissory note was prepared by Plaintiff’s attorney Leo LaRocca. Defendant executed said promissory note under duress. Paragraph 10: Defendant did not retain all checks received in satisfaction of the referenced judgment. Plaintiff also received checks in satisfaction of the referenced judgment. Paragraph 11: Not only did Plaintiff and Defendant end their relationship, but Plaintiff was so abusive to Defendant at the time, that Defendant obtained a Restraining Order (CLETS) after hearing against Plaintiff in case number FDV 12-809772 on November 7, 2012 in the San Francisco Superior Court, and it became necessary for the Sheriff to remove Plaintiff from Defendant’s home. Paragraph 13: Defendant has made payments to Plaintiff in excess of the amount claimed by Plaintiff and Plaintiff has received payments in excess of the amount claimed by Plaintiff to be proven at time of trial. Paragraph 14: Defendant has not refused to pay Plaintiff any amounts. Paragraph 15: The allegation is false to the extent this paragraph incorporates paragraphs 4, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14 of the Complaint. Paragraph 17: Defendant did not promise to pay Plaintiff upon start of neighbor’s bathroom job or impending sale ofhome. There was never an impending sale of Defendant’s home and Defendant promised to pay Plaintiff upon completion of the bathroom job. Defendant tendered payment of $3,400 to Plaintiff, but she refused to accept it.© ° Paragraph 18: Plaintiff demanded that Defendant pay her $71,000 not $2,400 on or about October 3, 2012. Paragraph 19: Defendant tendered payment of $3,400 to Plaintiff, but she refused to accept it. Paragraph 21: The allegations are false to the extent this paragraph incorporates paragraphs 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 of the Complaint. Paragraph 22: There was no oral contract entered into with Plaintiff in December 2009 at 26 Fairview Court, San Francisco, California, as alleged, as Plaintiff and Defendant did not live nor were they present at 26 “Fairview Court,” San Francisco, California. Defendant did not agree that he would immediately pay Plaintiff her lost investment of $75,000. Paragraph 25: Defendant did not, and has not, refused to pay Plaintiff $75,000.© ° ADDIEGO v. HYMES CASE NO. CGC 13 530839 Attachment 4. AS A FIFTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, defendant alleges there was a lack of consideration with respect to any agreements alleged in the Complaint and each cause of action therein. AS A SIXTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, defendant alleges that he paid Plaintiff sums exceeding those alleged by Plaintiff and Plaintiff received sums exceeding those alleged by Plaintiff. AS A SEVENTH AND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, defendant alleges that Plaintiff prevented performance by defendant.VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, declare: Ihave read Defendant David Hymes Answer-Contract and I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the responses contained therein are true and correct, except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. Dated: 1/21/2014 GDaved \ynor _ David Hymes GY© @ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL Tam over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. I am employed by the Law Offices of Ronald P. St. Clair, whose business address is 870 Market Street, Suite 951, San Francisco, California. On the date set forth below, I served a true and correct copy of this Answer- Contract, on the persons listed below by following our ordinary business practice for service, which is either deposited in the ordinary course of business with the U.S. Postal Service by first class mail or served by electronic transmission from the Court, if applicable. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Alan D. West Attorney at Law 19992 Redwood Road Castro Valley, CA 94546 Dated: March 3, 2014 a