Preview
MOAT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Dec-04-2012 12:41 pm
Case Number: CGC-12-523956 |
Filing Date: Dec-04-2012 12:36
Filed by: ANNIE PASCUAL
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03861480
ANSWER
ANTHONY HELD, PH.D VS. UNIVERSITY ART CENTER, INC. et al
001003861480
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.28
Burke, WILLIAMS &
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
Oaktann
Albert Tong, Esq. (SBN 208439)
E-mail: atong@bwslaw.com
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 6 prantisco County Superior Court
1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612-3597 DEC 04 2012
Tel: 510.273.8780 Fax: 510.839.9104
CLERK HE COURT
Attorneys for Defendant oo
UNIVERSITY ART CENTER, INC. — “Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ANTHONY HELD, PH.D., Case No. CGC-12-523956
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY ART
CENTER, INC.’S ANSWER TO
v. PLAINTIFF ANTHONY HELD, PH.D.’S
COMPLAINT
UNIVERSITY ART CENTER, INC., and
DOES 1-150,
Defendant.
Defendant University Art Center, Inc. (“UA”) hereby submits this Answer to the
Complaint filed by plaintiff Anthony Held, Ph.D (“Held”). UA answers, denies, and alleges as
follows:
GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
UA denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in Held’s Complaint
and each and every purported cause of action set forth therein. Further, UA denies that Held is
entitled to any relief requested, or to any relief at all, or that Held has been damaged in the
amount mentioned in the Complaint or in any amount whatsoever, or that there is owing to Held
any amount whatsoever.
-1-
ANSWER28
BURKE, WILLIAMS &
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
OaktaNp
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
By alleging the matters set forth in the paragraphs below, UA does not thereby admit or
allege that it has the burden of proof with respect to any of said matters.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure To State A Claim)
The Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action set forth therein, fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
Held acted with unclean hands in and about the matters alleged in its Complaint, to the
detriment of UA, thereby barring Held from any relief by way of its Complaint filed herein.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Standing)
Held failed to comply with the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations
including California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, Cal. Health & Safety
Code §§ 25249.5 et seg., 11 C.C.R. §§ 3100 ef seg., and 27 C.C.R. §§ 25102 et seq. (collectively,
“Proposition 65”), and is therefore barred and foreclosed from maintaining the claims asserted
herein against UA.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)
Held, by virtue of his own independent actions or omissions to act, has waived its right to
proceed against UA for relief and damages.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statutes of Limitations)
Held’s Complaint, and each of its causes of action, is barred by the applicable statutes of
limitations and/or repose.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
Held’s Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action set forth therein, is barred
by reason of acts, omissions, representations, or courses of conduct by Held upon which UA was
led to rely on its detriment.
-2-
ANSWERw
wo ND
9
10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
eGorensen, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT Law
Oaktany
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Good Faith)
UA acted at all times in good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce any act or acts
alleged to constitute a violation of law or cause of action.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Intervening Circumstances)
Held is barred from recovering from UA because independent, intervening, and/or
superseding forces and/or actions of third parties, unrelated to any conduct of UA, caused or
contributed to Held’s alleged losses and/or damages.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Privity)
UA did not make to Held, nor did UA breach, any express or implied warranties and did
not breach any warranties created by law. To the extent that Held relies upon any theory of
breach of warranty, such claims are barred for lack of privity with UA and/or for failure of Held,
or its representatives, to give timely notice to UA of any alleged breach of warranty.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Indispensable Parties)
Held’s Complaint is equitably barred because Held’s failure to join all indispensable
parties precludes the Court from granting complete relief to those who are parties to the action
and will result in prejudice to UA.
WHEREFORE UA prays for judgment as follows:
1. That Held take nothing by reason of its Complaint;
2. That UA be awarded judgment in its favor on Held’s Complaint;
3. That UA be awarded its costs of suit incurred herein; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
-3-
ANSWER28
BURKE, WILLIAMS &
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Oakiawp
DATED: December 4, 2012
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Albert Tong
Attorneys/for UNIVERSITY ART CENTER, INC.
-4-
ANSWER28
BURKE, WILLIAMS &
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Los ANGELES
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Laura A. Montalvo, declare:
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the State of California, County of
Alameda. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My
business address is 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, California 94612-3501. On
December 4, 2012, I served a copy of the within document(s):
Defendant University Art Center, Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiff
Anthony Held, Ph.D.'s Complaint
by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set
Oo forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Oakland, California addressed as set
forth below.
ix]
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Delivery Service envelope and
O affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a Delivery
Service agent for delivery.
by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the
O address(es) set forth below.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Gregory M. Sheffer, Esq.
The Chanler Group
81 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 202
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Tel: (415) 388-0911
Fax: (415) 388-9911
Iam readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence
for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
Mt
OAK #483 1-6187-8802 v1
PROOF OF SERVICE28
BURKE, WILLIAMS &
SORENSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Los ANGELES
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
| is true and correct.
Executed on December 4, 2012, at Oakland, California.
Aguero ltirtadhe
Laura A. Montalvo
OAK #4831-6187-8802 v1 -2-
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
MOAT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Dec-04-2012 12:41 pm Case Number: CGC-12-523956 | Filing Date: Dec-04-2012 12:36 Filed by: ANNIE PASCUAL Juke Box: 001 Image: 03861480 ANSWER ANTHONY HELD, PH.D VS. UNIVERSITY ART CENTER, INC. et al 001003861480 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.28 Burke, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW. Oaktann Albert Tong, Esq. (SBN 208439) E-mail: atong@bwslaw.com BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 6 prantisco County Superior Court 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612-3597 DEC 04 2012 Tel: 510.273.8780 Fax: 510.839.9104 CLERK HE COURT Attorneys for Defendant oo UNIVERSITY ART CENTER, INC. — “Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ANTHONY HELD, PH.D., Case No. CGC-12-523956 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY ART CENTER, INC.’S ANSWER TO v. PLAINTIFF ANTHONY HELD, PH.D.’S COMPLAINT UNIVERSITY ART CENTER, INC., and DOES 1-150, Defendant. Defendant University Art Center, Inc. (“UA”) hereby submits this Answer to the Complaint filed by plaintiff Anthony Held, Ph.D (“Held”). UA answers, denies, and alleges as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to the provisions of Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, UA denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in Held’s Complaint and each and every purported cause of action set forth therein. Further, UA denies that Held is entitled to any relief requested, or to any relief at all, or that Held has been damaged in the amount mentioned in the Complaint or in any amount whatsoever, or that there is owing to Held any amount whatsoever. -1- ANSWER28 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OaktaNp AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES By alleging the matters set forth in the paragraphs below, UA does not thereby admit or allege that it has the burden of proof with respect to any of said matters. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure To State A Claim) The Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action set forth therein, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) Held acted with unclean hands in and about the matters alleged in its Complaint, to the detriment of UA, thereby barring Held from any relief by way of its Complaint filed herein. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Standing) Held failed to comply with the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations including California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25249.5 et seg., 11 C.C.R. §§ 3100 ef seg., and 27 C.C.R. §§ 25102 et seq. (collectively, “Proposition 65”), and is therefore barred and foreclosed from maintaining the claims asserted herein against UA. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) Held, by virtue of his own independent actions or omissions to act, has waived its right to proceed against UA for relief and damages. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statutes of Limitations) Held’s Complaint, and each of its causes of action, is barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and/or repose. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) Held’s Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action set forth therein, is barred by reason of acts, omissions, representations, or courses of conduct by Held upon which UA was led to rely on its detriment. -2- ANSWERw wo ND 9 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 eGorensen, LLP ATTORNEYS AT Law Oaktany SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Good Faith) UA acted at all times in good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce any act or acts alleged to constitute a violation of law or cause of action. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Intervening Circumstances) Held is barred from recovering from UA because independent, intervening, and/or superseding forces and/or actions of third parties, unrelated to any conduct of UA, caused or contributed to Held’s alleged losses and/or damages. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Privity) UA did not make to Held, nor did UA breach, any express or implied warranties and did not breach any warranties created by law. To the extent that Held relies upon any theory of breach of warranty, such claims are barred for lack of privity with UA and/or for failure of Held, or its representatives, to give timely notice to UA of any alleged breach of warranty. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Indispensable Parties) Held’s Complaint is equitably barred because Held’s failure to join all indispensable parties precludes the Court from granting complete relief to those who are parties to the action and will result in prejudice to UA. WHEREFORE UA prays for judgment as follows: 1. That Held take nothing by reason of its Complaint; 2. That UA be awarded judgment in its favor on Held’s Complaint; 3. That UA be awarded its costs of suit incurred herein; and 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. -3- ANSWER28 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Oakiawp DATED: December 4, 2012 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Albert Tong Attorneys/for UNIVERSITY ART CENTER, INC. -4- ANSWER28 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES PROOF OF SERVICE I, Laura A. Montalvo, declare: I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the State of California, County of Alameda. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, California 94612-3501. On December 4, 2012, I served a copy of the within document(s): Defendant University Art Center, Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiff Anthony Held, Ph.D.'s Complaint by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set Oo forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Oakland, California addressed as set forth below. ix] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Delivery Service envelope and O affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a Delivery Service agent for delivery. by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the O address(es) set forth below. Attorneys for Plaintiff Gregory M. Sheffer, Esq. The Chanler Group 81 Throckmorton Avenue, Suite 202 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Tel: (415) 388-0911 Fax: (415) 388-9911 Iam readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Mt OAK #483 1-6187-8802 v1 PROOF OF SERVICE28 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above | is true and correct. Executed on December 4, 2012, at Oakland, California. Aguero ltirtadhe Laura A. Montalvo OAK #4831-6187-8802 v1 -2- PROOF OF SERVICE