Preview
AVOCA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Nov-14-2012 10:08 am
Case Number: CGC-12-520752
Filing Date: Nov-13-2012 10:07
Filed by: CAROL BALISTRERI
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03839646
ANSWER
SPERO SARIDAKIS VS. PENINSULA YELLOW CAB COMPANY, LLC et al
001C03839646
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.27
28
HUNTER W. SIMS, III, ESQ. — State Bar No. 266039
STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER FIL
505 14th Street, Suite 400 supe uu, E.,,
Oakland, CA 94612-1913 any of San Francisco.
Phone: (510) 457-3440
Fax: (510) 238-8968 NOV 18 2012
Attorney for RICHELLE NAVAL, wy Lanetog on)
‘ puity Cle
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SPERO SARIDAKIS, Case No.: CGC-12-520752
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
Plaintiff,
ASSIGNED TO FOR ALL PURPOSES:
vs. DEPT: Not Assigned
PENINSULA YELLOW CAB COMPANY, LLC; | ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
RAKESH KUMAR, RICHELLE NAVAL, ET AL.,
Defendants.
COMES NOW the Defendant, RICHELLE NAVAL, above named, and in answer to the
Complaint of Plaintiff on file herein admits, denies and alleges as follows:
I
Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, this answering
Defendant denies each, every and all of the allegations of said Complaint, and the whole thereof, and
denies Plaintiff has sustained damages in any sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum or at all.
I
Further answering Plaintiff's Complaint on file herein, and the whole thereof, this answering
Defendant denies that the Plaintiff has sustained any injury, damages or loss, if any, by reason of any act
or omission of this answering Defendant or his agents or employees.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -iThat all times mentioned in the Complaint, the Plaintiff so carelessly, recklessly and negligently
conducted and maintained himself so as to cause and contribute in some degree to the alleged incident
and to the damages and injuries, if any, alleged to have been sustained by said Plaintiff and therefore
said negligence completely bars any recovery or in the alternative, it reduces the right of recovery by
that amount said negligence contributed to this incident as set forth under the doctrine of comparative
negligence.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That at all times mentioned in the Complaint, the Plaintiff knowing the probable consequences
thereof, placed himself in a position of danger and freely and voluntarily participated in all the activities
alleged herein, and thereby assumed all the risks attendant thereto.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That the Complaint and each of the alleged causes of action fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action against this answering Defendant.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to mitigate any damages sustained
by reason of Defendant’s alleged acts. Therefore, any damages awarded to Plaintiff shall be limited to
the damages Plaintiff would have sustained had Plaintiff mitigated his damages.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That Plaintiff is barred from any recovery as to this answering Defendant, in that any damage
proven to have been sustained by Plaintiff was the direct and proximate result of the independent and
superseding action of Plaintiff and other persons or parties, and not due to any act or omission on the
part of this Defendant.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That each of the alleged causes of action stated in the complaint is barred by the applicable
statute of limitations including, but not limited to, provisions of Subdivision 3, Section 340, and/or
Section 335.1 of the Califomia Code of Civil Procedure.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -2Plaintiff's claim for damages is or may be barred by the Provision of Civil Code Sections 3333.3
and/or 3333.4.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If Plaintiff suffered any losses, damages, injuries, and/or harm, such losses, harm, damages
and/or injuries were proximately caused, contributed to and/or initiated by persons and/or entities other
than the answering Defendant, and the liability of all Defendants named or unnamed, should be
apportioned according to their relative degrees of fault, and the liability, if any, of the answering
Defendant should be reduced accordingly.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Under and pursuant to the terms of Civil Code Sections 1431.1 through 1431.5, Plaintiff are
barred and precluded from recovery against the answering Defendant for any non-economic damages
except those allocated in direct proportion to the percentage of fault allocated to answering Defendant, if]
any.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
In the event that a judgment is rendered against the answering Defendant in favor of the
Plaintiff(s), the extent of the answering Defendant’s liability is limited by the terms of California
Vehicle Code section 17151.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As and for a further, separate and distinct affirmative defense to the complaint on file herein, it is
hereby alleged upon information and belief that at the time of the accident/incident described in the
complaint, plaintiff was in the course and scope of his employment with this answering defendant.
Therefore, the worker’s compensation laws and the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board have
exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims and the complaint is barred as a result.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of his Complaint and that
this Defendant be dismissed hence with his costs.
NOTICE
By placing the following statement in the answer, neither this Defendant nor his counsel waives
any privilege or objection regarding the admissibility of the following statement (or the existence of
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -3insurance coverage for this Defendant), and requests that this statement be redacted as may be necessary
and appropriate to protect this answering Defendant.
All attorneys and staff of the office of Stratman, Patterson & Hunter are employees of Farmers
Insurance Exchange, a Member of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, and not a partnership.
DATED: November 7, 2012 STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER
ov. We
HUNTER W. SIMS, III, ESQ.
Attorney for RICHELLE NAVAL,
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -4Re: Saridakis v. Peninsua Yellow Cab Company, LLC, et al.
Case Number: CGC-12-520752
PROOF OF SERVICE
Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1013a, 2015.5
I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to
the within action. My business address is 505 14th Street, Suite 400 ,Oakland, CA 94612-1913. On
November _& , 2012, I served the following document(s):
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope, addressed as set forth
below, and placing the envelope for collection and mailing in the place designated for
such in our offices, following ordinary business practices.
by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set
forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
By causing a true copy thereof to be personally delivered to the person(s) at the
address(es) set forth below.
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for
mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with 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.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct.
Executed on November 8 >
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 5Re: Saridakis vy. Peninsua Yellow Cab Company, LLC, et al.
Case Number: CGC-12-520752
SERVICE LIST
Lawrence A. Strick, Esq.
Strick Law Offices
503 D Street, Suite 2
San Rafael, CA 94901
Attorney for Plaintiff, Spero Saridakis
Phone: (415) 721-1200
Fax: (415) 721-1199
Ronald Mawhinney, Esq.
Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett LLP - SF
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2080
San Francisco, CA 94104
Attorney for Defendants, PENINSULA YELLOW CAB COMPANY, LLC; RAKESH KUMAR
Phone: (415) 352-6408
Fax: (415) 352-6400
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -6
Preview
AVOCA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Nov-14-2012 10:08 am Case Number: CGC-12-520752 Filing Date: Nov-13-2012 10:07 Filed by: CAROL BALISTRERI Juke Box: 001 Image: 03839646 ANSWER SPERO SARIDAKIS VS. PENINSULA YELLOW CAB COMPANY, LLC et al 001C03839646 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.27 28 HUNTER W. SIMS, III, ESQ. — State Bar No. 266039 STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER FIL 505 14th Street, Suite 400 supe uu, E.,, Oakland, CA 94612-1913 any of San Francisco. Phone: (510) 457-3440 Fax: (510) 238-8968 NOV 18 2012 Attorney for RICHELLE NAVAL, wy Lanetog on) ‘ puity Cle SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SPERO SARIDAKIS, Case No.: CGC-12-520752 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION Plaintiff, ASSIGNED TO FOR ALL PURPOSES: vs. DEPT: Not Assigned PENINSULA YELLOW CAB COMPANY, LLC; | ANSWER TO COMPLAINT RAKESH KUMAR, RICHELLE NAVAL, ET AL., Defendants. COMES NOW the Defendant, RICHELLE NAVAL, above named, and in answer to the Complaint of Plaintiff on file herein admits, denies and alleges as follows: I Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, this answering Defendant denies each, every and all of the allegations of said Complaint, and the whole thereof, and denies Plaintiff has sustained damages in any sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum or at all. I Further answering Plaintiff's Complaint on file herein, and the whole thereof, this answering Defendant denies that the Plaintiff has sustained any injury, damages or loss, if any, by reason of any act or omission of this answering Defendant or his agents or employees. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -iThat all times mentioned in the Complaint, the Plaintiff so carelessly, recklessly and negligently conducted and maintained himself so as to cause and contribute in some degree to the alleged incident and to the damages and injuries, if any, alleged to have been sustained by said Plaintiff and therefore said negligence completely bars any recovery or in the alternative, it reduces the right of recovery by that amount said negligence contributed to this incident as set forth under the doctrine of comparative negligence. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That at all times mentioned in the Complaint, the Plaintiff knowing the probable consequences thereof, placed himself in a position of danger and freely and voluntarily participated in all the activities alleged herein, and thereby assumed all the risks attendant thereto. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That the Complaint and each of the alleged causes of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering Defendant. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to mitigate any damages sustained by reason of Defendant’s alleged acts. Therefore, any damages awarded to Plaintiff shall be limited to the damages Plaintiff would have sustained had Plaintiff mitigated his damages. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That Plaintiff is barred from any recovery as to this answering Defendant, in that any damage proven to have been sustained by Plaintiff was the direct and proximate result of the independent and superseding action of Plaintiff and other persons or parties, and not due to any act or omission on the part of this Defendant. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That each of the alleged causes of action stated in the complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations including, but not limited to, provisions of Subdivision 3, Section 340, and/or Section 335.1 of the Califomia Code of Civil Procedure. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -2Plaintiff's claim for damages is or may be barred by the Provision of Civil Code Sections 3333.3 and/or 3333.4. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Plaintiff suffered any losses, damages, injuries, and/or harm, such losses, harm, damages and/or injuries were proximately caused, contributed to and/or initiated by persons and/or entities other than the answering Defendant, and the liability of all Defendants named or unnamed, should be apportioned according to their relative degrees of fault, and the liability, if any, of the answering Defendant should be reduced accordingly. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Under and pursuant to the terms of Civil Code Sections 1431.1 through 1431.5, Plaintiff are barred and precluded from recovery against the answering Defendant for any non-economic damages except those allocated in direct proportion to the percentage of fault allocated to answering Defendant, if] any. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE In the event that a judgment is rendered against the answering Defendant in favor of the Plaintiff(s), the extent of the answering Defendant’s liability is limited by the terms of California Vehicle Code section 17151. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and for a further, separate and distinct affirmative defense to the complaint on file herein, it is hereby alleged upon information and belief that at the time of the accident/incident described in the complaint, plaintiff was in the course and scope of his employment with this answering defendant. Therefore, the worker’s compensation laws and the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board have exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims and the complaint is barred as a result. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of his Complaint and that this Defendant be dismissed hence with his costs. NOTICE By placing the following statement in the answer, neither this Defendant nor his counsel waives any privilege or objection regarding the admissibility of the following statement (or the existence of ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -3insurance coverage for this Defendant), and requests that this statement be redacted as may be necessary and appropriate to protect this answering Defendant. All attorneys and staff of the office of Stratman, Patterson & Hunter are employees of Farmers Insurance Exchange, a Member of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, and not a partnership. DATED: November 7, 2012 STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER ov. We HUNTER W. SIMS, III, ESQ. Attorney for RICHELLE NAVAL, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -4Re: Saridakis v. Peninsua Yellow Cab Company, LLC, et al. Case Number: CGC-12-520752 PROOF OF SERVICE Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1013a, 2015.5 I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 505 14th Street, Suite 400 ,Oakland, CA 94612-1913. On November _& , 2012, I served the following document(s): ANSWER TO COMPLAINT by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope, addressed as set forth below, and placing the envelope for collection and mailing in the place designated for such in our offices, following ordinary business practices. by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. By causing a true copy thereof to be personally delivered to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with 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. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on November 8 > ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 5Re: Saridakis vy. Peninsua Yellow Cab Company, LLC, et al. Case Number: CGC-12-520752 SERVICE LIST Lawrence A. Strick, Esq. Strick Law Offices 503 D Street, Suite 2 San Rafael, CA 94901 Attorney for Plaintiff, Spero Saridakis Phone: (415) 721-1200 Fax: (415) 721-1199 Ronald Mawhinney, Esq. Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett LLP - SF 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2080 San Francisco, CA 94104 Attorney for Defendants, PENINSULA YELLOW CAB COMPANY, LLC; RAKESH KUMAR Phone: (415) 352-6408 Fax: (415) 352-6400 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -6