On June 05, 2012 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Marshall, Alex,
Marshall, Nathan,
and
Behbahani, Faegh,
Desoto Cab Company, Inc.,
Does 1 To 20, Incl.,
Does 3-20,
Selby And Hudson Corporation,
for civil
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
aw
WILLIAM J. FRIMEL (Bar No. 160287)
bili@hsfllp.com
Heffernan Seubert & French LLP
1075 Curtis Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Tel: 650.322.3048
Fax: 650.322.2976
Attorneys for Defendant
SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
FEB 20 2014
Clerk of the Court
BY: MICHAEL RAYRAY
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX
MARSHALL, individually and as
successors in imterest to decedents
DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN
MARSHALL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC.,
FAEGH BEHBAHANL, SELBY AND
HUDSON CORPORATION, and DOES 1I-
20, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. CGC-12-521356
DEFENDANT SELBY AND HUDSON
CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
DEFENDANT SELBY AND HUDSON CORP.’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT,aw
Defendant Selby and Hudson Corporation (“Selby & Hudson”) answers the Second
Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) filed by Plaintiffs Nathan and Alex Marshall (“Plaintiffs”) as
follows:
Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 431.30(d), Selby & Hudson denies each and every
material allegation in the SAC.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Selby & Hudson was not the alter ego or agent of Defendant New DeSoto Cab
Cooperative Company (“New DeSoto”) at any relevant time, and accordingly is not liable for any
of New DeSoto’s acts or omissions.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs’ claims against Selby & Hudson are barred by the statute of limitations set forth
in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs’ claims against Selby & Hudson are barred by the doctrine of laches.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Selby & Hudson did not actually or proximately cause the damages alleged in the SAC.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The SAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Selby &
Hudson.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Selby & Hudson’s alleged liability for the damages claimed in the SAC is eliminated, in
whole or in part, by the comparative negligence and/or fault of third parties not named in the
SAC.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Selby & Hudson’s alleged liability for the damages claimed in the SAC is eliminated, in
whole or in part, by the comparative negligence and/or fault of Plaintiffs.
-2-
DEFENDANT SELBY AND HUDSON CORP.'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT.aw
Dated: February 20, 2014 “1
WILLIAM J. FRIMEL
Attorneys for Defendant
SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION
-3-
DEFENDANT SELBY AND HUDSON CORP.'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT.
Document Filed Date
February 20, 2014
Case Filing Date
June 05, 2012
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
aw WILLIAM J. FRIMEL (Bar No. 160287) bili@hsfllp.com Heffernan Seubert & French LLP 1075 Curtis Street Menlo Park, CA 94025 Tel: 650.322.3048 Fax: 650.322.2976 Attorneys for Defendant SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco FEB 20 2014 Clerk of the Court BY: MICHAEL RAYRAY Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX MARSHALL, individually and as successors in imterest to decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL, Plaintiffs, v. DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC., FAEGH BEHBAHANL, SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION, and DOES 1I- 20, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CGC-12-521356 DEFENDANT SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT DEFENDANT SELBY AND HUDSON CORP.’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT,aw Defendant Selby and Hudson Corporation (“Selby & Hudson”) answers the Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) filed by Plaintiffs Nathan and Alex Marshall (“Plaintiffs”) as follows: Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 431.30(d), Selby & Hudson denies each and every material allegation in the SAC. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Selby & Hudson was not the alter ego or agent of Defendant New DeSoto Cab Cooperative Company (“New DeSoto”) at any relevant time, and accordingly is not liable for any of New DeSoto’s acts or omissions. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ claims against Selby & Hudson are barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ claims against Selby & Hudson are barred by the doctrine of laches. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Selby & Hudson did not actually or proximately cause the damages alleged in the SAC. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The SAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Selby & Hudson. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Selby & Hudson’s alleged liability for the damages claimed in the SAC is eliminated, in whole or in part, by the comparative negligence and/or fault of third parties not named in the SAC. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Selby & Hudson’s alleged liability for the damages claimed in the SAC is eliminated, in whole or in part, by the comparative negligence and/or fault of Plaintiffs. -2- DEFENDANT SELBY AND HUDSON CORP.'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT.aw Dated: February 20, 2014 “1 WILLIAM J. FRIMEL Attorneys for Defendant SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION -3- DEFENDANT SELBY AND HUDSON CORP.'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT.