Preview
Mn
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Sep-28-2012 7:54 am
Case Number: CGC-12-523178
Filing Date: Sep-27-2012 7:53
Filed by: VANESSA WU
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03783245
ANSWER
BROOKE BOTTICELLI VS. ELIZABETH SINCLAIR et al
001003783245
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.~
SABRINA M. BERDUX, ESQ. — State Bar No. 248927 fF
STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER S8n Frangien
505 L4th Street, Suite 400 M0 County Simard
Oakland, CA 94612-1913 - SEP 2
Phone: (510) 457-3440 7 2012
Fax: (510) 238-8968 CLE
‘ax: (510) By: TIA GUUR
Attorney for Defendant, =
ELIZABETH SINCLAIR nity Chee?
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
BROOKE BOTTICELLI, Case No.: CGC-12-523178
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
Plaintiff,
ASSIGNED TO FOR ALL PURPOSES:
vs, DEPT: Not Assigned
ELIZABETH SINCLAIR, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Defendants.
COMES NOW the Defendant, ELIZABETH SINCLAIR, 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.
Il
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 her agents or employees.
ut
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT = 1
it27
28
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That all times mentioned in the Complaint, the Plaintiff so carelessly, recklessly and negligently
conducted and maintained herself 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 herself 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 her 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 California Code of Civil Procedure.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -227
28
_ _ Plaintiff'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 her 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 her Complaint and that
this Defendant be dismissed hence with her costs.
NOTICE
By placing the following statement in the answer, neither this Defendant nor her 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: September 24, 2012 STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER
BY:
ABRINA M, BERDUX, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant,
ELIZABETH SINCLAIR
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 4Re: Botticelli v. Sinclair, et al.
Case Number: CGC-12-523178
PROOF OF SERVICE
Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1613a, 2015.5
lam 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
September 75 , 2012, I served the following document(s):
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
a 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 September |
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 527
28
Re: Botticelli v. Sinclair, et al.
€ase Number: CGC-12-523178
Issa J. Michael, Esq.
The Michael Law Firm
1648 Union Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94123
Attorney for Plaintiff, Brooke Botticelli
Phone: (415) 447-2833
Fax: (415) 447-2834
SERVICE LIST
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 6