arrow left
arrow right
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
						
                                

Preview

Vi 12 Brien R. McClellan, SBN 114093 W. OFFICE, OF GOATES & MeCLELLAN 5s 14" Street, Suite 1210. : - - Pelephor caee 9940 FILED. elephone: 510-457- . oe ] Dp Facsimile: 510-893-1841 . . . *. Superior Court of California, . County of San Francisco Attorneys for Defendant, SEP 16 2010 DOME CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION Clerk of the Court BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA Deputy. Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION || LAURENCE HAGEN J : Case No. €GC-10-275582 Plaintiff, ; Ce vo * } ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ASSOCIATED. INSULATION OF 3 CALIFORNIA; Defendatns as Reflected-on 5 Exhibit 1-Attached to the Summary Complaint. 4 herein; and DOES 1-8500. . : yo. : Defendants, D COMES NOW ‘Defendant, DOME CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, answers. Plaintiff's Unverified Complaint on file herein as. follows: This. answering Defendant, pursuant to €.C.P. §431.30(d), gency denies each and every allegation of the unverified Complaint and, further, denies it-is liable or obligated to Plaintiff in| any amount or amounts at-all. , FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION The unvetified Complaint and each cause of action thereii fails 1 to state facts ‘sufficient tol constitute a cause of action against this answering Defendants. od: ANSWER TO COMPLAINTSECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION The unverified Complaint, and each cause of action therein, is barred by'the provisions-of Code of Civil Procedure section-335.1 in that more than two years elapsed between 'the:accrual of |. plaintiff's alleged cause of action and.the filing of plaintiff's Complaint. THIRD AFFIRMAT! IVE DEFENSE TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION — Plaintiff-was comparatively negligent i in-and about the matters referred to in the unverified Complaint; said negligence or carelessness proximately caused and contributed to the injuries Plaintiff sustained, if any, and Defendants have no liability to Plaintiff for that proportion of fault attributable to Plaintiff. : , . FOURTH-AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO'ALL CAUSES OF ACTION Defendant are informed and. believe, and. thereon allege, that the ‘injuries and damages allegedly sustained. by Plaintift ‘was, all or in part, proximately caused ‘by the negligent or tortious conduct of persons or entities other than ‘this answering Defendant. Said negligent conduct is either imputed to Plaintiff or comparatively reduces the portion of the alleged negligence, if any, and corresponding lability, ifany, of this answering Defendant, : FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO. ALL.CAUSES OF ACTION — This answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to initigate his damages; to the extent that Plaintiff's failure to mitigate caused and/or exacerbated the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff, if any, Plaintiff's recovery should be abated or ‘eliminated entirely. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION ‘That plaintiff have unreasonably delayed. bringing tis action, to the prejudice. of defendant, such that the complaint is barred in whole or in part by ‘the doctrine'of laches. 4 / +2 tern eerretninnmermemmeratittait nent, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT.SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION That plaintiff with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances and consequences of their conduct, conducted themselves in a manner so.as to expose themselves to dangers, liabilities and perils resulting from their conduct, thereby assuming all risks of harm. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO.ALL CAUSES OF ACTION That the losses, injuries and damages, if any, suffered or to be suffered by plaintiff were the result of superseding, intervening causes arising from acts, errors and/or-omissions of other parties not-within the control of defendant. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION That the products, services and/or work provided work provided by defendant were altered or damaged after defendant completed its work on the properties at issue in this litigation by other entities or persons.over whom. defendant has no control or legal responsibility. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays judgment-as follows: L That Plaintiff takes nothing herein; 2, That the liability of these answering Defendants, if any, be reduced by the negligence of Plaintiff or others; : 3. For costs of suit; 4. For all other and proper-relief. Dated: Septémber 16, 2010 cu *s. Bran B-NieClelan ‘Atiom: DOME CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION _ St, “3s ANSWER TO COMPLAINTHagen vs. Associated Insulation of California, et al. : San Francisco Superior Court, Case ‘No. :-CGC-10-275582 PROOF OF SERVICE Ithe undsersigned, declare as follows: I am employed in the county of. Alameda, California, and Lam -over-the age of-18 years and not a party tothe within-action, My business address‘is Law Offices of Goates-& McClellan, 305 14 Street; Suite 1210, Oakland, CA 94612: mo ne On. the date executed below, T electronically served the document(s) via LexisNexis File & Serve discribed as: ANSWER TO.COMPLAINT on the recepients designated on the T: Yansaction : Receipt located.on the LexisNexis File & Serve website, : I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is trne and correct. Executed on September 16, 2010, at- Oakland. Califomia. Ny ei . Veronica Lopez: