Preview
IOC
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Apr-10-2009 5:19 pm
Case Number: CGC-09-484209
Filing Date: Apr-09-2009 2:52
Juke Box: 001 Image: 02462707
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT
COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. JEPTHA EVANS et al
001002462707 '
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.wv Oe IN Dw FY NY
yoN RO ae
BPNRPRRBBRBeE_w AU RAEBEHR HS
Jeptha A. Evans, Esq. (SBN 229392) Superior Go
2137 Turk Boulevard County Pitching dD
San Francisco, CA 94115 APR 09 20
Telephone: (415) 710-3433 Gor 0g
Facsimile: (415) 834-9139 ay IN PARI, Go
Defendant ‘ Depa
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
(LIMITED JURISDICTION)
COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE Case No. CGC-09-484209
COMPANY,
DEFENDANT JEPTHA EVANS’
Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
VS.
JEPTHA EVANS,
Defendant.
Defendant JEPTHA EVANS (herein “Defendant EVANS”) hereby answers the
unverified complaint of Plaintiff COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, on file herei
as follows:
1. Pursuant to Section 431.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant EVANS
denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in said unverified
complaint and each and every cause of action therein set forth.
2 As separate, distinct and affirmative defenses to the claim on file herein and to
each cause of action thereof, this answering Defendant EVANS alleges as follows:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. Plaintiff's complaint overstates Plaintiff's damages. The actual damages claimed
by Plaintiff in its July 22, 2008 letter requesting payment are $6,718.18. A copy of Plaintiff's
Answer to Complaint For Damages
-l-_
owe nN AH HW kW N
July 22, 2008 letter is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. Plaintiff's complaint
does not take into account the insured’s deductible ($1,000) or the salvage value of the insured’s
car ($1,550).
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. On March 20, 2009 and again on April 7, 2009, attorney for Defendant EVANS
offered to pay the full amount requested in the Plaintiff's July 22, 2008 letter requesting
payment. Attomeys for Plaintiff are closing their law practice and state that they are no longer
representing Plaintiff. Defendant has been unable to identify Plaintiff's replacement counsel. A
copy of the March 20, 2009 letter offering payment to Plaintiff is attached hereto, marked
Exhibit B, and incorporated by reference herein. A copy of the April 7, 2009 letter offering
payment to Plaintiff is attached hereto, marked Exhibit C, and incorporated by reference herein.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. The complaint, and each alleged cause of action contained therein, fails to state
facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
nyaineeeee ee
4. Plaintiff, by its words, conduct and actions, made a knowing, intentional and
voluntary waiver of any and all claims, further obligations and liabilities as to any and all matters
raised in its complaint barring any recovery against Defendant.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5. The complaint and each alleged cause of action set forth therein is barred by the
applicable statute of limitations including but not limited to Code of Civil Procedure Sections
337, 338, 339, 340.2, 340(3), 343, 353.1, 474 and each pertinent subsection, and/or Chapter 289
of the 1979 legislative enactments.
Answer to Complaint For Damages
-2-Do wy A uu bf wY NY |
NON NN WN ees
RBHRRRORPRSSE eA AWE HN HK S
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. Plaintiff accepted, authorized, approved and ratified Defendant's conduct and/or
prevented Defendant from protecting Defendant’s interest. As a consequence, Plaintiff is
estopped from asserting any claim based on such conduct.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7. This Defendant made no warranties of any kind, express or implied, to Plaintiff
herein.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8. Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in providing notice and in commencing and
prosecuting this action which caused unfair prejudice to Defendant, barring any recovery against
Defendant under the equitable doctrine of laches.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9. The conduct of the Defendant was justified or privileged or both under the
circumstances barring any recovery against Defendant.
TENTILAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10. Plaintiff accepted performance tendered by Defendant under each and every
alleged agreement, if any, thus excusing Defendant from any and all further obligations to
Plaintiff.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11. Assuming arguendo that this Defendant owed any obligation to which full
performance has not been rendered, which Defendant expressly denies, performance of
said obligation has been excused by the acts and omissions of Plaintiff or Plaintiff's agents
excluding this Defendant.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. Defendant's alleged duties as claimed in the Complaint, if any so existed, have
been excused by the doctrine of impossibility in that the performance of said obligation is and
has been rendered impossible and/or commercially impracticable.
‘Answer to Complaint For Damages
-3-Do we YW DAW ek BN =
tN p= = Se =e Se ee ee
RBRRBRBBRE BSR UABDEBHA S
THIRTEENTH! AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13. The purpose of the alleged agreement has been frustrated as a matter of law.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14. Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought by reason of her own unclean hands
with regard to the matters alleged in the complaint. The complaint, and each cause of action
therein, are barred by the approval and ratification of the actions complained of therein.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15. If Plaintiff sustained any damages as a result of the allegations set forth in the
complaint, a contention which this Defendant denies, Plaintiff is not entitled to recovery from
this Defendant of any sum as damages due to Plaintiff's failure to take reasonable efforts to
mitigate the damages allegedly incurred.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. The claims of Plaintiff are subject to set-off based on the acts and wrong doings
of Plaintiff.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17. Plaintiff's claims against this Defendant are barred by the doctrine and/or
principles of res judicata, retraxit and/or collateral estoppel, in that said claims were the subject
of a prior action which has been resolved as to this Defendant.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18. Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to establish appropriate subrogation rights under|
he contract at issue.
NINTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 Defendant alleges Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of comparative
and/or contributory fault of Plaintiff. Accordingly any damages awarded should be barred or
reduced in proportion to the fault attributable to Plaintiff or its agents.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Answer to Complaint For Damages
-4-oot DA HW YN
Nn wN BN N NON we ee Be Ee Se Se Se Se ee
RBNRRRBBER BESSA ABDEBR AS
20. Defendant alleges that the obligations set forth in the complaint and in the
contracts were fully discharged by Plaintiff.
TWENTYFIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21. Defendant's alleged duties as claimed in the Complaint, if any so existed, are
dissolved by the doctrine of novation where substitution of a new obligation between the parties
were made with intent to extinguish the old obligation.
TWENTYSECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22. Plaintiff's claims fail because the contract was executed without any
consideration whatsoever.
WHEREFORE, Defendant EVANS prays for judgment as follows:
1. That Plaintiff accept payment for $6,718.18, which is the actual amount of their
- claim for total damages;
3. That Defendant EVANS be granted such other and further relief as the court may
deem just and proper.
Dated: April 9, 2009
‘Answer to Comptaint For Damages
=5sEXHIBIT AC
- BACOAST RA
NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY.
A MEMBER OF THE BRISTOL WEST INSURANCE GROUP
duly 22, 2008
John R. Grele, Attorney at Law
703 Market Street, Sulte 550
San Francisco, CA 94103
RE: Our Clalm No. 200800030109
Our Insured: Deborah Laviene
Date of Loss: - 04/01/2008
Your Cllant: Jeptha Evans
Dear Mr. Grete:
A claim has been processed on behalf of our insured as the result of an accident, which
occurred on the above-mentioned date. According to the evidence In our possession the
aceldent was the result of your cllent's negligence.
Coast National Insurance is subrogated to the rights of Its Insured to the extent of any payment
made to or on behalf of the Insured. Collision and other payments were pald as follows:
Total loss Payment * $7,115.68
Insured’s Deductible; $1,000.00
Insured’s Out of Pocket Expense" $0.00
Towing/storage fees: $152.50
Less VLF $0.00 -
Less Salvage $1,550.00
CNIC Rental Payment $0.00
Total Damages $6,718.18
We urge you to contact the undersigned to make arrangements for payment of this loss.
Your client coufd face tegal action, suspension of their driving privilege and/or wage
garnishment due to fallure In communicating with our office,
AASTERC. payments in the form of credi/debit are accepted upon approval.
are fi 00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
1 22-2612
rog Collector for
COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
P.O. BOX 11043, Orange, CA 92856-8143
Phone: (800) 541-4153 « Fax: (714) 939-7010~ Page 1 of 1
Involce Display
7eNs pate 7/17/08
GARTINEZS 5S 94553 VISIT US at wee.copart.com
PyONE 270-3900 All Avounts are in USD .
Fax Toe edited :
FINAL INVOICE
Copart Lote 9425638 78 CA = MARTINEZ
toss dace 4s0l/cs .
Called tn 4/03/08
P/E clea d 4408/08 Bw16 PIPOOZA
Pickup 4/08/08 JULIE HOANG
ord saa) Paitle 6/13/08 CCAST NATIONAL INSURANCE
rans Title 6/33/08 P.O. Box 11043
Sale document 6/18/08 ORANGE, CA 92856 8143
Loss Type SOUL ISTON
Description 05 DoOG NEON/SE = WHITE
vehicle 1oF Teserecriotsoen Claim# 200800030209
Uicengen/st $L0099 Policy# GOO1S2828101
kileage 58. Zes Loss Code
Pickup From TWSiIDEA'S RESTOENCE. Referenced
3 . . Insured DEBORAH LAVIENE
. Owner DEBORAM LAVIENE
ieee one
ADVANCE CHARGES PATO BY COPART
TOTAL ADVANCE CHARGES 2 2c ee ee ee -00
CoPanT, SERVICE CHARGES
TITLE PROCESSING. wo eee ee ee n. $9 SALVAGE, CERTIFICATE,
PIP POOLING CHARGE. wee wee ee
TWIN, ee ee 0,00 Zone C6
TOTAL COPART SERVICE CHARGES. © 2. os
TOTAL DUE COPART ov ee eee ee ete 252.50
PROCEEDS FROM SALE . eee eee 2550.00er *Bid Raised By Internet®
PREVIOUS PAYMENTS FAgH copaat, eee ee 7.50
WET DUE CoPART . eee eee 00
COPART PAYMENTS DETAIL
COPART CHECKS 45502808 O7/1 5/08 1,397.50
SALE IKFORMATION
Lot# 9425638 sold to 303836 349 AUTO BODY SPECIALIST
sabedapane 1035/08 Hsa ca s1702
wn .
acy 8338.00 ey 653-082 RES# SRAP97EOLOIS
¢ eye, 28.5% Iten# 316
ere 4
Invoice Date 7715/08
Paynent From auyer 7/09/08 Invoice Amount +00 USD
Reported To nice 7/21/08
Copyright® 1998-2098 Copart, Inc. - hrto//www.cooart.com
Privacy Policy
Copart Access ts 8 Service for Registered Capart Sellers. Copart access end the Copart Auction System (CAS) represent proprietary
‘technologies protected by law. Misuse or abuse of any king will result In membership revocation and possible criminal prosecution.
Copart Is not responsible for inaccuracies tn data reported by CAS and the Cozart Access system. The user sssumes all risk of date loss
ng errors.
Leneitinamaee nace inn hin(ealler/arnece/inudicnlauiview AtwidisnMat=9425638 TNT2008EXHIBIT BJOHN R GRELE
Attorney at Law
703 Market Street, Suite 550
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: 415-348-9300 Facsimile: 415-348-0364
March 20, 2009
Kenneth Jorgensen, Esq.
James P, Molinelli, Jr. & Associates
70 Washington St Ste 325
Oakland, CA 94607
Via Facsimile Transmission and Regular Mail
Re:,CNIC v, Evans CGC 09-484209
Dear Sir:
Lleft a message for you on March 11, 1009, to which you responded, and then left another
message for you on March 13, 2009, to which you have not replied, In that second message, I
explained that Mr. Evans was waiting to hear if there was any claim for personal injury damages
related to this incident. 1 also mentioned that the insurance company’s claim was $6718.18,
pursuant to the insurance company’s demand, which differs from your demand in the complaint.
Lindicated Mr. Evans desired to settle this matter immediately.
1am attaching the insurance company’s demand, and requesting you contact me to
discuss this matter before any further litigation.
Sincpaely
E0G-4d —200/800'd = 2-1 + O]ery y UYor JO O51430 MeT~UOsy — EdP]I20 —-BO-BO-ICYEXHIBIT CJOHN R GRELE
Attorncy at Law
7103 Market Street, Suite 550
San Francisco, CA 94103 °
Telephone: 415-348-9300 Facsimile: 415-348-0364
April 7, 2009
Kenneth Jorgensen, Esq.
James P. Molinelli, Jr. & Associates
70 Washington St Ste 325
Oakland, CA 94607
Via Facsimile Transmission and Regular Mail
Re: CNIC v. Evans, CGC 09-484209
Dear Sir:
This will confirm our discussion of March 30, 2009 wherein £ expressed Mr, Evans’
desire to settle the matter, but you informed me that you were no longer going to ‘be working on
the case and that the file would be assigned to someone else, likely at another firm, who would
contact me, To date, I have not been contacted. Please express to whomever is handling this
matter that Mr, Evans desires to settle it promptly and have them contact me.
Sine: yours,
Join R Gre!
foG-J 200/200°d * SB2-1 + B1UIg Y UYOr Jo ON1N4Q AeT-wOIy — BdPLI2) ——BD-BD-PYOo ean Aw kW ND =
NN ty NR RM RD em eee
RBNRBRRBBEPRPSSeSeAABDREBEHRAS
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
T am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. | am over the age of
18, and appearing pro se in this matter. My mailing address is 2137 Turk Boulevard, San
Francisco, CA 94115.
On April 9, 2009, | served the following documents:
DEFENDANT JEPTIA EVANS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof in (a) sealed
envelope(s) addressed to:
Kenneth J. Jorgensen, Esq.
Law Offices of James P. Molinelli Jr. &
Associates
70 Washington Street, Suite 325
Oakland, CA 94607-3795
X_ (BY MAIL) I caused said envelope(s) with first-class postage prepaid to be placed in the
U.S. Mail at San Francisco, California. | am aware that on motion of the party served, service is
presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after
the date of deposit for mailing in this affidavit.
(BY EXPRESS MAIL) I caused said envelope(s) with overnight delivery charges prepaid
to be placed at a Federal Express facility in San Francisco, California.
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused said envelope(s) to be delivered by hand.
(BY FACSIMILE SERVICE) I caused the above contents to be faxed to the interested
parties at the fax number(s) listed above. My fax machine reported that the fax was successful.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct and that this Proof of Service was executed in San Francisco on this 9th day of
April 2009.
Jeptha Evans
Proof of Service of Defendant Jeptha Evans’ Answer to Complaint
-l-
Preview
IOC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Apr-10-2009 5:19 pm Case Number: CGC-09-484209 Filing Date: Apr-09-2009 2:52 Juke Box: 001 Image: 02462707 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. JEPTHA EVANS et al 001002462707 ' Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.wv Oe IN Dw FY NY yoN RO ae BPNRPRRBBRBeE_w AU RAEBEHR HS Jeptha A. Evans, Esq. (SBN 229392) Superior Go 2137 Turk Boulevard County Pitching dD San Francisco, CA 94115 APR 09 20 Telephone: (415) 710-3433 Gor 0g Facsimile: (415) 834-9139 ay IN PARI, Go Defendant ‘ Depa SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (LIMITED JURISDICTION) COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE Case No. CGC-09-484209 COMPANY, DEFENDANT JEPTHA EVANS’ Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT VS. JEPTHA EVANS, Defendant. Defendant JEPTHA EVANS (herein “Defendant EVANS”) hereby answers the unverified complaint of Plaintiff COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, on file herei as follows: 1. Pursuant to Section 431.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant EVANS denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in said unverified complaint and each and every cause of action therein set forth. 2 As separate, distinct and affirmative defenses to the claim on file herein and to each cause of action thereof, this answering Defendant EVANS alleges as follows: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. Plaintiff's complaint overstates Plaintiff's damages. The actual damages claimed by Plaintiff in its July 22, 2008 letter requesting payment are $6,718.18. A copy of Plaintiff's Answer to Complaint For Damages -l-_ owe nN AH HW kW N July 22, 2008 letter is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. Plaintiff's complaint does not take into account the insured’s deductible ($1,000) or the salvage value of the insured’s car ($1,550). SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. On March 20, 2009 and again on April 7, 2009, attorney for Defendant EVANS offered to pay the full amount requested in the Plaintiff's July 22, 2008 letter requesting payment. Attomeys for Plaintiff are closing their law practice and state that they are no longer representing Plaintiff. Defendant has been unable to identify Plaintiff's replacement counsel. A copy of the March 20, 2009 letter offering payment to Plaintiff is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B, and incorporated by reference herein. A copy of the April 7, 2009 letter offering payment to Plaintiff is attached hereto, marked Exhibit C, and incorporated by reference herein. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. The complaint, and each alleged cause of action contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE nyaineeeee ee 4. Plaintiff, by its words, conduct and actions, made a knowing, intentional and voluntary waiver of any and all claims, further obligations and liabilities as to any and all matters raised in its complaint barring any recovery against Defendant. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. The complaint and each alleged cause of action set forth therein is barred by the applicable statute of limitations including but not limited to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 337, 338, 339, 340.2, 340(3), 343, 353.1, 474 and each pertinent subsection, and/or Chapter 289 of the 1979 legislative enactments. Answer to Complaint For Damages -2-Do wy A uu bf wY NY | NON NN WN ees RBHRRRORPRSSE eA AWE HN HK S SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. Plaintiff accepted, authorized, approved and ratified Defendant's conduct and/or prevented Defendant from protecting Defendant’s interest. As a consequence, Plaintiff is estopped from asserting any claim based on such conduct. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. This Defendant made no warranties of any kind, express or implied, to Plaintiff herein. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in providing notice and in commencing and prosecuting this action which caused unfair prejudice to Defendant, barring any recovery against Defendant under the equitable doctrine of laches. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. The conduct of the Defendant was justified or privileged or both under the circumstances barring any recovery against Defendant. TENTILAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. Plaintiff accepted performance tendered by Defendant under each and every alleged agreement, if any, thus excusing Defendant from any and all further obligations to Plaintiff. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11. Assuming arguendo that this Defendant owed any obligation to which full performance has not been rendered, which Defendant expressly denies, performance of said obligation has been excused by the acts and omissions of Plaintiff or Plaintiff's agents excluding this Defendant. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. Defendant's alleged duties as claimed in the Complaint, if any so existed, have been excused by the doctrine of impossibility in that the performance of said obligation is and has been rendered impossible and/or commercially impracticable. ‘Answer to Complaint For Damages -3-Do we YW DAW ek BN = tN p= = Se =e Se ee ee RBRRBRBBRE BSR UABDEBHA S THIRTEENTH! AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. The purpose of the alleged agreement has been frustrated as a matter of law. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought by reason of her own unclean hands with regard to the matters alleged in the complaint. The complaint, and each cause of action therein, are barred by the approval and ratification of the actions complained of therein. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. If Plaintiff sustained any damages as a result of the allegations set forth in the complaint, a contention which this Defendant denies, Plaintiff is not entitled to recovery from this Defendant of any sum as damages due to Plaintiff's failure to take reasonable efforts to mitigate the damages allegedly incurred. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. The claims of Plaintiff are subject to set-off based on the acts and wrong doings of Plaintiff. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. Plaintiff's claims against this Defendant are barred by the doctrine and/or principles of res judicata, retraxit and/or collateral estoppel, in that said claims were the subject of a prior action which has been resolved as to this Defendant. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to establish appropriate subrogation rights under| he contract at issue. NINTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 Defendant alleges Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of comparative and/or contributory fault of Plaintiff. Accordingly any damages awarded should be barred or reduced in proportion to the fault attributable to Plaintiff or its agents. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Answer to Complaint For Damages -4-oot DA HW YN Nn wN BN N NON we ee Be Ee Se Se Se Se ee RBNRRRBBER BESSA ABDEBR AS 20. Defendant alleges that the obligations set forth in the complaint and in the contracts were fully discharged by Plaintiff. TWENTYFIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21. Defendant's alleged duties as claimed in the Complaint, if any so existed, are dissolved by the doctrine of novation where substitution of a new obligation between the parties were made with intent to extinguish the old obligation. TWENTYSECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22. Plaintiff's claims fail because the contract was executed without any consideration whatsoever. WHEREFORE, Defendant EVANS prays for judgment as follows: 1. That Plaintiff accept payment for $6,718.18, which is the actual amount of their - claim for total damages; 3. That Defendant EVANS be granted such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. Dated: April 9, 2009 ‘Answer to Comptaint For Damages =5sEXHIBIT AC - BACOAST RA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY. A MEMBER OF THE BRISTOL WEST INSURANCE GROUP duly 22, 2008 John R. Grele, Attorney at Law 703 Market Street, Sulte 550 San Francisco, CA 94103 RE: Our Clalm No. 200800030109 Our Insured: Deborah Laviene Date of Loss: - 04/01/2008 Your Cllant: Jeptha Evans Dear Mr. Grete: A claim has been processed on behalf of our insured as the result of an accident, which occurred on the above-mentioned date. According to the evidence In our possession the aceldent was the result of your cllent's negligence. Coast National Insurance is subrogated to the rights of Its Insured to the extent of any payment made to or on behalf of the Insured. Collision and other payments were pald as follows: Total loss Payment * $7,115.68 Insured’s Deductible; $1,000.00 Insured’s Out of Pocket Expense" $0.00 Towing/storage fees: $152.50 Less VLF $0.00 - Less Salvage $1,550.00 CNIC Rental Payment $0.00 Total Damages $6,718.18 We urge you to contact the undersigned to make arrangements for payment of this loss. Your client coufd face tegal action, suspension of their driving privilege and/or wage garnishment due to fallure In communicating with our office, AASTERC. payments in the form of credi/debit are accepted upon approval. are fi 00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. 1 22-2612 rog Collector for COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY P.O. BOX 11043, Orange, CA 92856-8143 Phone: (800) 541-4153 « Fax: (714) 939-7010~ Page 1 of 1 Involce Display 7eNs pate 7/17/08 GARTINEZS 5S 94553 VISIT US at wee.copart.com PyONE 270-3900 All Avounts are in USD . Fax Toe edited : FINAL INVOICE Copart Lote 9425638 78 CA = MARTINEZ toss dace 4s0l/cs . Called tn 4/03/08 P/E clea d 4408/08 Bw16 PIPOOZA Pickup 4/08/08 JULIE HOANG ord saa) Paitle 6/13/08 CCAST NATIONAL INSURANCE rans Title 6/33/08 P.O. Box 11043 Sale document 6/18/08 ORANGE, CA 92856 8143 Loss Type SOUL ISTON Description 05 DoOG NEON/SE = WHITE vehicle 1oF Teserecriotsoen Claim# 200800030209 Uicengen/st $L0099 Policy# GOO1S2828101 kileage 58. Zes Loss Code Pickup From TWSiIDEA'S RESTOENCE. Referenced 3 . . Insured DEBORAH LAVIENE . Owner DEBORAM LAVIENE ieee one ADVANCE CHARGES PATO BY COPART TOTAL ADVANCE CHARGES 2 2c ee ee ee -00 CoPanT, SERVICE CHARGES TITLE PROCESSING. wo eee ee ee n. $9 SALVAGE, CERTIFICATE, PIP POOLING CHARGE. wee wee ee TWIN, ee ee 0,00 Zone C6 TOTAL COPART SERVICE CHARGES. © 2. os TOTAL DUE COPART ov ee eee ee ete 252.50 PROCEEDS FROM SALE . eee eee 2550.00er *Bid Raised By Internet® PREVIOUS PAYMENTS FAgH copaat, eee ee 7.50 WET DUE CoPART . eee eee 00 COPART PAYMENTS DETAIL COPART CHECKS 45502808 O7/1 5/08 1,397.50 SALE IKFORMATION Lot# 9425638 sold to 303836 349 AUTO BODY SPECIALIST sabedapane 1035/08 Hsa ca s1702 wn . acy 8338.00 ey 653-082 RES# SRAP97EOLOIS ¢ eye, 28.5% Iten# 316 ere 4 Invoice Date 7715/08 Paynent From auyer 7/09/08 Invoice Amount +00 USD Reported To nice 7/21/08 Copyright® 1998-2098 Copart, Inc. - hrto//www.cooart.com Privacy Policy Copart Access ts 8 Service for Registered Capart Sellers. Copart access end the Copart Auction System (CAS) represent proprietary ‘technologies protected by law. Misuse or abuse of any king will result In membership revocation and possible criminal prosecution. Copart Is not responsible for inaccuracies tn data reported by CAS and the Cozart Access system. The user sssumes all risk of date loss ng errors. Leneitinamaee nace inn hin(ealler/arnece/inudicnlauiview AtwidisnMat=9425638 TNT2008EXHIBIT BJOHN R GRELE Attorney at Law 703 Market Street, Suite 550 San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: 415-348-9300 Facsimile: 415-348-0364 March 20, 2009 Kenneth Jorgensen, Esq. James P, Molinelli, Jr. & Associates 70 Washington St Ste 325 Oakland, CA 94607 Via Facsimile Transmission and Regular Mail Re:,CNIC v, Evans CGC 09-484209 Dear Sir: Lleft a message for you on March 11, 1009, to which you responded, and then left another message for you on March 13, 2009, to which you have not replied, In that second message, I explained that Mr. Evans was waiting to hear if there was any claim for personal injury damages related to this incident. 1 also mentioned that the insurance company’s claim was $6718.18, pursuant to the insurance company’s demand, which differs from your demand in the complaint. Lindicated Mr. Evans desired to settle this matter immediately. 1am attaching the insurance company’s demand, and requesting you contact me to discuss this matter before any further litigation. Sincpaely E0G-4d —200/800'd = 2-1 + O]ery y UYor JO O51430 MeT~UOsy — EdP]I20 —-BO-BO-ICYEXHIBIT CJOHN R GRELE Attorncy at Law 7103 Market Street, Suite 550 San Francisco, CA 94103 ° Telephone: 415-348-9300 Facsimile: 415-348-0364 April 7, 2009 Kenneth Jorgensen, Esq. James P. Molinelli, Jr. & Associates 70 Washington St Ste 325 Oakland, CA 94607 Via Facsimile Transmission and Regular Mail Re: CNIC v. Evans, CGC 09-484209 Dear Sir: This will confirm our discussion of March 30, 2009 wherein £ expressed Mr, Evans’ desire to settle the matter, but you informed me that you were no longer going to ‘be working on the case and that the file would be assigned to someone else, likely at another firm, who would contact me, To date, I have not been contacted. Please express to whomever is handling this matter that Mr, Evans desires to settle it promptly and have them contact me. Sine: yours, Join R Gre! foG-J 200/200°d * SB2-1 + B1UIg Y UYOr Jo ON1N4Q AeT-wOIy — BdPLI2) ——BD-BD-PYOo ean Aw kW ND = NN ty NR RM RD em eee RBNRBRRBBEPRPSSeSeAABDREBEHRAS PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO T am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. | am over the age of 18, and appearing pro se in this matter. My mailing address is 2137 Turk Boulevard, San Francisco, CA 94115. On April 9, 2009, | served the following documents: DEFENDANT JEPTIA EVANS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof in (a) sealed envelope(s) addressed to: Kenneth J. Jorgensen, Esq. Law Offices of James P. Molinelli Jr. & Associates 70 Washington Street, Suite 325 Oakland, CA 94607-3795 X_ (BY MAIL) I caused said envelope(s) with first-class postage prepaid to be placed in the U.S. Mail at San Francisco, California. | am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in this affidavit. (BY EXPRESS MAIL) I caused said envelope(s) with overnight delivery charges prepaid to be placed at a Federal Express facility in San Francisco, California. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused said envelope(s) to be delivered by hand. (BY FACSIMILE SERVICE) I caused the above contents to be faxed to the interested parties at the fax number(s) listed above. My fax machine reported that the fax was successful. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Proof of Service was executed in San Francisco on this 9th day of April 2009. Jeptha Evans Proof of Service of Defendant Jeptha Evans’ Answer to Complaint -l-