Preview
ATE |
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Oct-24-2008 1:50 pm
Case Number: CGC-08-476705
Filing Date: Oct-24-2008 1:47
Juke Box: 001 Image: 02294865
ANSWER
SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY VS. THEODORE REDDY FERRAND et al
001C02294865
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES P, MOLINELLI, JR. & ASSOCIATES
10/24/2008 11:42 FAX 51066321 ¢~ MOLINELLI&ASSN Cc Qo02/008
‘
| SNEESE REE MIRE assoc
ELLI, JR. & AS:
>| 70 Washington Street, Suite 325 x L K 1 D
Oakland, California 94607-3795 SEEN Oren
Telephone: (510) 663-2964 OCT 2 4 2008
FAX: (510) 663-2137 GORDOW-PARKU, Clerk
Ry er
Tb T
Attomeys for Defendants, Theodore Reddy Ferrand, and
Alexis Mathis » Sor,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA wy ,
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - SAN FRANCISCO
CASE NO. CGC08-476705
ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
JUDGE
DEPT.
11 | San Francisco Housing Authority,
12 Plaintiff,
13 vs.
Theodore Reddy Ferrand, Alexis Mathis, and
DOES 1 THROUGH 20,
Defendants.
>
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
{LABOR CODE SECTION 3852]
Complaint Filed: O624ORE NE FE AX
COME NOW, defendants, THEODORE REDDY FERRAND, AND ALEXIS MATHIS,
Ww
Na a a Naat lt Net
an
JACK LONDON SQUARE
70 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 325.
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 04607-3795,
TELEPHONE (610) 683-2064
— oe
oOo Oo
severing themselves from all other defendants and answering each of the plaintiff's causes of action
Ny
So
in the Complaint on file herein for themselves and themselves alone, admit, deny and allege as
x
follows:
1 Under the provisions of §431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, cach
Nn N
won
and every allegation and all of the allegations, and cach cause of action in said Complaint of the
Ny
a
plaintiff and the whole thereof is denied; and it is further expressly denied that as a direct and
nN
A
proximate result of an act or omission on the part of these answering defendants that plaintiff
vy
a
sustained injuries and damages in the amount alleged, or in any amount or amounts, or at all.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2. At the time and place of the occurrence alleged in the Complaint on file herein,
NN WN
es
—_—_—_—_—O—
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT .
103626911 - 10724'2008 11:37:22 AM‘LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES P. MOLINELLI, JR. & ASSOCIATES
10/24/2008 11:42 FAX 510663219 MOLINELLI&ASSN Cc 003/008
JACK LONDON SQUARE
70 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 325
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94807-3705,
1
plaintiff wac negligent and carcless in that plaintiff failed to exercise ordina TY afd scasunabie care
2] for its own safety at said time and place,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
. TELEPHONE (610) 663-2964
vv NN ND Qe eee eee
&® SRRRSRR So em NH KH Bw N
3. If plaintiff did in fact sustain injury and damage as alleged, said injury and damage
was sustained through the negligent acts and conduct of plaintiff's insured and for its employee as
herein above alleged, and said acts and conduct were the sole and proximate cause of any and all
injuries allegedly sustained by said plaintiff.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. That the matters complained of in plaintiff's Complaint were proximately caused
and contributed to by the negligence and carelessness of some third party or parties,
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action against
defendants.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. Any and all damages allegedly sustained by this plaintiff were solely and
proximately a result of the negligence of the employer of the employee who was allegedly injured
in the accident. Said wrongful and negligent conduct of the employer bars or limits the employer
and its Workers' Compensation carrier from any rights to recover any sums or amounts for any
expenses, payments or benefits paid, or to be paid, including but not limited to all benefits
provided pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation laws of the State of California. Any and all
damages claimed by the employer and/or its compensation carrier must be reduced or barred in
Proportion to all fault attributable to the employer, in accord with the principles of comparative
fault.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7. As and for a separate distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, these answering
defendants allege: That all damages sustained or suffered by plaintiff, if any, were proximately
caused and contributed to by the negligence of plaintiff himself and by plaintiffs failure to mitigate
his damages, in that he failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care or caution under the
circumstances.
-2-
TT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
10362691 td - 1072472008 11. 37:22 AMLAW OFFICES OF
JAMES P. MOLINELLI, JR. & ASSOCIATES
10/24/2008 11:42 FAX 510663214 MOLINELLIBASSN Cc Hoos 7008
JACK LONDON SQUARE
70 WASHINGTON STRECT, SUITE 325
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 04007-3793
TELEPHONE (510) 663-2864
yon Nn RR N NY Se se = Se
BRRRRBErS Se TG
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8. As for a separate distinct and affirmative defense to the Complaint, these answering
defendants allege: That plaintiff's employee failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to
avoid loss and to minimize damages, if any, and, therefore, plaintiff may not recover for losses
which could have been prevented by reasonable effort on their part or by expenditures that
reasonably might have been made; therefore, plaintiff's recovery, if any, should be reduced by the
failure of plaintiff and plaintiff's employee to mitigate his damages.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9. As and for a separate distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, these answering
defendants allege: That any and all‘of the events and happenings in connection with the allegations
contained in plaintiff's Complaint and the resulting injuries and damages, if any, referred to therein
were proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence and other conduct of persons, either
named or not named as defendants hercin, and, pursuant to Section 1431.2 of the California Civil
Code (Proposition 51), this answering deferidants’ liability for plaintiff's non-economic "gencral”
damages, if any, are several only, and not joint; therefore, plaintiff's non-economic "general"
damages, if any, shall be reduced by the percentage of fault of each such person.
WHEREFORE, defendants, THEODORE REDDY FERRAND, AND ALEXIS MATHIS,
pray that plaintiff take nothing by reason of its Complaint on file herein, for costs of suit and for
such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper,
DATED: October 23, 2008 JAMES P. MOL! JR/ & ASSOCIATES
SEN
Defendants, Theodore Reddy
xis Mathis
3.
a
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
anTenEAs bd EAMA-AIING 4 49 haeLAW OFFICES OF
JAMES P. MOLINELLI, JR. & ASSOCIATES
10/24/2008 11:42 FAX 510883213g~ _ MOLINELLIGASSN € @005/008
JACK LONDON SQUARE
70 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 328
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 04607-3798
Co we N DH fF WHY =
TELEPHONE (510) 663-2064
Se 3 AG RGR TS
_ + PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ,
lam employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 70 Washington Street, Suite 325, Oakland,
California 94607-3795. : oO
On October 24, 2008, I served the foregoing document described as ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enctosed in
sealed envelopes addressed as follows:
Gregory M. Standfield (SBN: 127953)
HANNA, TROPHY, MACLEAN, MCALEER & JENSEN, LLP
155 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 600
OAKLAND, CA 94612
Tel: (510) 839-1180
Fax: (510) 893-4804
{“] BYMAIL
[ ] [deposited such envelope in the mail at Oakland, Califotnia. The envelope was
mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
{/] lam "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. postal service on that same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Oakland, California in the ordinary course
of business. ] 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.
Exceuted on October 24, 2008, at Oakland, California.
{¥] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
20}[ ] (Federal) I declare that 1 am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
whose direction the service was made. he
Barbara L. Rosenbluth
Type or print name Signature
-4-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
40469801 td. 104-50N 44.99.99 AbD
Preview
ATE | SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Oct-24-2008 1:50 pm Case Number: CGC-08-476705 Filing Date: Oct-24-2008 1:47 Juke Box: 001 Image: 02294865 ANSWER SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY VS. THEODORE REDDY FERRAND et al 001C02294865 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.LAW OFFICES OF JAMES P, MOLINELLI, JR. & ASSOCIATES 10/24/2008 11:42 FAX 51066321 ¢~ MOLINELLI&ASSN Cc Qo02/008 ‘ | SNEESE REE MIRE assoc ELLI, JR. & AS: >| 70 Washington Street, Suite 325 x L K 1 D Oakland, California 94607-3795 SEEN Oren Telephone: (510) 663-2964 OCT 2 4 2008 FAX: (510) 663-2137 GORDOW-PARKU, Clerk Ry er Tb T Attomeys for Defendants, Theodore Reddy Ferrand, and Alexis Mathis » Sor, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA wy , COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - SAN FRANCISCO CASE NO. CGC08-476705 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE DEPT. 11 | San Francisco Housing Authority, 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. Theodore Reddy Ferrand, Alexis Mathis, and DOES 1 THROUGH 20, Defendants. > ANSWER TO COMPLAINT {LABOR CODE SECTION 3852] Complaint Filed: O624ORE NE FE AX COME NOW, defendants, THEODORE REDDY FERRAND, AND ALEXIS MATHIS, Ww Na a a Naat lt Net an JACK LONDON SQUARE 70 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 325. OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 04607-3795, TELEPHONE (610) 683-2064 — oe oOo Oo severing themselves from all other defendants and answering each of the plaintiff's causes of action Ny So in the Complaint on file herein for themselves and themselves alone, admit, deny and allege as x follows: 1 Under the provisions of §431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, cach Nn N won and every allegation and all of the allegations, and cach cause of action in said Complaint of the Ny a plaintiff and the whole thereof is denied; and it is further expressly denied that as a direct and nN A proximate result of an act or omission on the part of these answering defendants that plaintiff vy a sustained injuries and damages in the amount alleged, or in any amount or amounts, or at all. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. At the time and place of the occurrence alleged in the Complaint on file herein, NN WN es —_—_—_—_—O— ANSWER TO COMPLAINT . 103626911 - 10724'2008 11:37:22 AM‘LAW OFFICES OF JAMES P. MOLINELLI, JR. & ASSOCIATES 10/24/2008 11:42 FAX 510663219 MOLINELLI&ASSN Cc 003/008 JACK LONDON SQUARE 70 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 325 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94807-3705, 1 plaintiff wac negligent and carcless in that plaintiff failed to exercise ordina TY afd scasunabie care 2] for its own safety at said time and place, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . TELEPHONE (610) 663-2964 vv NN ND Qe eee eee &® SRRRSRR So em NH KH Bw N 3. If plaintiff did in fact sustain injury and damage as alleged, said injury and damage was sustained through the negligent acts and conduct of plaintiff's insured and for its employee as herein above alleged, and said acts and conduct were the sole and proximate cause of any and all injuries allegedly sustained by said plaintiff. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. That the matters complained of in plaintiff's Complaint were proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence and carelessness of some third party or parties, THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action against defendants. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. Any and all damages allegedly sustained by this plaintiff were solely and proximately a result of the negligence of the employer of the employee who was allegedly injured in the accident. Said wrongful and negligent conduct of the employer bars or limits the employer and its Workers' Compensation carrier from any rights to recover any sums or amounts for any expenses, payments or benefits paid, or to be paid, including but not limited to all benefits provided pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation laws of the State of California. Any and all damages claimed by the employer and/or its compensation carrier must be reduced or barred in Proportion to all fault attributable to the employer, in accord with the principles of comparative fault. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. As and for a separate distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, these answering defendants allege: That all damages sustained or suffered by plaintiff, if any, were proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence of plaintiff himself and by plaintiffs failure to mitigate his damages, in that he failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care or caution under the circumstances. -2- TT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 10362691 td - 1072472008 11. 37:22 AMLAW OFFICES OF JAMES P. MOLINELLI, JR. & ASSOCIATES 10/24/2008 11:42 FAX 510663214 MOLINELLIBASSN Cc Hoos 7008 JACK LONDON SQUARE 70 WASHINGTON STRECT, SUITE 325 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 04007-3793 TELEPHONE (510) 663-2864 yon Nn RR N NY Se se = Se BRRRRBErS Se TG SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. As for a separate distinct and affirmative defense to the Complaint, these answering defendants allege: That plaintiff's employee failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to avoid loss and to minimize damages, if any, and, therefore, plaintiff may not recover for losses which could have been prevented by reasonable effort on their part or by expenditures that reasonably might have been made; therefore, plaintiff's recovery, if any, should be reduced by the failure of plaintiff and plaintiff's employee to mitigate his damages. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. As and for a separate distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, these answering defendants allege: That any and all‘of the events and happenings in connection with the allegations contained in plaintiff's Complaint and the resulting injuries and damages, if any, referred to therein were proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence and other conduct of persons, either named or not named as defendants hercin, and, pursuant to Section 1431.2 of the California Civil Code (Proposition 51), this answering deferidants’ liability for plaintiff's non-economic "gencral” damages, if any, are several only, and not joint; therefore, plaintiff's non-economic "general" damages, if any, shall be reduced by the percentage of fault of each such person. WHEREFORE, defendants, THEODORE REDDY FERRAND, AND ALEXIS MATHIS, pray that plaintiff take nothing by reason of its Complaint on file herein, for costs of suit and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper, DATED: October 23, 2008 JAMES P. MOL! JR/ & ASSOCIATES SEN Defendants, Theodore Reddy xis Mathis 3. a ANSWER TO COMPLAINT anTenEAs bd EAMA-AIING 4 49 haeLAW OFFICES OF JAMES P. MOLINELLI, JR. & ASSOCIATES 10/24/2008 11:42 FAX 510883213g~ _ MOLINELLIGASSN € @005/008 JACK LONDON SQUARE 70 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 328 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 04607-3798 Co we N DH fF WHY = TELEPHONE (510) 663-2064 Se 3 AG RGR TS _ + PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA , lam employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 70 Washington Street, Suite 325, Oakland, California 94607-3795. : oO On October 24, 2008, I served the foregoing document described as ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enctosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Gregory M. Standfield (SBN: 127953) HANNA, TROPHY, MACLEAN, MCALEER & JENSEN, LLP 155 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 600 OAKLAND, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 839-1180 Fax: (510) 893-4804 {“] BYMAIL [ ] [deposited such envelope in the mail at Oakland, Califotnia. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. {/] lam "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Oakland, California in the ordinary course of business. ] 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. Exceuted on October 24, 2008, at Oakland, California. {¥] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 20}[ ] (Federal) I declare that 1 am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. he Barbara L. Rosenbluth Type or print name Signature -4- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 40469801 td. 104-50N 44.99.99 AbD