Preview
MOO
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
May-02-2008 4:04 pm
Case Number: CGC-08-472242
Filing Date: May-02-2008 4:02
Juke Box: 001 Image: 02110996
ANSWER
JAMES WOODS VS. ANNE E. HENDERSON et al
001002110996
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oon DOD TO FF Ww NH =
NNN NY NY NY NYY HY @B Baa an a an oa a a
aon Oa fF 6 YH = DOG DON DW TH BRB WH BA OO
PHILIP M. ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES Fahelger
Employees of the Corporate Law Department Counyy Sper
DEBORAH T. BJONERUD, ESQ. (SBN 141960) I L E
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Ay for
60 Spear Street, 8" Floor R 02 206; Cour
San Francisco, California 94105 a * DON PA,
Telephone: (415) 267-3600 SS RAL) Cy
Facsimile: (415) 267-3606 EF —’ Vl@rk
BD
Attorneys for Defendant AY Bigg
Anne E. Henderson
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO / UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
JAMES WOODS, NO. CGC08472242
Plaintiff, ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED ><
COMPLAINT <
Vv.
LL
ANNE E. HENDERSON,
DOES 1 TO 10, >
Defendants. ca
Defendant, ANNE E. HENDERSON, in answer to the Unverified Complaint filed
by plaintiff, JAMES WOODS, herein admits, denies and alleges as follows:
Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State
of California, this answering defendant denies, generally and specifically, all and
singular, each and every allegation contained in the Unverified Complaint of plaintiff
herein, and the whole thereof, and specifically denies that plaintiff has been injured or
damaged as alleged herein, or in any other sum or manner, or otherwise or at all.
1. AS A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff was careless and
negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that said
carelessness and negligence on plaintiffs own part proximately contributed to the
1.
Answer to Unverified Complaint=
o On DO OH FF WO DN
happening of the incident in question, and to the injuries, loss, and damages complained
of, if any there were.
2. AS A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each
alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the injuries and
damages complained of by plaintiff, if there were any, were either wholly or in part
directly and proximately caused by the negligence of persons or entities other than this
answering defendant, and said negligence comparatively reduces the proportion of
negligence and corresponding liability of this answering defendant.
3. AS A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that said Complaint fails to
state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant or
at all.
4. AS A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each
alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the injuries, loss
and damages complained of, if any there were, were increased by the failure of plaintiff
to use reasonable diligence to mitigate them.
5. AS A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that if liability is assessed
against her, pursuant to Civil Code Section 1431 et seq., this answering defendant shall
be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to her in direct
proportion to the percentage of fault assessed against her by the trier of fact and
requests that a separate judgment be rendered against her for that amount.
6. AS A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint and each
Cause of Action alleged therein is barred by California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1
and/or the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, California Code of
Civil Procedure §§337, 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340.3 and 343.
-2-
Answer to Unverified ComplaintoO ON DO FF WOW DN =
NNN NN NY NY YN DN @B@ BB sea sa sa aw a an a
on Oo aA FF WOW NH |= OGD G&G ODN DW OA FF Ww HY = FD
7. AS A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each
alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff knew, or
in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the risk and hazards involved
in the undertaking in which he engaged, but nevertheless and with full knowledge of
these things did fully and voluntarily consent to assume the risk and hazards involved in
this undertaking, thereby assuming all risks of any injuries and damages, if any, referred
to in the Complaint.
8. AS AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each
alleged Cause of Action, this answering defendant is informed and believes that at all
times mentioned herein plaintiff was in the course and scope of his employment and that
plaintiffs exclusive remedy lies within the workers’ compensation laws; or, in the
alternative, the injuries sustained by plaintiff, if any, were caused or contributed to by the
carelessness, negligence or other fault of plaintiffs employer and/or said employer's
agents, servants or employees and that from any award made to plaintiff this defendant
is entitled to a credit, set-off or reduction in damages in an amount in direct proportion to
said employer’s and/or said employer's agents’, servants’ or employees’ percentage of
fault pursuant to the rule of Witt v. Jackson.
WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays that plaintiff takes nothing by
reason of his Complaint, that this answering defendant has judgment for her costs of suit
incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Dated: May 2, 2008 PHILIP M. ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES
ee
Deborah T. Bjonerud
Attorneys for Defendant
ANNE E. HENDERSON
Electronic signature pursuant to Civil Code §1633.7(d).
Answer to Unverified Complaintoon DOD oO F WOW DY =
Ny Ny NY NY NY YB NY NY NY B= Bsa sw wa ow oa ow a a
oN OD Oo FF OW NH = OD OG DAN DH B WOH BOT
PROOF OF SERVICE
Woods v. Henderson
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC08472242
|, the undersigned, declare that | am a resident of the United States; employed in
the City and County of San Francisco, State of California; over the age of 18 years; not a
party to the within entitled cause; and my business address is 60 Spear Street, 8" Floor,
San Francisco, California 94105.
On May 2, 2008, | served the within document(s),
ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
on the interested parties in this action as follows:
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Robert Ferns. Esq.
Law Offices Of Robert Bockelman
1169 Market Street, Suite 003
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415)626-6975 tel
(415)626-6976 fax
[ ] [By Facsimile Machine (FAX)] By use of facsimile machine telephone number (415) 267-
3606, | served a true copy of the aforementioned document(s) on the parties in said action by
transmitting by facsimile machine to the numbers as set forth above on this date before 5:00
p.m.
[x] [By mail] | am familiar with my employer's practice for the collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and that each day's mail is
deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of
business. On the date set forth above, | served the aforementioned document(s) on the
parties in said action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing on this date, following ordinary
business practices, at San Francisco, California, addressed as set forth above.
[ ] [By Personal Service] By personally delivering a true copy thereof to the office of the
addressee above.
[ ] [By Courier] By causing a true copy and/or original thereof to be personally delivered to the
office of the addressee above via the following courier service: .
[ ] [By Express Mail] By depositing copies of the above documents in a box or other facility
regularly maintained by Federal Express in an envelope or package designated by Federal
Express with delivery fees paid or provided.
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on May 2, 2008, at San
Francisco, California.
ee
er ee Lrelee.
Fonda Williams
4.
Proof of Service
Preview
MOO San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet May-02-2008 4:04 pm Case Number: CGC-08-472242 Filing Date: May-02-2008 4:02 Juke Box: 001 Image: 02110996 ANSWER JAMES WOODS VS. ANNE E. HENDERSON et al 001002110996 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oon DOD TO FF Ww NH = NNN NY NY NY NYY HY @B Baa an a an oa a a aon Oa fF 6 YH = DOG DON DW TH BRB WH BA OO PHILIP M. ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES Fahelger Employees of the Corporate Law Department Counyy Sper DEBORAH T. BJONERUD, ESQ. (SBN 141960) I L E State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Ay for 60 Spear Street, 8" Floor R 02 206; Cour San Francisco, California 94105 a * DON PA, Telephone: (415) 267-3600 SS RAL) Cy Facsimile: (415) 267-3606 EF —’ Vl@rk BD Attorneys for Defendant AY Bigg Anne E. Henderson IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO / UNLIMITED JURISDICTION JAMES WOODS, NO. CGC08472242 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED >< COMPLAINT < Vv. LL ANNE E. HENDERSON, DOES 1 TO 10, > Defendants. ca Defendant, ANNE E. HENDERSON, in answer to the Unverified Complaint filed by plaintiff, JAMES WOODS, herein admits, denies and alleges as follows: Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, this answering defendant denies, generally and specifically, all and singular, each and every allegation contained in the Unverified Complaint of plaintiff herein, and the whole thereof, and specifically denies that plaintiff has been injured or damaged as alleged herein, or in any other sum or manner, or otherwise or at all. 1. AS A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff was careless and negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that said carelessness and negligence on plaintiffs own part proximately contributed to the 1. Answer to Unverified Complaint= o On DO OH FF WO DN happening of the incident in question, and to the injuries, loss, and damages complained of, if any there were. 2. AS A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the injuries and damages complained of by plaintiff, if there were any, were either wholly or in part directly and proximately caused by the negligence of persons or entities other than this answering defendant, and said negligence comparatively reduces the proportion of negligence and corresponding liability of this answering defendant. 3. AS A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that said Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant or at all. 4. AS A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the injuries, loss and damages complained of, if any there were, were increased by the failure of plaintiff to use reasonable diligence to mitigate them. 5. AS A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that if liability is assessed against her, pursuant to Civil Code Section 1431 et seq., this answering defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to her in direct proportion to the percentage of fault assessed against her by the trier of fact and requests that a separate judgment be rendered against her for that amount. 6. AS A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that the Complaint and each Cause of Action alleged therein is barred by California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 and/or the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure §§337, 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340.3 and 343. -2- Answer to Unverified ComplaintoO ON DO FF WOW DN = NNN NN NY NY YN DN @B@ BB sea sa sa aw a an a on Oo aA FF WOW NH |= OGD G&G ODN DW OA FF Ww HY = FD 7. AS A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action thereof, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the risk and hazards involved in the undertaking in which he engaged, but nevertheless and with full knowledge of these things did fully and voluntarily consent to assume the risk and hazards involved in this undertaking, thereby assuming all risks of any injuries and damages, if any, referred to in the Complaint. 8. AS AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged Cause of Action, this answering defendant is informed and believes that at all times mentioned herein plaintiff was in the course and scope of his employment and that plaintiffs exclusive remedy lies within the workers’ compensation laws; or, in the alternative, the injuries sustained by plaintiff, if any, were caused or contributed to by the carelessness, negligence or other fault of plaintiffs employer and/or said employer's agents, servants or employees and that from any award made to plaintiff this defendant is entitled to a credit, set-off or reduction in damages in an amount in direct proportion to said employer’s and/or said employer's agents’, servants’ or employees’ percentage of fault pursuant to the rule of Witt v. Jackson. WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays that plaintiff takes nothing by reason of his Complaint, that this answering defendant has judgment for her costs of suit incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. Dated: May 2, 2008 PHILIP M. ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES ee Deborah T. Bjonerud Attorneys for Defendant ANNE E. HENDERSON Electronic signature pursuant to Civil Code §1633.7(d). Answer to Unverified Complaintoon DOD oO F WOW DY = Ny Ny NY NY NY YB NY NY NY B= Bsa sw wa ow oa ow a a oN OD Oo FF OW NH = OD OG DAN DH B WOH BOT PROOF OF SERVICE Woods v. Henderson San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC08472242 |, the undersigned, declare that | am a resident of the United States; employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California; over the age of 18 years; not a party to the within entitled cause; and my business address is 60 Spear Street, 8" Floor, San Francisco, California 94105. On May 2, 2008, | served the within document(s), ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action as follows: Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Ferns. Esq. Law Offices Of Robert Bockelman 1169 Market Street, Suite 003 San Francisco, CA 94103 (415)626-6975 tel (415)626-6976 fax [ ] [By Facsimile Machine (FAX)] By use of facsimile machine telephone number (415) 267- 3606, | served a true copy of the aforementioned document(s) on the parties in said action by transmitting by facsimile machine to the numbers as set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.m. [x] [By mail] | am familiar with my employer's practice for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and that each day's mail is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On the date set forth above, | served the aforementioned document(s) on the parties in said action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing on this date, following ordinary business practices, at San Francisco, California, addressed as set forth above. [ ] [By Personal Service] By personally delivering a true copy thereof to the office of the addressee above. [ ] [By Courier] By causing a true copy and/or original thereof to be personally delivered to the office of the addressee above via the following courier service: . [ ] [By Express Mail] By depositing copies of the above documents in a box or other facility regularly maintained by Federal Express in an envelope or package designated by Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on May 2, 2008, at San Francisco, California. ee er ee Lrelee. Fonda Williams 4. Proof of Service