Preview
1 BREMER WI-IYTEBROWN fff': O'MEARA LLP SAN MATEO COUNTY
Keith G Bremer, State Bar No. 155920
2 1cbremer@bremerwhyte corn NDU
Alison IC Bar No
ggI
Hurley, State 234042
3 ahurley@brernerwhyte corn Ciork of II/3 orio 900
Nicolc M. Slattery, State Bar No. 259969 Bf ———
4 nslattery@bremerwhyte.corn
20320 S.W. Birch Street
5 Second Floor
Newport Beach, Cahfornia 92660
6 Telephone: (949) 221-1000
Facsimile: (949) 221-1001
7
Attoriieys for Cross-Defendant,
8 CROWN BUILDINGMAINTENANCECO. dba ABLE
BUILDINGMAINTENANCECO.
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OI CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
13 LUIS PAEZ, ) Case No. CIV 529263
)
14 Plaintiff, ) ABLE MAINTENANCE'SANSWER TO
vs. ) EQUITY ONK, INC.'S CROSS-
15 ) COMPLAINT
EQUITY ONE, INC., and DOES 1 to 25, )
16 Inclusive. )
)
17 )
EQUITY ONE, INC, )
18 )
Cross-Complainant, )
vs. )
)
20 CROWN BUILDINGMAINTENACE,dba )
ABLE BUILDINGMAIN'IENANCE; and )
21 ROES 1 through 100, Inclusive, )
)
22 Cross-Defendants )
)
23
24 Cross-Defendant, CROWN BUILDINGMAINTENANCECO. dba ABLE BUILDING
25 MALNl ENANCE CO. sued and served herein as ROE 1 ("Cross-Defendant" ) for itself alone and
26 no others answers the cross-complaint of EQUI'I'Y ONE, INC on file herein and admits, denies
27 and alleges as follows
28 ///
BREIAER WIIYTE BROWN Ik
0'hIEARA LL?
20320 0 W BIRCH STREET
SECOND PLOOR
NEWPDRTBCli CA 02660
(949) 2?1-10:0
ABLE MAINfENANCE'SANSWER TO EQUITY ONE, 1NC 'S CROSS-COMPLAINT
H Gt'r95u 49U'LD
6. Answering Cross-Defendant denies that cross-complainants werc damaged as a
4 proximate result of any conduct on the patt of this answering Cross-Defendant This answering
5 Cross-Defendant affirmatively alleges that cross-complainants'amages, ifany, were proximately
6 caused by the independent conduct of third patties or entities whether or not parties to this action
7 Cross-complainants'ecovery agamst this answering Cross-Defendant, ifany, must therefore be
8 reduced to the extent that those dainages, ifany, weie caused by the independent conduct of third
9 parties.
10 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE
(ACTIVE-I'ASSIVENEGLIGENCE DEFENSE)
12 7. Iftlus answering Cross-Defendant is found responsible ni damages to cross-
13 complaniants or some other party, whether as alleged or otherwise, then Cross-Defendant is
14 informed and believes and, on that basis alleges, that the liability will be predicated upon the active
15 conduct of cross-complamants, whether by neghgence, breach of warranty, stnct liabihty ui tort or
16 otherwisc, which unlawful conduct proximately caused the alleged incident and that cross-
17 complainants'ction agamst Cross-Defendant is barred by that active and affirma(ivc conduct
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE
(FAILURE TO MITIGATE)
20 8 Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that cross-complainants have failed to take
21 reasonable steps to mitigate their damages, ifany.
22 SEVKINTH AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE
23 (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)
24 9. Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the cross-complainants are barred by the
25 applicable statute of hmitations, mcluduig California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 337, 337 1,
26 337 15, 338, 339 and 340. Answering Cross-Defendant is mformed and believes, and upon such
27 information and belief alleges, that Plaintiff executed a vahd release for some or all of the
28 complained defects in favor of the Answering Cross-Defendant. Thus, Plamtiff is barred from
BRELIER WITE BROINN 0
0 44&LRA LLP
20320 0 W O.'RCH STREET 3
SECOND FLOOR
NEwPDRT Bc>L cA 02000
(040) 221-100D
ABLE MAINTENANCE'SANSWER TO EQUITY ONE, INC 'S CROSS-COMPLAINT
H 9695u49U'LDIJLTLswer to XC Df EqIIIty Oce 4tocx
1 pursuing the released defects as against this Answermg Cross-Defendant.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVEDKI('ENSE
3 (UNAVOIDABLEACCIDENT)
4 10 Answering Cross-Defendant is mforined and believes and on t.hat. basis
alleges that
5 any and all injuries,losses or damages, ifany, were the dnect and proximate iesult of an
6 unavoidable incident or condition and, as such, were an act of God without fault or liability on the
7 part of the Cross-Defendant.
NINTH-AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE
(SUPERSEDING CAUSKSj
10 11 Answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that
11 any and all damages, ifany, were the direct and proximate result of the intervening and supersedmg
12 actions of other parties, either served or unserved, and not tins answering Cross-Defendant, and
13 that such intervening and superseding actions of other parties, whether or not served, bar recovery
14 herein on behalf of cross-complainants.
15 TENTH AFFIRMATIVEDKl ENSE
16 g.'AILURE TO PERFORM CONDITIONS PRECEDENT)
17 12 Answering Cross-Defendant is mformed and bclievcs and on such information and
18 belief alleges that cross-complainants faded to perform express contractual conditions precedent to
19 Cross-Defendant's performance, and such failure excuses any nonperformance by tins answering
20 Cross-Defendant
21 ELEVENTH AF(FIRMATIVEDEFENSE
22 (BREACH OF CONTRACT BY CROSS-COMI'LAINANT)
13. Answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
24 actions and omissions by cross-complainants constituted a breach of contract by cross-complainant,
25 and such breach cxcuscs any nonperformance by this answering Cross-Defendant
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
BREMEN WHITE BROWN IL
0 MEARALLP
20320 0 W BIRCH STREET
SECOND FLOOR
4
NEWPORT BCH CA $ 2660
(660) 221-1000
ABLE MAINTENANCE'SANSWER TO EQUITY ONE, INC 'S CROSS-COMPLAINT
[I IL(695'(149PLDiIILDBwcrto XC of F qu(ty One
docx
TWELFTH AFl IRMATIVKDEFENSE
(PRODlJCT VSKD IN AN ABNORMALMANNER>
14 Answering Cross-Defendant is mformed and beheves and thereon alleges that cross-
4 complainants'amages, ifany, proxnnately resulted from the use of the product in question in an
5 unintended and abnormal manner and not from any defect or mechamcal failure of, or failure to
6 service properly, said product or any of its components
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE
O'XTRA CONTRACTVALDAMAGES BARRED)
15 Cross-complainants'lleged claims for extra contractual damages are barred by the
10 provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE
12 (LACHES)
13 16 Cross-complamants have unreasonably delayed the conmiencement of the within
14 action to the substantial prejudice of tlus answernig Cross-Defendant. and by reason thereof have
15 been. guilty of laches, and cross-complamants are thereby precluded from recovery in the within
16 action.
17 FIFTEENTH AFFIRlVIATIVKDKiFENSK
18 (UNCLEAN HANDS)
19 17. Cross-complainants'onduct with respect to the matters alleged in the cross-
20 complaint deprives cross-complainants of clean hands, and by reason of not commg into court w>th
21 clean hands cross-complainants are precluded from recovery m the within action.
22 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE
23 (CO1VIPLAINTFRIVOLOUS AND IN BAD FAITH)
24 18 Answering Cross-Defendant alleges tliat cross-complainants'ross-complaint is
25 frivolous and is not based on good faith as to aiLswering Cross-Defendant withm the meaning of
26 Cab forma Code of Civil Procedure Section 128 5, and thus answering Cross-Defendant is entitled
27 to recover its reasonable expenses, including attorneys'ees, in defending this action.
28 Ill
BREMER W~iBROWN 0
0 MEARA LLP
20320 0 W BIRCH STREET 5
SECOND FLOOR
NEWPORT BCH, CA 92000
(919) 221 1000
ABLE MAINTENANCE'SANSWER TO EQUITY ONE, INC 'S CROSS-COMPLAINT
H G695u49IATIVEDEFENSE<
22 QKty One docx
PROOI< OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action. My business address is 20320 S.W. Birch Street, Second Floor,
Newport Beach, California 92660
On November 24, 2014, I served the within clocument(s) described as.
ABLE MAINTENANCE'S ANSWER TO EQUITY ONE, INC.'S CROSS-COMPLAINT
on the interested parties in this action as stated on the attached mailing list
X (BY MAIL)By placing a time copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope
addressed as set forth on the attached mailing list. I placed each such envelope for
collection and mailing following ordinary busniess practices. I am readily familiar with this
Firm's practice for collection and processmg of coiTespondence for maihng. Under that
10 practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the Uiuted States Postal Service on
that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Newport. Beach, California, m the
ordinary course of business I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is
presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after
12 date of deposit foi mailing in affidavit.
13 Executed on November 24, 2014, at Newpoit Beach, California
14 I declare under penalty of perjury the laws of the State of hfornia tha
/'nder
the;
foregoing is true and conect
16 Deborah Hernandez
(Type or print name) "signature)
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
BREMERMJHYTE BROWN 8
O'MEIIRA LIP
20320 S W BIRCH STREET
SECOND FLOOR
NEWPORT BCH CR 02880
40401 221-1 000
OF SFRVIOE docx
13695'4149'PROOF
13
~
Luis Paez v. Equity One, Inc.,et al.
Case No. CIV 529Z63
BWB&O CLIENT: Cross-Defendant, Crown Building Maintenance Co, dha Able Building
Maintenance Co.
BWB&0 FILE NO.: 3695.149
SERVICE LIST
Broderick H Brown Jaines F. Waite
Brodenck H. Brown Law Firm Law Offices of Samuel G
2831 Telegraph Avenue Grade>
Oakland. CA 94609 555 Mission Street, Suite 320
San Francisco, CA 94105
(210) 452-6300
(510) 417-9197 Fax (415) 932-7223 Direct Dial
(415) 932-7200 Mani Line
10 Email: (866) 853-8846 Fax
11 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Luis Email:
Paez:
12 Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-
Comnlainant. Equity One. Inc,
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
27
28
BREAIER Wl IYTE BROVI N 0
0 MEARA I I P
20320 S W BIRCH STREET
SECOND FLOOR
NEWPORT BCH CA 02CGG
(040) 221-1000
H IL3696u49ILFROOF OF SERV1CE docx
Preview
1 BREMER WI-IYTEBROWN fff': O'MEARA LLP SAN MATEO COUNTY Keith G Bremer, State Bar No. 155920 2 1cbremer@bremerwhyte corn NDU Alison IC Bar No ggI Hurley, State 234042 3 ahurley@brernerwhyte corn Ciork of II/3 orio 900 Nicolc M. Slattery, State Bar No. 259969 Bf ——— 4 nslattery@bremerwhyte.corn 20320 S.W. Birch Street 5 Second Floor Newport Beach, Cahfornia 92660 6 Telephone: (949) 221-1000 Facsimile: (949) 221-1001 7 Attoriieys for Cross-Defendant, 8 CROWN BUILDINGMAINTENANCECO. dba ABLE BUILDINGMAINTENANCECO. 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OI CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 13 LUIS PAEZ, ) Case No. CIV 529263 ) 14 Plaintiff, ) ABLE MAINTENANCE'SANSWER TO vs. ) EQUITY ONK, INC.'S CROSS- 15 ) COMPLAINT EQUITY ONE, INC., and DOES 1 to 25, ) 16 Inclusive. ) ) 17 ) EQUITY ONE, INC, ) 18 ) Cross-Complainant, ) vs. ) ) 20 CROWN BUILDINGMAINTENACE,dba ) ABLE BUILDINGMAIN'IENANCE; and ) 21 ROES 1 through 100, Inclusive, ) ) 22 Cross-Defendants ) ) 23 24 Cross-Defendant, CROWN BUILDINGMAINTENANCECO. dba ABLE BUILDING 25 MALNl ENANCE CO. sued and served herein as ROE 1 ("Cross-Defendant" ) for itself alone and 26 no others answers the cross-complaint of EQUI'I'Y ONE, INC on file herein and admits, denies 27 and alleges as follows 28 /// BREIAER WIIYTE BROWN Ik 0'hIEARA LL? 20320 0 W BIRCH STREET SECOND PLOOR NEWPDRTBCli CA 02660 (949) 2?1-10:0 ABLE MAINfENANCE'SANSWER TO EQUITY ONE, 1NC 'S CROSS-COMPLAINT H Gt'r95u 49U'LD 6. Answering Cross-Defendant denies that cross-complainants werc damaged as a 4 proximate result of any conduct on the patt of this answering Cross-Defendant This answering 5 Cross-Defendant affirmatively alleges that cross-complainants'amages, ifany, were proximately 6 caused by the independent conduct of third patties or entities whether or not parties to this action 7 Cross-complainants'ecovery agamst this answering Cross-Defendant, ifany, must therefore be 8 reduced to the extent that those dainages, ifany, weie caused by the independent conduct of third 9 parties. 10 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE (ACTIVE-I'ASSIVENEGLIGENCE DEFENSE) 12 7. Iftlus answering Cross-Defendant is found responsible ni damages to cross- 13 complaniants or some other party, whether as alleged or otherwise, then Cross-Defendant is 14 informed and believes and, on that basis alleges, that the liability will be predicated upon the active 15 conduct of cross-complamants, whether by neghgence, breach of warranty, stnct liabihty ui tort or 16 otherwisc, which unlawful conduct proximately caused the alleged incident and that cross- 17 complainants'ction agamst Cross-Defendant is barred by that active and affirma(ivc conduct SIXTH AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE (FAILURE TO MITIGATE) 20 8 Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that cross-complainants have failed to take 21 reasonable steps to mitigate their damages, ifany. 22 SEVKINTH AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE 23 (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS) 24 9. Answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the cross-complainants are barred by the 25 applicable statute of hmitations, mcluduig California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 337, 337 1, 26 337 15, 338, 339 and 340. Answering Cross-Defendant is mformed and believes, and upon such 27 information and belief alleges, that Plaintiff executed a vahd release for some or all of the 28 complained defects in favor of the Answering Cross-Defendant. Thus, Plamtiff is barred from BRELIER WITE BROINN 0 0 44&LRA LLP 20320 0 W O.'RCH STREET 3 SECOND FLOOR NEwPDRT Bc>L cA 02000 (040) 221-100D ABLE MAINTENANCE'SANSWER TO EQUITY ONE, INC 'S CROSS-COMPLAINT H 9695u49U'LDIJLTLswer to XC Df EqIIIty Oce 4tocx 1 pursuing the released defects as against this Answermg Cross-Defendant. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVEDKI('ENSE 3 (UNAVOIDABLEACCIDENT) 4 10 Answering Cross-Defendant is mforined and believes and on t.hat. basis alleges that 5 any and all injuries,losses or damages, ifany, were the dnect and proximate iesult of an 6 unavoidable incident or condition and, as such, were an act of God without fault or liability on the 7 part of the Cross-Defendant. NINTH-AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE (SUPERSEDING CAUSKSj 10 11 Answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that 11 any and all damages, ifany, were the direct and proximate result of the intervening and supersedmg 12 actions of other parties, either served or unserved, and not tins answering Cross-Defendant, and 13 that such intervening and superseding actions of other parties, whether or not served, bar recovery 14 herein on behalf of cross-complainants. 15 TENTH AFFIRMATIVEDKl ENSE 16 g.'AILURE TO PERFORM CONDITIONS PRECEDENT) 17 12 Answering Cross-Defendant is mformed and bclievcs and on such information and 18 belief alleges that cross-complainants faded to perform express contractual conditions precedent to 19 Cross-Defendant's performance, and such failure excuses any nonperformance by tins answering 20 Cross-Defendant 21 ELEVENTH AF(FIRMATIVEDEFENSE 22 (BREACH OF CONTRACT BY CROSS-COMI'LAINANT) 13. Answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that 24 actions and omissions by cross-complainants constituted a breach of contract by cross-complainant, 25 and such breach cxcuscs any nonperformance by this answering Cross-Defendant 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// BREMEN WHITE BROWN IL 0 MEARALLP 20320 0 W BIRCH STREET SECOND FLOOR 4 NEWPORT BCH CA $ 2660 (660) 221-1000 ABLE MAINTENANCE'SANSWER TO EQUITY ONE, INC 'S CROSS-COMPLAINT [I IL(695'(149PLDiIILDBwcrto XC of F qu(ty One docx TWELFTH AFl IRMATIVKDEFENSE (PRODlJCT VSKD IN AN ABNORMALMANNER> 14 Answering Cross-Defendant is mformed and beheves and thereon alleges that cross- 4 complainants'amages, ifany, proxnnately resulted from the use of the product in question in an 5 unintended and abnormal manner and not from any defect or mechamcal failure of, or failure to 6 service properly, said product or any of its components THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE O'XTRA CONTRACTVALDAMAGES BARRED) 15 Cross-complainants'lleged claims for extra contractual damages are barred by the 10 provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE 12 (LACHES) 13 16 Cross-complamants have unreasonably delayed the conmiencement of the within 14 action to the substantial prejudice of tlus answernig Cross-Defendant. and by reason thereof have 15 been. guilty of laches, and cross-complamants are thereby precluded from recovery in the within 16 action. 17 FIFTEENTH AFFIRlVIATIVKDKiFENSK 18 (UNCLEAN HANDS) 19 17. Cross-complainants'onduct with respect to the matters alleged in the cross- 20 complaint deprives cross-complainants of clean hands, and by reason of not commg into court w>th 21 clean hands cross-complainants are precluded from recovery m the within action. 22 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSE 23 (CO1VIPLAINTFRIVOLOUS AND IN BAD FAITH) 24 18 Answering Cross-Defendant alleges tliat cross-complainants'ross-complaint is 25 frivolous and is not based on good faith as to aiLswering Cross-Defendant withm the meaning of 26 Cab forma Code of Civil Procedure Section 128 5, and thus answering Cross-Defendant is entitled 27 to recover its reasonable expenses, including attorneys'ees, in defending this action. 28 Ill BREMER W~iBROWN 0 0 MEARA LLP 20320 0 W BIRCH STREET 5 SECOND FLOOR NEWPORT BCH, CA 92000 (919) 221 1000 ABLE MAINTENANCE'SANSWER TO EQUITY ONE, INC 'S CROSS-COMPLAINT H G695u49IATIVEDEFENSE< 22 QKty One docx PROOI< OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 20320 S.W. Birch Street, Second Floor, Newport Beach, California 92660 On November 24, 2014, I served the within clocument(s) described as. ABLE MAINTENANCE'S ANSWER TO EQUITY ONE, INC.'S CROSS-COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action as stated on the attached mailing list X (BY MAIL)By placing a time copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth on the attached mailing list. I placed each such envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary busniess practices. I am readily familiar with this Firm's practice for collection and processmg of coiTespondence for maihng. Under that 10 practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the Uiuted States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Newport. Beach, California, m the ordinary course of business I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after 12 date of deposit foi mailing in affidavit. 13 Executed on November 24, 2014, at Newpoit Beach, California 14 I declare under penalty of perjury the laws of the State of hfornia tha /'nder the; foregoing is true and conect 16 Deborah Hernandez (Type or print name) "signature) 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 BREMERMJHYTE BROWN 8 O'MEIIRA LIP 20320 S W BIRCH STREET SECOND FLOOR NEWPORT BCH CR 02880 40401 221-1 000 OF SFRVIOE docx 13695'4149'PROOF 13 ~ Luis Paez v. Equity One, Inc.,et al. Case No. CIV 529Z63 BWB&O CLIENT: Cross-Defendant, Crown Building Maintenance Co, dha Able Building Maintenance Co. BWB&0 FILE NO.: 3695.149 SERVICE LIST Broderick H Brown Jaines F. Waite Brodenck H. Brown Law Firm Law Offices of Samuel G 2831 Telegraph Avenue Grade> Oakland. CA 94609 555 Mission Street, Suite 320 San Francisco, CA 94105 (210) 452-6300 (510) 417-9197 Fax (415) 932-7223 Direct Dial (415) 932-7200 Mani Line 10 Email: (866) 853-8846 Fax 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Luis Email: Paez: 12 Attorneys for Defendant/Cross- Comnlainant. Equity One. Inc, 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 27 28 BREAIER Wl IYTE BROVI N 0 0 MEARA I I P 20320 S W BIRCH STREET SECOND FLOOR NEWPORT BCH CA 02CGG (040) 221-1000 H IL3696u49ILFROOF OF SERV1CE docx