On April 06, 2018 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Lopez, Briceida,
Solis, Jose,
and
Amerigas, Inc., A Corporation,
Amerigas Propane, Inc, A Corporation,
Amerigas Propane, L.P., A Business Entity,
Bonifacio, Paul,
Does One Through One-Hundred, Inclusive,
Hyun, Margaret,
for (24) Unlimited Product Liability
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
SHAWN A. TOLTVER, 31311 148349
Email: Shawn.Toliver@leudsbrisbois.com
JULIE M. AZEVEDO, SB# 151618
F
SAN MATEO
Email: JulieAzevedo@lewisbrisboiscom COUNTY
COLIN E. HOWARD, SB# 308924
Email: Colin.Howard@lewisbtisbois.com
333 Bush Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco,
Telephone:
\GOONJGNUl-LXWNH
California 94104-2872
415.362.2580
/
Facsimile: 415.434.0882
Attorneys for Defendants PAUL BONIFACIO and
MARGARET HYUN (erroneously sued as
MARGOT HYUN)
A |||1|||||1||llllllllllllllllllllll1|||1l
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNLA E; E
'‘1’
5,
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
$3
BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an adult by and through
her Guardian ad Litem, ELBA KARINA
CASE NO. 18CIV 01696 : gg
F
LOPEZ GOMEZ, DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND
MARGARET HYUN’S ANSWER TO
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
vs. Action Filed: April 6, 2018 \
Tn'al Date: None Set
PAUL BONIFACIO, MARGOT HYUN, and
DOES ONE thorough ONE—HUNDRED,
inclusive,
Defendants.
wqmmtcwqmm-Amuwc
NNNNNNNNNHHHHI—IHr—v—HI—
Defendants PAUL BONIFACIO and MARGARET HYUN (erroneously sued as
MARGOT HYUN) (“Defendants”) hereby answer the complaint of plaintiff BRICEIDA LOPEZ,
an adult by and through her Guardian ad Litem, ELBA KARINA LOPEZ GOMEZ (“Plaintiff”),
as follows:
GENERAL DENEAL
Defendants PAUL BONIFACIO and MARGARET HYUN (erroneously sued as
MARGOT HYUN) deny generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, the
allegations of the complaint of plaintiff BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an adult by and through her Guardian
ad Litem, ELBA KARINA LOPEZ GOMEZ, and each cause of action thereof, and further deny
that Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or sums or at all.
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4823-2587-3510J
1
&SWIHU.P
Al [AW
A110 RNEYS DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth. Under the
provisions California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendants deny each, every, and
all of the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint and the whole thereof, and deny that Plaintiff has
sustained damages in the sums alleged, in any other sum, or at all.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
\DwQ¢\UI&mN
Defendants also allege the following separate and affirmative defenses as follows:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Comparative Negligence
As a first affirmative defense to each cause of action of the complaint, Plaintiff was
10 partially, if not wholly, negligent or otherwise at fault on her own part and should be barred from
11 recovery of that portion of the damages directly attributable to her proportionate share of the
12 negligence or fault, pursuant to the doctrine of comparative negligence.
13 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 Comparative Negligence (of Plaintiff 5 Agents. etc.)
15 As a second affirmative defense to each cause of action of the complaint, Plaintiff, her
16 agents, employees, servants and representatives were partially, if not wholly, negligent or
17 otherwise at fault on their own part pursuant to the doctrine of comparative negligence, and
18 Plaintiff should be barred fiom recovery of that portion of the damages directly attributable to
19 their proportionate share of the negligence or fault.
20 THIRD AFFIRMATEVE DEFENSE
21 Negligence of Others
22 As a third affirmative defense to each cause of action of the complaint, the damages
23 sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were caused, in whole or in part, by the negligence or fault of others
24 for which these Defendants are not liable or responsible.
25 FOURTH AFFIRWTIVE DEFENSE
26 Failure to State Cause of Action
27 As a fourth affirmative defense to each cause of action of the complaint, the complaint
28 does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these Defendants.
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4823-2587-3510.l
5
Preview
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP SHAWN A. TOLTVER, 31311 148349 Email: Shawn.Toliver@leudsbrisbois.com JULIE M. AZEVEDO, SB# 151618 F SAN MATEO Email: JulieAzevedo@lewisbrisboiscom COUNTY COLIN E. HOWARD, SB# 308924 Email: Colin.Howard@lewisbtisbois.com 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, Telephone: \GOONJGNUl-LXWNH California 94104-2872 415.362.2580 / Facsimile: 415.434.0882 Attorneys for Defendants PAUL BONIFACIO and MARGARET HYUN (erroneously sued as MARGOT HYUN) A |||1|||||1||llllllllllllllllllllll1|||1l SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNLA E; E '‘1’ 5, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO $3 BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an adult by and through her Guardian ad Litem, ELBA KARINA CASE NO. 18CIV 01696 : gg F LOPEZ GOMEZ, DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S ANSWER TO Plaintiff, COMPLAINT vs. Action Filed: April 6, 2018 \ Tn'al Date: None Set PAUL BONIFACIO, MARGOT HYUN, and DOES ONE thorough ONE—HUNDRED, inclusive, Defendants. wqmmtcwqmm-Amuwc NNNNNNNNNHHHHI—IHr—v—HI— Defendants PAUL BONIFACIO and MARGARET HYUN (erroneously sued as MARGOT HYUN) (“Defendants”) hereby answer the complaint of plaintiff BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an adult by and through her Guardian ad Litem, ELBA KARINA LOPEZ GOMEZ (“Plaintiff”), as follows: GENERAL DENEAL Defendants PAUL BONIFACIO and MARGARET HYUN (erroneously sued as MARGOT HYUN) deny generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, the allegations of the complaint of plaintiff BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an adult by and through her Guardian ad Litem, ELBA KARINA LOPEZ GOMEZ, and each cause of action thereof, and further deny that Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or sums or at all. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4823-2587-3510J 1 &SWIHU.P Al [AW A110 RNEYS DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth. Under the provisions California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendants deny each, every, and all of the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint and the whole thereof, and deny that Plaintiff has sustained damages in the sums alleged, in any other sum, or at all. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES \DwQ¢\UI&mN Defendants also allege the following separate and affirmative defenses as follows: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Comparative Negligence As a first affirmative defense to each cause of action of the complaint, Plaintiff was 10 partially, if not wholly, negligent or otherwise at fault on her own part and should be barred from 11 recovery of that portion of the damages directly attributable to her proportionate share of the 12 negligence or fault, pursuant to the doctrine of comparative negligence. 13 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 Comparative Negligence (of Plaintiff 5 Agents. etc.) 15 As a second affirmative defense to each cause of action of the complaint, Plaintiff, her 16 agents, employees, servants and representatives were partially, if not wholly, negligent or 17 otherwise at fault on their own part pursuant to the doctrine of comparative negligence, and 18 Plaintiff should be barred fiom recovery of that portion of the damages directly attributable to 19 their proportionate share of the negligence or fault. 20 THIRD AFFIRMATEVE DEFENSE 21 Negligence of Others 22 As a third affirmative defense to each cause of action of the complaint, the damages 23 sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were caused, in whole or in part, by the negligence or fault of others 24 for which these Defendants are not liable or responsible. 25 FOURTH AFFIRWTIVE DEFENSE 26 Failure to State Cause of Action 27 As a fourth affirmative defense to each cause of action of the complaint, the complaint 28 does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these Defendants. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4823-2587-3510.l 5