Preview
hi
DAVID J. MICLEAN (SBN 115098)
dmiclean@micleangleason;com
FILED
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Ix)
CARMEN M. AVILES (SBN 251993)
La)
caviles@micleangleason.com
MICLEAN GLEASON LLP
Jib 411 Borel Avenue, Suite 310
San Mateo, CA 94402
£11 Telephone: (650) 684-1 181
Facsimile: (650) 684—1182
(J\
3M
-J
Attorneys for Defendant
Solomon Sha 53
(>0
\ED 3mg
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
h—d C:>
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ,\
h-d
*"
F-d I\J
SWEET PRODUCTION, 1NC., a California Case No. 18-CIV—031 10
h-i (J3
Corporation,
4D;
SOLOMON SHA’S ANSWER TO
r-n
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
h-d LII
'
v.
r-d C7\
SOLOMON SHA, an individual; and DOES 1
r—n ‘~J
to 10, inclusive,
CK?
Complaint Filed: June 18, 2018 ‘
Trial Date:
h—d
TBD
r-d \CD
Defendants.
Ex) (:3
I\J F"
18—GIV—l13i1F
7__‘ _
t\) [\3 ARDU
Answer (Unlimited)
1273754
P\3 Ki)
P\) 4:.
f\) 1J1
E\J (JN
f\) ‘~J
{\3 (>0
ANSWER To COMPLAINT CASE No. 18-CIV-031 10
7‘
:1 ‘r
,
\\7 ,~”
if.“
/’M“Nflfiww
fl
1
‘6',
:
"a
O.
6.’
a
.
i
(P.
‘9,
c“
<3
Defendant SOLOMON SHA (“Sha”), as and for himself, answers the Complaint
(“Complaint”) of Plaintiff Sweet Production, Inc. (“Sweet” or “Plaintiff’), alleged as follows:
GENERAL DENIAL
.[SWN
1. Under the provisions of § 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Sha
denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation of the Complaint, including each
purported cause of action, and the whole thereof. Further, Sha denies that Plaintiff was
of any act or omission to act on the part of Sha, or in any
\OOOQONU‘I
damaged in any amount by reason
other manner or sums whatsoever, or that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for or for any
relief whatsoever against Sha.
10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
11 2. Without admitting any of the allegations in the Complaint, Sha hereby alleges
12 defenses against Plaintiffs Complaint. Sha recognizes that, depending upon the development
13 of facts, some defenses may ultimately not be applicable. By such pleading, Sha also intends
14 no alteration of the burden of proof and/or burden of going forward with the evidence that
15 otherwise exists with respect to any particular issue at law or equity. Furthermore, all defenses
16 are pled in the alternative, and do not constitute an admission of liability or that Plaintiff is
17 entitled to any relief whatsoever.
18 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Failure to State a Claim)
20 3. The Complaint and each claim for relief presented therein fails to state facts
21 sufficient to constitute a claim for which relief can be granted against Sha.
22 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Statutes of Limitation)
24 4. Plaintiffs Complaint, and each cause of action, for relief asserted therein against
25 Sha is barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, including, but not limited to, Code of
26 Civil Procedure §§ 335, 337(1), 338(a), 338(d), 339, 340, and 343.
27
28
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. lS-CIV—03 1 10
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
5. As a result of the acts, conduct, and omission of Plaintiff, and their agents, the
Complaint and each cause of action against Sha asserted therein are barred by the doctrine of
(.11.t
estoppel.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
\]O\
(Intervening/Superseding Cause)
6. The damages alleged in the Complaint, if any, were proximately caused by
unforeseeable, independent, intervening, and/or superseding events beyond the control, and
10 unrelated to any actions or conduct of, Sha. Sha’s actions and conduct, if any, were superseded
11 by the negligence and wrongful conduct of others including, without limitation, Plaintiff.
12 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 (Waiver)
14 7. As a result of the acts, conduct, and omissions of Plaintiff, and their agents, the
15 Complaint and each claim for relief asserted therein has been waived.
16 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Laches)
18 8. Plaintiff has unreasonably delayed the commencement of this action to the
19 prejudice of Sha. The Complaint and each claim for relief asserted therein are therefore barred
20 by the doctrine of laches.
21 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Unclean Hands)
23 9. Plaintiff is barred from obtaining any recovery on the allegations in the
24 Complaint by the doctrine of unclean hands.
25 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 (Failure to Mitigate Damages)
27 10. Sha alleges that, by exercise of reasonable effort, Plaintiff could have mitigated
28 its damages, if any, but Plaintiff failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to exercise
2
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. l8-CIV—O3 l 10
reasonable efforts to mitigate its damages.
NINTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
AWN (Uncertain, Ambiguous, and Unintelligible Claims)
1 1. Plaintiff is barred from obtaining any recovery on the allegations in the
Complaint because Plaintiff’s claim and/or causes of action, in whole or in part, are uncertain,
ambiguous, and unintelligible.
\OOO\]O\U1
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(N o Proximate Causation)
12. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that Plaintiff‘s
10 injuries or damages alleged by Plaintiff in the Complaint were not proximately caused by any
11 act or omission of Sha.
12 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
13 (Acts or Omissions of Third Parties)
14 13. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that Plaintiff’ s
15 injuries or damages alleged by Plaintiff in the Complaint were caused by the action or
16 omissions of third parties for which Sha had no control or responsibility.
17 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (No Breach of Duty)
19 14. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Sha did not breach any
20 duty owed to “Plaintiff.
21 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Good Faith)
23 15. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Sha’s actions were at
24 all times made in good faith.
25 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
26 (Lack of Damages)
27 16. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff has suffered
28 no damages as a result of any act or omission of Sha, or Plaintiff asserts claims for damages
3
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. 18—CIV-03 l 10
that are not recoverable for the causes of action alleged.
[\J FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Speculative Damages)
17. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, are barred, in whole or in part, because the losses or
damages alleged by Plaintiff in the Complaint are speculative, uncertain, or otherwise not
\OOO\lO\U1-hw
cognizable.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unjust Enrichment)
18. Plaintiff’ s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff would be
1o unjustly enriched if it recovered any sum alleged to be due and owing in the Complaint.
11 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Unknown Defenses)
13 19. Sha may have additional or different separate affirmative defenses of which he
14 is currently unaware, and therefore reserves his right to assert any such defenses that may be
15 disclosed during the course of additional investigation or discovery, or by conforming to proof
16 at trial.
17 EIGHTEEN TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Setoff)
19 20. To the extend Plaintiff obtains any recovery it should be setoff from amounts
20 due and owing to Sha.
21
22 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
23 WHEREFORE Sha prays for judgment as follows:
24 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of the Complaint;
25 2. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety;
26 3. That a judgment be entered in favor of Sha;
27 4. For recovery of Sha’s costs of suit;
28 5. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to, among
4
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. 18—CIV-03 1 10
other rules, Code of Civ. Proc. § 1021.5; and
6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
#UJN
DATED: July 19, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
MICLEAN GLEASON LLP
\DOO\}O\U1
/David J. Miclean
Carmen M. Aviles
10
Attorneys for Defendant
11 Solomon Sha
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. 18—CIV-03 1 10
Preview
hi DAVID J. MICLEAN (SBN 115098) dmiclean@micleangleason;com FILED SAN MATEO COUNTY Ix) CARMEN M. AVILES (SBN 251993) La) caviles@micleangleason.com MICLEAN GLEASON LLP Jib 411 Borel Avenue, Suite 310 San Mateo, CA 94402 £11 Telephone: (650) 684-1 181 Facsimile: (650) 684—1182 (J\ 3M -J Attorneys for Defendant Solomon Sha 53 (>0 \ED 3mg SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA h—d C:> COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ,\ h-d *" F-d I\J SWEET PRODUCTION, 1NC., a California Case No. 18-CIV—031 10 h-i (J3 Corporation, 4D; SOLOMON SHA’S ANSWER TO r-n Plaintiff, COMPLAINT h-d LII ' v. r-d C7\ SOLOMON SHA, an individual; and DOES 1 r—n ‘~J to 10, inclusive, CK? Complaint Filed: June 18, 2018 ‘ Trial Date: h—d TBD r-d \CD Defendants. Ex) (:3 I\J F" 18—GIV—l13i1F 7__‘ _ t\) [\3 ARDU Answer (Unlimited) 1273754 P\3 Ki) P\) 4:. f\) 1J1 E\J (JN f\) ‘~J {\3 (>0 ANSWER To COMPLAINT CASE No. 18-CIV-031 10 7‘ :1 ‘r , \\7 ,~” if.“ /’M“Nflfiww fl 1 ‘6', : "a O. 6.’ a . i (P. ‘9, c“ <3 Defendant SOLOMON SHA (“Sha”), as and for himself, answers the Complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff Sweet Production, Inc. (“Sweet” or “Plaintiff’), alleged as follows: GENERAL DENIAL .[SWN 1. Under the provisions of § 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Sha denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation of the Complaint, including each purported cause of action, and the whole thereof. Further, Sha denies that Plaintiff was of any act or omission to act on the part of Sha, or in any \OOOQONU‘I damaged in any amount by reason other manner or sums whatsoever, or that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for or for any relief whatsoever against Sha. 10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 11 2. Without admitting any of the allegations in the Complaint, Sha hereby alleges 12 defenses against Plaintiffs Complaint. Sha recognizes that, depending upon the development 13 of facts, some defenses may ultimately not be applicable. By such pleading, Sha also intends 14 no alteration of the burden of proof and/or burden of going forward with the evidence that 15 otherwise exists with respect to any particular issue at law or equity. Furthermore, all defenses 16 are pled in the alternative, and do not constitute an admission of liability or that Plaintiff is 17 entitled to any relief whatsoever. 18 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Failure to State a Claim) 20 3. The Complaint and each claim for relief presented therein fails to state facts 21 sufficient to constitute a claim for which relief can be granted against Sha. 22 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Statutes of Limitation) 24 4. Plaintiffs Complaint, and each cause of action, for relief asserted therein against 25 Sha is barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, including, but not limited to, Code of 26 Civil Procedure §§ 335, 337(1), 338(a), 338(d), 339, 340, and 343. 27 28 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. lS-CIV—03 1 10 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 5. As a result of the acts, conduct, and omission of Plaintiff, and their agents, the Complaint and each cause of action against Sha asserted therein are barred by the doctrine of (.11.t estoppel. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE \]O\ (Intervening/Superseding Cause) 6. The damages alleged in the Complaint, if any, were proximately caused by unforeseeable, independent, intervening, and/or superseding events beyond the control, and 10 unrelated to any actions or conduct of, Sha. Sha’s actions and conduct, if any, were superseded 11 by the negligence and wrongful conduct of others including, without limitation, Plaintiff. 12 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (Waiver) 14 7. As a result of the acts, conduct, and omissions of Plaintiff, and their agents, the 15 Complaint and each claim for relief asserted therein has been waived. 16 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Laches) 18 8. Plaintiff has unreasonably delayed the commencement of this action to the 19 prejudice of Sha. The Complaint and each claim for relief asserted therein are therefore barred 20 by the doctrine of laches. 21 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Unclean Hands) 23 9. Plaintiff is barred from obtaining any recovery on the allegations in the 24 Complaint by the doctrine of unclean hands. 25 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (Failure to Mitigate Damages) 27 10. Sha alleges that, by exercise of reasonable effort, Plaintiff could have mitigated 28 its damages, if any, but Plaintiff failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to exercise 2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. l8-CIV—O3 l 10 reasonable efforts to mitigate its damages. NINTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE AWN (Uncertain, Ambiguous, and Unintelligible Claims) 1 1. Plaintiff is barred from obtaining any recovery on the allegations in the Complaint because Plaintiff’s claim and/or causes of action, in whole or in part, are uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible. \OOO\]O\U1 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (N o Proximate Causation) 12. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that Plaintiff‘s 10 injuries or damages alleged by Plaintiff in the Complaint were not proximately caused by any 11 act or omission of Sha. 12 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE 13 (Acts or Omissions of Third Parties) 14 13. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that Plaintiff’ s 15 injuries or damages alleged by Plaintiff in the Complaint were caused by the action or 16 omissions of third parties for which Sha had no control or responsibility. 17 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (No Breach of Duty) 19 14. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Sha did not breach any 20 duty owed to “Plaintiff. 21 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Good Faith) 23 15. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Sha’s actions were at 24 all times made in good faith. 25 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE 26 (Lack of Damages) 27 16. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff has suffered 28 no damages as a result of any act or omission of Sha, or Plaintiff asserts claims for damages 3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. 18—CIV-03 l 10 that are not recoverable for the causes of action alleged. [\J FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE (Speculative Damages) 17. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, are barred, in whole or in part, because the losses or damages alleged by Plaintiff in the Complaint are speculative, uncertain, or otherwise not \OOO\lO\U1-hw cognizable. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unjust Enrichment) 18. Plaintiff’ s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff would be 1o unjustly enriched if it recovered any sum alleged to be due and owing in the Complaint. 11 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Unknown Defenses) 13 19. Sha may have additional or different separate affirmative defenses of which he 14 is currently unaware, and therefore reserves his right to assert any such defenses that may be 15 disclosed during the course of additional investigation or discovery, or by conforming to proof 16 at trial. 17 EIGHTEEN TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Setoff) 19 20. To the extend Plaintiff obtains any recovery it should be setoff from amounts 20 due and owing to Sha. 21 22 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 23 WHEREFORE Sha prays for judgment as follows: 24 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of the Complaint; 25 2. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety; 26 3. That a judgment be entered in favor of Sha; 27 4. For recovery of Sha’s costs of suit; 28 5. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to, among 4 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. 18—CIV-03 1 10 other rules, Code of Civ. Proc. § 1021.5; and 6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. #UJN DATED: July 19, 2018 Respectfully submitted, MICLEAN GLEASON LLP \DOO\}O\U1 /David J. Miclean Carmen M. Aviles 10 Attorneys for Defendant 11 Solomon Sha 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. 18—CIV-03 1 10