Preview
Q1
ANTHONY F. PINELLI (CA Bar No. 111968)
WILLIAMS, PINELLI & CULLEN, LLP
152 North Third Street, Suite 501 '
F L E LNT‘
San Jose, California 95112 3AM MATES CDUI
Telephone: E408) 288-3868
Facsrmile: 408) 288-3 860
Attorneys for Defendant,
Patrick Mullins
\DOOQGUI-tv—A
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO - UNLIMITED
Chun Ho Lee, Lili Lee, CASE NO. 17CIV05966
Plaintiffs, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
v.
t—I
Patrick Fortunate Mullins; and DOES 1 to BY FAX
25,
Defendants.
COMES NOW defendant, Patrick Mullins, and answering the complaint on file herein,
I
admits, denies, and alleges as follows:
This ansWering defendant denies each and every, all and singular, generally and
specifically, the allegations in said complaint.
NNNNNNNi—il—Ii—Ap—Ii—I
Further answering said complaint, this answering
defendant denies that plaintiff has sustained damages in any sum or sums, or otherwise, or at all,
due to any act or omission on the part of this answering defendant.
AS A FIRST, SEPARATE, AND AF F IRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT,
this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff’ s complaint, and each cause of action therein, fails
to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant.
AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT
AND TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION TI-IEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that
-1-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT,
Dcw_ 05955
H,—
Answer (Unlimited)
\\\l\lll“\lllllllllllll\lll
plaintiffs’ complaint, and each cause of action therein are barred by the provisions of the Statute
of Limitations, in particular but not restricted to, CCP §335.1 and each and every subdivision
thereof.
AS A THIRD, SEPARATE, AND AF FIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT,
this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff’s complaint, and each cause of action therein, is
\OOOQONUt-PUJNi—I
barred by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations, including, but not limited to, C.C.P.
Section 340 and all subdivisions thereof.
AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT,
this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff was himself careless and negligent in and about ‘
the matters alleged in the complaint, and that said carelessness and negligence proximately
contributed to the injuries, loss, and damages complained of, if any there were.
AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT,
this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk and
hazard, if any, incident to the activities in which he/she was engaged at the time of the alleged
incident, and that said voluntary assumption of the risk upon the part of the plaintiffproximately
caused and contributed to the injuries and damages to said plaintiff,
NNNNNNNHl—‘Hl‘dlfli—IHHI—lb—I
if any there were.
AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT,
QMQWNHOWWQQM-kWNF—‘o
this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, if any there
were, and that plaintiff’s failure has proximately and concurrently contributed to the happening
of the events referred to in plaintiff s complaint and the damages alleged, if any there were.
AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFF IRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the sole and/or partial proximate cause of
the incident was due to the negligence, strict liability, and fraud of other persons and other
parties, for whose conduct this answering defendant is not responsible and this answering
defendant requests that the court or trier of fact apportion comparative fault among those
responsible persons and parties under the principles of American Motorcycle Association vs.
.
-2-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
'
I—-
Superior Court of Los Angeles, (1978) 20 C. 3d 578.
N AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
M COMPLAINT, this answering defendant contends that the plaintiff and the intervenor are
& governed by the Rule of Witt v. Jackson (-1961) 57 Cal. 2d 57.
’
UI
AS A NINTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT,
0‘ this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff’s action may be barred by Civil Code Section
\1
3333.3.
00 AS A TENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT,
\O this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff‘s damages may be limited by the provisions set
r—l
forth in Civil Code Section 3333.4.
,_.
b—A
Dated: February 8, 2018 WILLIAMS, PINELLI & CULLEN, LLP
r—I
v—t
‘B°
y. Mgrfi
ANTHONY F1 PINELLI
. Attorneys for Defendant,
r—I‘r—i
Patrick Mullins
D—l
@MAUJNHOWOOQQLh-hWNHO
r—
r—t
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
-3-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
p—A
Lee v Mullins
San Mateo County Superior Court N o. 17CIV05966
PROOF OF SERVICE
.
I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 152 N. Third Street,
Suite 501, San Jose, CA 95112.
On the date set forth'below, I served the following documents:
\OOOQO‘ilJi-t
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
on the interested parties to said action by the following means:
X (BY MAIL) By placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, for
collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practices, in the United States Mail as the office of
f
I am readily
Williams, Pinelli & Cullen, San Jose, CA, addressed as shown below. familiar with this businesses's practice
for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service, and in the ordinary course of
business, correspondence will be deposited with the US. Postal Service the same day it was placed for collection and
processmg.
(BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION) I caused such documents to be delivered by facsimile transmission
this date to the offices of the addressee(s), to the fax number noted herein.
(BY HAND DELIVERY) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date to the offices of the
addressee(s). ~
(BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to an ovemight delivery carrier
with delivery fees provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served.
\
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
‘
is true and correct.
NNNNNNNNNHi—Ip—ti—v—tr—Ap—du—IHI—n
Executed on February 8, 2018 at San Jose, California.
OOQQUI-FWNe—‘OOOOQONM-FWNHO
fi/‘m ,,
\ . Q
#-
CHRIS'I INA M. TURNER
NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OR FAX NUMBER(S) OF EACH PARTY SERVED:
Monica Burneikis, Esq.
Law Offices of Meisel, Krentsa & Burneikis
350 Sansome Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94104-131 l
(415) 788-2035
(415) 398-1337 —
fax#
monica@meisel-law.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Chun Ho. Lee and Lili Lee
Proof of Service
Preview
Q1 ANTHONY F. PINELLI (CA Bar No. 111968) WILLIAMS, PINELLI & CULLEN, LLP 152 North Third Street, Suite 501 ' F L E LNT‘ San Jose, California 95112 3AM MATES CDUI Telephone: E408) 288-3868 Facsrmile: 408) 288-3 860 Attorneys for Defendant, Patrick Mullins \DOOQGUI-tv—A IN THE SUPERIOR COURT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO - UNLIMITED Chun Ho Lee, Lili Lee, CASE NO. 17CIV05966 Plaintiffs, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT v. t—I Patrick Fortunate Mullins; and DOES 1 to BY FAX 25, Defendants. COMES NOW defendant, Patrick Mullins, and answering the complaint on file herein, I admits, denies, and alleges as follows: This ansWering defendant denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the allegations in said complaint. NNNNNNNi—il—Ii—Ap—Ii—I Further answering said complaint, this answering defendant denies that plaintiff has sustained damages in any sum or sums, or otherwise, or at all, due to any act or omission on the part of this answering defendant. AS A FIRST, SEPARATE, AND AF F IRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff’ s complaint, and each cause of action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant. AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT AND TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION TI-IEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that -1- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, Dcw_ 05955 H,— Answer (Unlimited) \\\l\lll“\lllllllllllll\lll plaintiffs’ complaint, and each cause of action therein are barred by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations, in particular but not restricted to, CCP §335.1 and each and every subdivision thereof. AS A THIRD, SEPARATE, AND AF FIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff’s complaint, and each cause of action therein, is \OOOQONUt-PUJNi—I barred by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations, including, but not limited to, C.C.P. Section 340 and all subdivisions thereof. AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff was himself careless and negligent in and about ‘ the matters alleged in the complaint, and that said carelessness and negligence proximately contributed to the injuries, loss, and damages complained of, if any there were. AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk and hazard, if any, incident to the activities in which he/she was engaged at the time of the alleged incident, and that said voluntary assumption of the risk upon the part of the plaintiffproximately caused and contributed to the injuries and damages to said plaintiff, NNNNNNNHl—‘Hl‘dlfli—IHHI—lb—I if any there were. AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, QMQWNHOWWQQM-kWNF—‘o this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, if any there were, and that plaintiff’s failure has proximately and concurrently contributed to the happening of the events referred to in plaintiff s complaint and the damages alleged, if any there were. AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFF IRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the sole and/or partial proximate cause of the incident was due to the negligence, strict liability, and fraud of other persons and other parties, for whose conduct this answering defendant is not responsible and this answering defendant requests that the court or trier of fact apportion comparative fault among those responsible persons and parties under the principles of American Motorcycle Association vs. . -2- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ' I—- Superior Court of Los Angeles, (1978) 20 C. 3d 578. N AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE M COMPLAINT, this answering defendant contends that the plaintiff and the intervenor are & governed by the Rule of Witt v. Jackson (-1961) 57 Cal. 2d 57. ’ UI AS A NINTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, 0‘ this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff’s action may be barred by Civil Code Section \1 3333.3. 00 AS A TENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, \O this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff‘s damages may be limited by the provisions set r—l forth in Civil Code Section 3333.4. ,_. b—A Dated: February 8, 2018 WILLIAMS, PINELLI & CULLEN, LLP r—I v—t ‘B° y. Mgrfi ANTHONY F1 PINELLI . Attorneys for Defendant, r—I‘r—i Patrick Mullins D—l @MAUJNHOWOOQQLh-hWNHO r— r—t N N N N N N N -3- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT p—A Lee v Mullins San Mateo County Superior Court N o. 17CIV05966 PROOF OF SERVICE . I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 152 N. Third Street, Suite 501, San Jose, CA 95112. On the date set forth'below, I served the following documents: \OOOQO‘ilJi-t ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the interested parties to said action by the following means: X (BY MAIL) By placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practices, in the United States Mail as the office of f I am readily Williams, Pinelli & Cullen, San Jose, CA, addressed as shown below. familiar with this businesses's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service, and in the ordinary course of business, correspondence will be deposited with the US. Postal Service the same day it was placed for collection and processmg. (BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION) I caused such documents to be delivered by facsimile transmission this date to the offices of the addressee(s), to the fax number noted herein. (BY HAND DELIVERY) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date to the offices of the addressee(s). ~ (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to an ovemight delivery carrier with delivery fees provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served. \ I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing ‘ is true and correct. NNNNNNNNNHi—Ip—ti—v—tr—Ap—du—IHI—n Executed on February 8, 2018 at San Jose, California. OOQQUI-FWNe—‘OOOOQONM-FWNHO fi/‘m ,, \ . Q #- CHRIS'I INA M. TURNER NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OR FAX NUMBER(S) OF EACH PARTY SERVED: Monica Burneikis, Esq. Law Offices of Meisel, Krentsa & Burneikis 350 Sansome Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104-131 l (415) 788-2035 (415) 398-1337 — fax# monica@meisel-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Chun Ho. Lee and Lili Lee Proof of Service