arrow left
arrow right
  • Anthony Anderson vs  Dennie Turner, II22 Unlimited - Auto document preview
  • Anthony Anderson vs  Dennie Turner, II22 Unlimited - Auto document preview
  • Anthony Anderson vs  Dennie Turner, II22 Unlimited - Auto document preview
  • Anthony Anderson vs  Dennie Turner, II22 Unlimited - Auto document preview
  • Anthony Anderson vs  Dennie Turner, II22 Unlimited - Auto document preview
  • Anthony Anderson vs  Dennie Turner, II22 Unlimited - Auto document preview
  • Anthony Anderson vs  Dennie Turner, II22 Unlimited - Auto document preview
  • Anthony Anderson vs  Dennie Turner, II22 Unlimited - Auto document preview
						
                                

Preview

MICHAEL G. JONES, No. 150836 E-FILED LAW OFFICES OF SHAHIN KARIM 10/7/2020 9:26 AM Superior Court of California 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 140 County of Fresno Sacramento, Califomia 95833 By: M. Sanchez, Deputy Tel: (916) 925-3275 Fax: (916) 925-3234 Attomeys for Defendants/Cross-C omplainants/Cross-D efendants, DENNIE L. TURNER II AND MEGAN V. TURNER SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO 10 11 ANTHONY ANDERSON, Case No. 19CECG01542 Assigned for all purposes to: 12 Plaintiff, Judge Kimberly Gaab 13 Dept. 14 15 vs. DENNIE L. TURNER II AND 16 MEGAN V. TURNER’S ANSWER TO DENNIE L. TURNER II, MEGAN V. COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION 17 TURNER AND DOES 1 TO 12 OF LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 18 Defendants. 19 20 NOW Defendant, DENNIE L. TURNER II AND MEGAN V. TURNER, in answer to 21 the Complaint in Intervention on file herein, by INTERENVOR, LIBERTY MUTUAL 22 INSURANCE COMPANY admits, denies and alleges as follows: 23 Under the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, these 24 answering Defendants generally and specifically deny each and every allegation contained in 25 said Complaint, and the whole thereof, and each and every alleged cause of action thereof and 26 deny that Plaintiff sustained damages in the sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum or sums, or 27 at all, by reason of any act, breach or omission on the part of these answering Defendants. 28 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE These answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned here in that the negligent, careless, reckless and unlawful conduct of Plaintiff contributed to the alleged injuries and damages and said negligence and/or fault of Plaintiff reduces any recovery otherwise available to Plaintiff. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE These answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned herein , that if Plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss, damage or injury as alleged in the Complaint, the loss, damage or injury was proximately caused or contributed to by the 10 actions of Plaintiff, or concurrent tortfeasors, persons, entities, named or unnamed, and that the 11 actions or omissions to act, if any, of these answering Defendants are imputed to, and/or should 12 be indemnified by said named or unnamed tortfeasors. 13 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 These answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times 15 mentioned herein, that if Plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss, damage or injury as alleged in 16 the Complaint, the loss, damage or injury was proximately caused or contributed to by the 17 actions of Plaintiff or other Defendants, persons, entities, named or unnamed, and that said 18 actions were an intervening and superseding cause of the loss, damage and injury of which 19 Plaintiff complains. 20 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 These answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that in the 22 event Plaintiff should establish any liability on the part of these answering Defendants, which 23 liability is expressly denied, that these answering Defendants may not be obligated to pay sums 24 representing a proportion or percentage of fault not their own, but that of Plaintiff, other parties 25 to this action and third persons not parties to this action. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to an 26 adjudication and determination of the respective proportions or percentages of fault, if any, on 27 these answering Defendants’ part, on the part of Plaintiff, other parties to this action and third 28 2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT person not party to this action pursuant to the Doctrines of Comparative Negligence and the Fair Responsibility Act of 1986, codified in California Civil Code Sections 1431-1431.5. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants are informed and believe and thereupon alleges, that plaintiff was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the subject accident the alleged injuries and damages, if any, were caused, in whole or in part, by the fault, including negligence, of plaintiff's employer, its agents and employees, and each of them, and that any damages should be reduced by the amount of workers' compensation benefits paid or payable to plaintiff by said employer or its workers' compensation carrier on behalf of said employer. 10 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 Plaintiff has failed to make any reasonable effort to mitigate his damages, if any, in 12 whole or in part. 13 WHEREFORE, these answering Defendants pray as follows: 14 1 That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of its Complaint in Intervention herein; 15 2 That these answering Defendants be awarded their costs of suit incurred herein; 16 3 For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 17 18 DATED: October 7, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF SHAHIN KARIM 19 20 By: Se oO 21 MICHAEL G. JO Attomeys for Defendants/Cross- 22 Complainants/Cross- Defendants 23 DENNIE L. TURNER II AND MEGAN V. TURNER 24 25 26 27 28 3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE [1013(a)(1)&(3) CCP (Rev.1/98)| ANDERSON V. TURNER Superior Court, Fresno County, Case Number: 19CECG01542 Judge: Kimberly Gaab, Dept. I, the undersigned, declare that: I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California, where the within mailing or other method of service occurs, and my business address is 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 140, Sacramento, California 958. On the date listed below, I served the foregoing document described DENNIE L. TURNER II AND MEGAN V. TURNER’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the interested parties listed below: 10 Ovidio Oviedo, Jr. Victoria R. Bernhardt 11 OVIEDO LAW GROUP, INC. McCormick BARSTOW, LLP 401 Clovis Avenue, Suite 208 7647 N. Fresno Street 12 Clovis, CA 93612 Fresno, CA 93720 13 Phone: 559-226-6200 Phone: 559-433-1300 Fax: 559-432-5543 Fax: 559-433-2300 14 jro@oviedolawgroup.com Victoria.bernhardt@mccormickbarstow.com 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff, ANTHONY ANDERSON Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross- Defendant,KAELEEANN McNEEL 16 Daniel W. Dawson. 17 The Law Offices of Daniel W. Dawson A Professional Corporation 18 7450 N. Palm Avenue, Ste. 201 Fresno, CA 93711 19 20 Phone: (559) 408-7141 Fax: (559) 4008-7145 21 dan@ddawsonlaw.com kasie@ddawsonlaw.com 22 Attorneys for Intervenor, LIBERTY INSURANCE COMPANY 23 24 Xk] U.S. MAIL, by placing a true copy thereof in a separate sealed envelope for each addressee 25 named above, addressed to each such addressee, respectively, and I then sealed each envelope and, with the postage thereon fully prepaid, placed it for mailing and deposit in the United States 26 Postal Service in accordance with our business' practices. I am readily familiar with our business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States 27 Postal Service; and that the correspondence shall be deposited with the United States Postal 28 Service this same day in the ordinary course of business. &] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. I caused a true copy of the foregoing document(s) to be transmitted by email to each of the parties designated herein and as last given by that person on any document which he or she has filed in this action and served upon this office During the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, this office will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time’ after the transmission. Executed at Sacramento, California on October 7, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct. a ss ee 10 Patty Paniagua 11 Electronically signed pursuant to Civil Code 12 §1633.7(d) which states: “If the law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28