Preview
Colleen F. Van Egmond, SBN 242220
Amanda J. Heitlinger, SBN 271469 ELECTRONICALLY FILED
ARATA, SWINGLE, VAN EGMOND & HEITLINGER Superior Court of California
A Professional Law Corporation County ofPl '
1207 I Street (95354) unty of Piacer
Post Office Box 3287 09/01/2020
Modesto, California 95353 By: OliviaLucatuorto, Deputy Clerk
Telephone: (209) 522-2211
Facsimile: (209) 522-2980
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Defendants/
Cross-Complainants: TREVER BALZER and SEAN F. GLEASON
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER
10 JERRY HAWKINS and SHIRLEY HAWKINS Case No: SCV0041897
11 Plaintiffs, ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
FILED BY WILFLEY ENTERPRISES,
12 VS. INC. AGAINST TREVER BALZER AND
SEAN F, GLEASON
13 TREVER BALZER, MATTHEW J.ENRIQUEZ,
and DOES 1 through 30, (Unlimited Civil Case - Amount Demanded
14 Exceeds $25,000)
Defendants.
15
16 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
/
17
18 GENERAL DENIAL
19 Answering the allegations contained in each and every paragraph of each cause of action directed
20 to these answering cross-defendants in the Cross-Complaint of cross-complainant WILFLEY
21 ENTERPRISES, INC., pursuant to section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, cross-
22 defendant, TREVER BALZER and cross-defendant, SEAN F. GLEASON, deny each and every, all and
23 singular, conjunctively and disjunctively, allegations of the Cross-Complaint and further deny that cross-
24 complainant has been damaged in any sum(s) or at all, by reason of any act or omission on the part of
25 these answering cross-defendants, their agents, servants, or employees.
26 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
27 Cross-Defendants hereby asserts the following separate and distinct affirmative defenses to cross-
28 complainant’s Cross-Complaint but in doing so, does not assume any burden of production, proof, or
-[-
Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer to Cross-Complaint filed by Wilfley Enterprises, Inc.
persuasion as to such defenses not otherwise imposed by law. Cross-Defendants reserve the right to
assert additional affirmative defenses as warranted by discovery in this action.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, to cross-complainant’s Cross-
Complaint, these answering cross-defendants alleges that the Cross-Complaint and each cause of action
therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering cross-defendants
upon which any type of relief may be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Uncertainty)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s Cross-
Complaint and to each cause of action contained therein, these answering cross-defendants allege that the
allegations and/or contentions contained in the Cross-Complaint, and all causes of action contained
herein, contain allegations and references which are confusing, unintelligible and voluminous and are
pled in such a vague, ambiguous and unintelligible manner that the Cross-Complaint and causes of action
contained therein are rendered uncertain, thereby precluding relief.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s Cross-
Complaint and each cause of action asserted therein, these answering cross-defendants assert that said
causes of action are barred by all applicable statutes of limitations including, but not limited to California
Code of Civil Procedure Sections 337, 337.1, 337.15, 339, 343, et seq., and sections 800 et seq. of the
California Civil Code.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that cross-complainant’s causes of action are
barred by the application of the doctrine of laches.
-2-
Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer to Cross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises, Inc.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Real Party in Interest)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-complainant’s causes of action are
barred in that cross-complainant has failed to sue in the name of the Real Party in Interest.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ND
(Failure to Mitigate)
ns
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
oOo
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-complainant has failed to take
\o
10 reasonable actions to mitigate the injury or damage alleged in the Cross-Complaint, and any recovery
11 awarded should be reduced by the amount of damages that reasonably could have been avoided by cross-
12 complainant.
13 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)
14
15 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s Cross-
16 Complaint and each cause of action therein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that cross-
17 complainant’s Cross-Complaint and each cause of action therein is barred by application of the doctrine
18 of waiver.
19 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
20
21 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
22 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants alleges that cross-complainant’s causes of action are
23 barred by application of the doctrine of estoppel.
24 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
25
26 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
27 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants alleges that cross-complainant’s causes of action are
28 barred by application of the doctrine of unclean hands.
-3-
Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filed by Wilfley Enterprises, Inc.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Adequate Remedy at Law)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that any equitable relief sought herein is barred
HS
as cross-complainant has an adequate remedy at law.
WN
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
DWN
(Abuse of Process)
NN
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
oo
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that the Cross-Complaint constitutes an abuse of
\O
10 process.
11 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Join Indispensable Parties)
12
13 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
14 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-complainant’s Cross-Complaint, and
15 each cause of action alleged therein is barred, in whole or in part, because cross-complainant has failed to
16 join indispensable parties.
17 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Damages)
18
19 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
20 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that cross-complainant has have sustained no
21 damage, whatsoever, as a result of the conduct and events alleged in the Cross-Complaint.
22 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Speculative Damages)
23
24 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
25 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-complainant isbarred from relief, in
26 whole or in part, because the alleged damages, ifany, are speculative and impossible to ascertain.
27 Ii!
28 HII
-4-
Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises,Inc.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Factual and Legal Causation)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert the affirmative defense that cross-complainant’s
Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action, alleged therein, is barred to the extent that cross-
complainant’s alleged injury or damage was not factually, legally, or proximately caused by this
responding cross-defendant nor was any conduct of this responding cross-defendant asubstantial factor in
causing any alleged injury or damage to cross-complainant, as alleged in its Cross-Complaint.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Duty)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that the acts complained of were not reasonably
foreseeable to this answering cross-defendant and therefore no duties were owed by thisanswering cross-
defendant to cross-complainant.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Negligence)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that the acts and conduct of this answering
cross-defendant, ifany, were at alltimes conducted by cross-defendant with reasonable care.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Good Faith)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that the acts and conduct of cross-defendant, if
any, were at all times conducted by cross-defendant in a good faith belief that his respective actions, if
any, were reasonable, justified, lawful and taken in good faith toward cross-complainant.
H/
Hf
Hf
-5-
Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises, Inc,
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Acts or Omissions)
WN
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
WY
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-complainant is barred in whole or in
-&_
part from relief because any loss or harm cross-complainant may have suffered was caused by acts or
nu
omissions of cross-complainant and/or plaintiffs, and was not caused or was not wholly caused by any act
“aD
or omission of this answering cross-defendant.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Fault)
10 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
11 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that any finding of
12 negligence/fault/responsibility against this answering cross-defendant should be compared to the
13 negligent/fault/responsibility of allother parties in this action, including plaintiffs, co-defendants, cross-
14 complainant, and co-cross-defendants herein.
15 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Acts or Omissions of Third Parties)
16
17 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s
18 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants are informed and believe that the damages or harm, if
19 any, sustained herein was the result of negligence, strictliability, fault and/or responsibility of persons,
20 corporations, partnerships, or entities other than this answering cross-defendant and the acts, omissions,
21 or liability of such were the sole proximate and legal cause of the alleged damage or harm, if any, claimed
22 in this action. In addition, this answering cross-defendant isinformed and believes and thereon alleges
23 that the alleged injuries or damages suffered by cross-complainant, ifany there be, were the sole and
24 proximate result of the willful misconduct of parties other than these answering cross-defendants.
25 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Fraud- CCP 1710)
26
27 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
28 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-complainant’s cause of action for
-6-
Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises,Inc.
fraud is without merit as cross-complainant cannot meet the elements of actionable fraud, as set forth in
California Code of Civil Procedure section 1710.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Fraud- Misrepresentations)
FS
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
WN
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that these answering cross-defendants denies
Wo
making any misrepresentations, but that ifany representations were made to cross-complainant, cross-
NN
defendants, in fact, believed them in good faith to be true at the time said representations, ifany, were
oo
made.
‘Oo
10 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Fraud- Suggestions)
11
12 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
13 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-defendants made no suggestions, as a
14 fact, of that which isnot true to cross-complainant, but if any suggestions were made, cross-defendants
15 believed them in good faith to be true at the time said suggestions, ifany, were made.
16 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Fraud-Assertions)
17
18 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
19 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-defendants made no false assertions
20 of fact to cross-complainant, but ifany assertions were made, cross-defendants had reasonable grounds
21 for believing them to be true at the time said assertions, ifany, were made.
22 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Fraud- Suppressing Facts)
23
24 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
25 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants denies suppressing any fact or facts and further denies
26 giving information of other facts which were likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact or
27 facts to cross-complainant or to any other party to this action.
28 HH
-7-
Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filed by Wilfley Enterprises, Inc.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Fraud- Promises)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-defendants made no promises to
cross-complainant, and even if they did, they did not make those promises without any intention of
performing any such promises.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Vicarious Liability)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
10 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that they did not authorize, ratify, encourage,
11 participate. in, aid or abet any of the alleged misconduct, if any.
12 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Vicarious Liability- No Agency)
13
14 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
15 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that they cannot be held liable for any actions of
16 any other cross-defendants inthis case, known orunknown, because such cross-defendants were not their
17 agents, representatives, or employees when they committed any of the alleged acts in the Cross-
18 Complaint, if they did commit any (which answering cross-defendant denies).
19 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Control/No Duty)
20
21 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
22 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that they retained no control over the premises
23 where the alleged accident occurred which resulted in the alleged injuries and damages to cross-
24 complainant, and owed no duty of care or any other duties to cross-complainants.
25 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Reasonable Acts)
26
27 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
28 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-complainant’s claims are barred
-8-
Trever Balzer and Sean F, Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises,Inc.
because any action taken to protect against risk of injury created by the alleged condition, or failure to
take such action, was reasonable, considering the time and opportunity available for taking such action
and the probability and gravity of potential injury to persons and property foreseeably exposed to the risk
of injury when weighed against the practicability and cost of protecting against such risk of such injury.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Notice)
HN
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
ns
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that they did not have actual or constructive
oOo
notice of the alleged defects, ifany, and if they did, such notice was not obtained long enough before the
oO
10 alleged damage to permit protective measures to be taken.
11 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Confidential Relationship)
12
13 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
14 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that these answering cross-defendants were not
15 involved in any confidential relationship with cross-complainant.
16 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Fiduciary Duty)
17
18 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
19 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that they did not owe cross-complainant any
20 fiduciary duties.
21 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Punitive/Exemplary Damages Improper)
22
23 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
24 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that plaintiffs’ claim for punitive/exemplary
25 damages is violative of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
26 State of California, and is not properly pled in accordance with California law, including but not limited
27 to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.13 and Civil Code Section 3294, and therefore fails to state a
28 cause of action supporting the punitive or exemplary damages claimed.
-9-
Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises,Inc.
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Breach/Discharge)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that Plaintiffs breached the terms of all
agreements and contracts referred to inthe Complaint thereby discharging and excusing these answering
Defendants from further performance of the terms thereof.
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Ratification)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s
causes of action, this answering cross-defendant asserts that cross-complainant, with full knowledge of all
11 the facts in any way connected with or relating to the matter alleged against this answering cross-
12 defendant in the Cross-Complaint, duly ratified, acquiesced, and confirmed inall respects the conduct and
13 actions of this answering cross-defendant alleged in the Cross-Complaint.
14 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Cross-Defendant's Duties Met)
15
16 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s
17 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that said answering cross-defendants have met
18 their duty of good faith and fair dealing.
19 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Full Performance)
20
21 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
22 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that they have fully performed all the conditions
23 and covenants required to be performed by these answering cross-defendants unless and until prevented
24 from doing so by cross-complainant or others.
25 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Mistake)
26
27 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
28 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that the Cross-Complaint and each cause of
-10-
Trever Balzer and Sean F, Gleason’s Answer to Cross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises, Inc.
action thereof is barred and no cause of action is stated because of a mutual and/or unilateral mistake of
the parties in entering the contract, ifany, described in the Cross-Complaint.
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(In Pari Delicto)
These answering cross-defendants hereby assert the affirmative defense of in pari delicto.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Assumption of the Risk)
AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that plaintiffs, in purchasing the subject
10 property, assumed the risks of the circumstances alleged to have caused the damages asserted in the
11 Complaint and therefore may not recover any relief.
12 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Misuse of Product)
13
14 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
15 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that, plaintiffs’ use of the property referenced in
16 the Complaint was negligent and/or dangerous, and that said misuse of the property by plaintiffs was the
17 proximate and legal result of plaintiffs' damages, ifany.
18 FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Incorporation by Reference)
19
20 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
21 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants hereby refer to allanswers, complaints, and/or cross-
22 complaints filed by these answering cross-defendants and/or other parties in this action and by such
23 reference incorporate the same herein as though fully realleged and set forth herein.
24 FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Reservation of Rights)
25
26 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s
27 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants reserve the right to make any and all applicable
28 defenses which will become available during discovery or trial.
-Il-
Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filedby Wilfiey Enterprises, Inc.
WHEREFORE, these answering cross-defendants pray judgment as follows:
1. That cross-complainant takes nothing by way of itsCross-Complaint,
2. That judgment be entered dismissing the Cross-Complaint and each cause of action against
these answering cross-defendants;
f
3. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit herein; and
wn
4, For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
HD
Dated: August 31, 2020
aN
AN EGMOND & HEITLINGER
1on
HS
\O
By bE Ag
10 Colleen I’. Wah
Fidshond
Amandaji.Heitlinger
11 Attorneys for TREVER BALZER
and SEAN F. GLEASON
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-[2-
Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises,Inc.
PROOF OF SERVICE
Iam employed in the County of Stanislaus; my business address is 1207 “I” Street, Modesto,
California 95354. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the foregoing action.
On September 1, 2020, I served the following document(s):
Answer to Cross-Complaint Filed by Wilfley Enterprises, Inc. Against
Trever Balzer and Sean F, Gleason
X__ By mail on the following party(ies) in said action, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure
DN
Section 1013a, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in the firm’s daily
mail processing center for mailing in the United States mail at Modesto, California.
nN
By personal delivering a true copy thereof; in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure
o
Section 1011, to the person(s) and at the address(es) set forth below.
Oo
By overnight delivery on the following party(ies) in said action, in accordance with Code
10 of Civil
envelope,
Procedure
with
Section
delivery fees
1013(c),
paid or
by placing
provided
a
for,
true
in a
copy thereof
designated
enclosed
area for
a sealed
outgoing overnight
11 mail, addressed as set forth below.
12 By facsimile transmission, by use of facsimile machine in accordance with Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1013(e) and California Rules of Court 2008(e), to the following party(ies)
13 at the facsimile number(s) indicated. This transmission was reported as complete and without
error.
14
15 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
16
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
17 true and correct and that this document was executed on September 1, 2020 at Modesto, California.
18
( WU bine?
19 Christi Souza
20 41792
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jerry Hawkins, et al. v. Trever Balzer, et al.
Placer County Superior Court Case No. SCV0041897
SERVICE LIST
aN
MN
HD
Frank R. Perrott, Esq. Debra L. Samuels, Esq.
Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP Samuels Law P.C.
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700 2281 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 300
a
Sacramento, CA 95833 Roseville, CA 95661
(916) 564-5400 (916) 254-5350
(916) 564-5444 — fax (916) 254-5351 — fax
Attorneys Jerry Hawkins and Shirley Hawkins Attorneys for Trifecta Real Estate Inc.
Preview
Colleen F. Van Egmond, SBN 242220 Amanda J. Heitlinger, SBN 271469 ELECTRONICALLY FILED ARATA, SWINGLE, VAN EGMOND & HEITLINGER Superior Court of California A Professional Law Corporation County ofPl ' 1207 I Street (95354) unty of Piacer Post Office Box 3287 09/01/2020 Modesto, California 95353 By: OliviaLucatuorto, Deputy Clerk Telephone: (209) 522-2211 Facsimile: (209) 522-2980 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Defendants/ Cross-Complainants: TREVER BALZER and SEAN F. GLEASON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER 10 JERRY HAWKINS and SHIRLEY HAWKINS Case No: SCV0041897 11 Plaintiffs, ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED BY WILFLEY ENTERPRISES, 12 VS. INC. AGAINST TREVER BALZER AND SEAN F, GLEASON 13 TREVER BALZER, MATTHEW J.ENRIQUEZ, and DOES 1 through 30, (Unlimited Civil Case - Amount Demanded 14 Exceeds $25,000) Defendants. 15 16 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. / 17 18 GENERAL DENIAL 19 Answering the allegations contained in each and every paragraph of each cause of action directed 20 to these answering cross-defendants in the Cross-Complaint of cross-complainant WILFLEY 21 ENTERPRISES, INC., pursuant to section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, cross- 22 defendant, TREVER BALZER and cross-defendant, SEAN F. GLEASON, deny each and every, all and 23 singular, conjunctively and disjunctively, allegations of the Cross-Complaint and further deny that cross- 24 complainant has been damaged in any sum(s) or at all, by reason of any act or omission on the part of 25 these answering cross-defendants, their agents, servants, or employees. 26 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 27 Cross-Defendants hereby asserts the following separate and distinct affirmative defenses to cross- 28 complainant’s Cross-Complaint but in doing so, does not assume any burden of production, proof, or -[- Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer to Cross-Complaint filed by Wilfley Enterprises, Inc. persuasion as to such defenses not otherwise imposed by law. Cross-Defendants reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as warranted by discovery in this action. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, to cross-complainant’s Cross- Complaint, these answering cross-defendants alleges that the Cross-Complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering cross-defendants upon which any type of relief may be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Uncertainty) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s Cross- Complaint and to each cause of action contained therein, these answering cross-defendants allege that the allegations and/or contentions contained in the Cross-Complaint, and all causes of action contained herein, contain allegations and references which are confusing, unintelligible and voluminous and are pled in such a vague, ambiguous and unintelligible manner that the Cross-Complaint and causes of action contained therein are rendered uncertain, thereby precluding relief. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s Cross- Complaint and each cause of action asserted therein, these answering cross-defendants assert that said causes of action are barred by all applicable statutes of limitations including, but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 337, 337.1, 337.15, 339, 343, et seq., and sections 800 et seq. of the California Civil Code. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that cross-complainant’s causes of action are barred by the application of the doctrine of laches. -2- Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer to Cross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises, Inc. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Real Party in Interest) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-complainant’s causes of action are barred in that cross-complainant has failed to sue in the name of the Real Party in Interest. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ND (Failure to Mitigate) ns AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s oOo causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-complainant has failed to take \o 10 reasonable actions to mitigate the injury or damage alleged in the Cross-Complaint, and any recovery 11 awarded should be reduced by the amount of damages that reasonably could have been avoided by cross- 12 complainant. 13 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) 14 15 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to cross-complainant’s Cross- 16 Complaint and each cause of action therein, this answering cross-defendant alleges that cross- 17 complainant’s Cross-Complaint and each cause of action therein is barred by application of the doctrine 18 of waiver. 19 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 20 21 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 22 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants alleges that cross-complainant’s causes of action are 23 barred by application of the doctrine of estoppel. 24 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 25 26 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 27 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants alleges that cross-complainant’s causes of action are 28 barred by application of the doctrine of unclean hands. -3- Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filed by Wilfley Enterprises, Inc. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Adequate Remedy at Law) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that any equitable relief sought herein is barred HS as cross-complainant has an adequate remedy at law. WN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DWN (Abuse of Process) NN AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s oo causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that the Cross-Complaint constitutes an abuse of \O 10 process. 11 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Join Indispensable Parties) 12 13 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 14 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-complainant’s Cross-Complaint, and 15 each cause of action alleged therein is barred, in whole or in part, because cross-complainant has failed to 16 join indispensable parties. 17 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Damages) 18 19 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 20 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that cross-complainant has have sustained no 21 damage, whatsoever, as a result of the conduct and events alleged in the Cross-Complaint. 22 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Speculative Damages) 23 24 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 25 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-complainant isbarred from relief, in 26 whole or in part, because the alleged damages, ifany, are speculative and impossible to ascertain. 27 Ii! 28 HII -4- Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises,Inc. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Factual and Legal Causation) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert the affirmative defense that cross-complainant’s Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action, alleged therein, is barred to the extent that cross- complainant’s alleged injury or damage was not factually, legally, or proximately caused by this responding cross-defendant nor was any conduct of this responding cross-defendant asubstantial factor in causing any alleged injury or damage to cross-complainant, as alleged in its Cross-Complaint. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Duty) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that the acts complained of were not reasonably foreseeable to this answering cross-defendant and therefore no duties were owed by thisanswering cross- defendant to cross-complainant. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Negligence) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that the acts and conduct of this answering cross-defendant, ifany, were at alltimes conducted by cross-defendant with reasonable care. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Good Faith) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that the acts and conduct of cross-defendant, if any, were at all times conducted by cross-defendant in a good faith belief that his respective actions, if any, were reasonable, justified, lawful and taken in good faith toward cross-complainant. H/ Hf Hf -5- Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises, Inc, NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Acts or Omissions) WN AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s WY causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-complainant is barred in whole or in -&_ part from relief because any loss or harm cross-complainant may have suffered was caused by acts or nu omissions of cross-complainant and/or plaintiffs, and was not caused or was not wholly caused by any act “aD or omission of this answering cross-defendant. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Fault) 10 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 11 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that any finding of 12 negligence/fault/responsibility against this answering cross-defendant should be compared to the 13 negligent/fault/responsibility of allother parties in this action, including plaintiffs, co-defendants, cross- 14 complainant, and co-cross-defendants herein. 15 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Acts or Omissions of Third Parties) 16 17 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s 18 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants are informed and believe that the damages or harm, if 19 any, sustained herein was the result of negligence, strictliability, fault and/or responsibility of persons, 20 corporations, partnerships, or entities other than this answering cross-defendant and the acts, omissions, 21 or liability of such were the sole proximate and legal cause of the alleged damage or harm, if any, claimed 22 in this action. In addition, this answering cross-defendant isinformed and believes and thereon alleges 23 that the alleged injuries or damages suffered by cross-complainant, ifany there be, were the sole and 24 proximate result of the willful misconduct of parties other than these answering cross-defendants. 25 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fraud- CCP 1710) 26 27 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 28 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-complainant’s cause of action for -6- Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises,Inc. fraud is without merit as cross-complainant cannot meet the elements of actionable fraud, as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 1710. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fraud- Misrepresentations) FS AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s WN causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that these answering cross-defendants denies Wo making any misrepresentations, but that ifany representations were made to cross-complainant, cross- NN defendants, in fact, believed them in good faith to be true at the time said representations, ifany, were oo made. ‘Oo 10 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fraud- Suggestions) 11 12 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 13 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-defendants made no suggestions, as a 14 fact, of that which isnot true to cross-complainant, but if any suggestions were made, cross-defendants 15 believed them in good faith to be true at the time said suggestions, ifany, were made. 16 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fraud-Assertions) 17 18 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 19 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-defendants made no false assertions 20 of fact to cross-complainant, but ifany assertions were made, cross-defendants had reasonable grounds 21 for believing them to be true at the time said assertions, ifany, were made. 22 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fraud- Suppressing Facts) 23 24 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 25 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants denies suppressing any fact or facts and further denies 26 giving information of other facts which were likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact or 27 facts to cross-complainant or to any other party to this action. 28 HH -7- Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filed by Wilfley Enterprises, Inc. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fraud- Promises) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-defendants made no promises to cross-complainant, and even if they did, they did not make those promises without any intention of performing any such promises. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Vicarious Liability) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 10 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that they did not authorize, ratify, encourage, 11 participate. in, aid or abet any of the alleged misconduct, if any. 12 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Vicarious Liability- No Agency) 13 14 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 15 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that they cannot be held liable for any actions of 16 any other cross-defendants inthis case, known orunknown, because such cross-defendants were not their 17 agents, representatives, or employees when they committed any of the alleged acts in the Cross- 18 Complaint, if they did commit any (which answering cross-defendant denies). 19 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Control/No Duty) 20 21 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 22 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that they retained no control over the premises 23 where the alleged accident occurred which resulted in the alleged injuries and damages to cross- 24 complainant, and owed no duty of care or any other duties to cross-complainants. 25 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Reasonable Acts) 26 27 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 28 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that cross-complainant’s claims are barred -8- Trever Balzer and Sean F, Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises,Inc. because any action taken to protect against risk of injury created by the alleged condition, or failure to take such action, was reasonable, considering the time and opportunity available for taking such action and the probability and gravity of potential injury to persons and property foreseeably exposed to the risk of injury when weighed against the practicability and cost of protecting against such risk of such injury. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Notice) HN AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s ns causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that they did not have actual or constructive oOo notice of the alleged defects, ifany, and if they did, such notice was not obtained long enough before the oO 10 alleged damage to permit protective measures to be taken. 11 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Confidential Relationship) 12 13 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 14 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that these answering cross-defendants were not 15 involved in any confidential relationship with cross-complainant. 16 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Fiduciary Duty) 17 18 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 19 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that they did not owe cross-complainant any 20 fiduciary duties. 21 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive/Exemplary Damages Improper) 22 23 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 24 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that plaintiffs’ claim for punitive/exemplary 25 damages is violative of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the 26 State of California, and is not properly pled in accordance with California law, including but not limited 27 to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.13 and Civil Code Section 3294, and therefore fails to state a 28 cause of action supporting the punitive or exemplary damages claimed. -9- Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises,Inc. THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Breach/Discharge) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that Plaintiffs breached the terms of all agreements and contracts referred to inthe Complaint thereby discharging and excusing these answering Defendants from further performance of the terms thereof. THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Ratification) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s causes of action, this answering cross-defendant asserts that cross-complainant, with full knowledge of all 11 the facts in any way connected with or relating to the matter alleged against this answering cross- 12 defendant in the Cross-Complaint, duly ratified, acquiesced, and confirmed inall respects the conduct and 13 actions of this answering cross-defendant alleged in the Cross-Complaint. 14 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Cross-Defendant's Duties Met) 15 16 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE toeach of cross-complainant’s 17 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants allege that said answering cross-defendants have met 18 their duty of good faith and fair dealing. 19 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Full Performance) 20 21 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 22 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that they have fully performed all the conditions 23 and covenants required to be performed by these answering cross-defendants unless and until prevented 24 from doing so by cross-complainant or others. 25 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Mistake) 26 27 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 28 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that the Cross-Complaint and each cause of -10- Trever Balzer and Sean F, Gleason’s Answer to Cross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises, Inc. action thereof is barred and no cause of action is stated because of a mutual and/or unilateral mistake of the parties in entering the contract, ifany, described in the Cross-Complaint. FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (In Pari Delicto) These answering cross-defendants hereby assert the affirmative defense of in pari delicto. FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Assumption of the Risk) AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that plaintiffs, in purchasing the subject 10 property, assumed the risks of the circumstances alleged to have caused the damages asserted in the 11 Complaint and therefore may not recover any relief. 12 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Misuse of Product) 13 14 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 15 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants assert that, plaintiffs’ use of the property referenced in 16 the Complaint was negligent and/or dangerous, and that said misuse of the property by plaintiffs was the 17 proximate and legal result of plaintiffs' damages, ifany. 18 FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Incorporation by Reference) 19 20 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 21 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants hereby refer to allanswers, complaints, and/or cross- 22 complaints filed by these answering cross-defendants and/or other parties in this action and by such 23 reference incorporate the same herein as though fully realleged and set forth herein. 24 FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Reservation of Rights) 25 26 AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to each of cross-complainant’s 27 causes of action, these answering cross-defendants reserve the right to make any and all applicable 28 defenses which will become available during discovery or trial. -Il- Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filedby Wilfiey Enterprises, Inc. WHEREFORE, these answering cross-defendants pray judgment as follows: 1. That cross-complainant takes nothing by way of itsCross-Complaint, 2. That judgment be entered dismissing the Cross-Complaint and each cause of action against these answering cross-defendants; f 3. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit herein; and wn 4, For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. HD Dated: August 31, 2020 aN AN EGMOND & HEITLINGER 1on HS \O By bE Ag 10 Colleen I’. Wah Fidshond Amandaji.Heitlinger 11 Attorneys for TREVER BALZER and SEAN F. GLEASON 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -[2- Trever Balzer and Sean F. Gleason’s Answer toCross-Complaint filedby Wilfley Enterprises,Inc. PROOF OF SERVICE Iam employed in the County of Stanislaus; my business address is 1207 “I” Street, Modesto, California 95354. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the foregoing action. On September 1, 2020, I served the following document(s): Answer to Cross-Complaint Filed by Wilfley Enterprises, Inc. Against Trever Balzer and Sean F, Gleason X__ By mail on the following party(ies) in said action, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure DN Section 1013a, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in the firm’s daily mail processing center for mailing in the United States mail at Modesto, California. nN By personal delivering a true copy thereof; in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure o Section 1011, to the person(s) and at the address(es) set forth below. Oo By overnight delivery on the following party(ies) in said action, in accordance with Code 10 of Civil envelope, Procedure with Section delivery fees 1013(c), paid or by placing provided a for, true in a copy thereof designated enclosed area for a sealed outgoing overnight 11 mail, addressed as set forth below. 12 By facsimile transmission, by use of facsimile machine in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013(e) and California Rules of Court 2008(e), to the following party(ies) 13 at the facsimile number(s) indicated. This transmission was reported as complete and without error. 14 15 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 17 true and correct and that this document was executed on September 1, 2020 at Modesto, California. 18 ( WU bine? 19 Christi Souza 20 41792 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jerry Hawkins, et al. v. Trever Balzer, et al. Placer County Superior Court Case No. SCV0041897 SERVICE LIST aN MN HD Frank R. Perrott, Esq. Debra L. Samuels, Esq. Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP Samuels Law P.C. 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700 2281 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 300 a Sacramento, CA 95833 Roseville, CA 95661 (916) 564-5400 (916) 254-5350 (916) 564-5444 — fax (916) 254-5351 — fax Attorneys Jerry Hawkins and Shirley Hawkins Attorneys for Trifecta Real Estate Inc.