Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California,
Robert K. Phillips [SBN 135088]
Priya Navaratnasingham [SBN 252686
Count yo9f Blac er
06/:
PHILLIPS, SPALLAS & ANGSTADT, LLP
505 Sansome Street, Sixth Floor jy: Marina Olivarez Fuentes, Deputy Clert
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 278-9400
Facsimile: (415) 278-9411
Attorneys for Defendant, ROBERT M. BAUER
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
KIMBERLY F. SILVA, an individual Case No.: S-CV-0044896
1]
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT ROBERT M. BAUER’S
12 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY
v F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT
13
14 ROBERT M. BAUER, an individual; and
DOES 1 — 20, inclusive, Complaint Filed: May 15, 2020
15 Trial Date: None Set.
Defendants.
16
17
COMES NOW Defendant ROBERT M. BAUER (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), and
18
answers Plaintiff's Complaint on file herein for himself and no other defendant as follows:
19
Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every, all and singular, allegation
20
contained in the Complaint, and in each cause of action thereof. Defendant further denies that
21
Plaintiff has been injured or damaged in any sum, or at all, by reason of any act or omission on the
22
part of Defendant or of his agents or employees, if any.
23
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24
Defendant contends that the Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action
25
contained therein, fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
26
//1
27
//1
28
1
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant contends that each cause of action asserted in Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the
statute of limitations as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §§ 335.1, 337.1, 337.15, and 340.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant contends that Plaintiff was concurrently and contributorily negligent in and about
the matters referred to in the Complaint on file herein, and that said carelessness and negligence on
Plaintiff's own part proximately and directly contributed to and caused the injuries, loss, and damages
complained of by Plaintiff, if any there were.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 Defendant contends that the injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiff, if any there were,
1] were either wholly or in part proximately caused by negligence or other wrongful acts or omissions of
12 persons or entities other than Defendant, and that said negligence or wrongful acts or omissions either
13 are imputed to Plaintiff by reason of her relationship with said persons or entities, or comparatively
14 reduces the proportion of negligence and corresponding liability of Defendant, if any, which liability
15 is specifically denied.
16 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 Defendant contends that if liability is assessed against him, pursuant to Civil Code § 1431 et.
18 seq., Defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to him in
19 direct proportion to the percentage of fault assessed against him by the trier of fact and request that a
20 separate judgment be rendered against him for that amount; but Defendant, in setting forth this
21 affirmative defense, makes no admission that he is liable to Plaintiff in any amount or in any
22 proportion; and Defendant, in setting forth this affirmative defense, makes no admission that Plaintiff
23 have been damaged in any sum or sums at all.
24 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to avoid loss
26 and to minimize and mitigate her damages, if any, and that this failure alone aggravated any damages
27 or injuries to Plaintiff, if any there were, and therefore precludes or reduces recovery against
28 Defendant.
2
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant contends that Plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have
known of the risks and hazards involved in the undertaking in which she was engaged, but
nevertheless and with full knowledge of these things, did fully and voluntarily consent to assume the
risks and hazards involved in the undertaking.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant contends that, pursuant to Government Code §830.2, the risk, if any, created by the
alleged dangerous condition was of such a minor, trivial or insignificant nature in view of the
surrounding circumstances that no reasonable person would conclude that the condition created a
10 substantial risk of injury when such property or adjacent property was used with due care in a manner
1] in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used.
12 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 Defendant contends that the events, injuries, losses, and damages, if any, complained of were
14 the result of an unavoidable accident insofar as Defendant is concerned, and occurred without any
15 negligence, want of care, default, or other breach of duty to Plaintiff on the part of Defendant.
16 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 Defendant contends that Plaintiff's exclusive remedy for her alleged injuries lies under the
18 provisions of the California Workers’ Compensation Act, California Labor Code § 3600 et. seg.
19 Defendant further contends that the action of Plaintiff's employer(s) was the sole proximate cause of
20 Plaintiff's injuries. As such, Defendant is entitled to a credit for the amount of worker’s compensation
21 payments made by Plaintiff's employer(s) to Plaintiff, pursuant to Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d
22 57, and their progeny.
23 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 The provisions of the “Fair Responsibility Act of 1986" (commonly known as Proposition 51),
25 Civil Code §§ 1430, 1431, 1431.1, 1431.2, 1431.3, 1431.4, 1431.5 and 1432, are applicable to this
26 action to the extent that Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, were legally caused or contributed to
27 by the negligence or fault of persons or entities other than Defendant.
28 //1
3
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant contends that any and all conduct of which Plaintiff complains and which is
attributed to Defendant or his agents or employees was a just and proper exercise of management
discretion on the part of Defendant and his agents and employees, undertaken for a fair and honest
reason and regulated by good faith under the circumstances then existing.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant contends that any loss or damage suffered by Plaintiff was caused, in whole or in
part, by Plaintiff's own conduct and negligence, acts or omissions.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 Defendant contends that Plaintiff is estopped by action of law and/or by conduct from asserting
1] and maintaining each and every cause of action asserted in her Complaint.
12 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 Defendant contends that this court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and
14 of each claim asserted therein.
15 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 As a result of Plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in bringing this action, without good cause
17 therefore, in addition to other unreasonable acts and omissions, Plaintiff has waived each or some of
18 the claims asserted in the Complaint.
19 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 Defendant contends that Plaintiff directed, approved and/or consented to Defendant’s conduct,
21 thereby barring Plaintiff from seeking the relief prayed for in her Complaint.
22 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 Defendant contends that if Plaintiff suffered any injury or damage as a result of the conduct
24 they attribute to Defendant, prior to the incident giving rise to this action, Plaintiff was aware of the
25 risks and hazards, if any, at the time and place of the incident, and that whatever the conditions were at
26 such time and place, they were obvious, discernible, and were in fact known to and by Plaintiff, and
27 that Plaintiff nonetheless freely and voluntarily consented to assume and did assume the risks and
28 hazards, if any there were.
4
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant contends that the conduct complained of, if it actually occurred, was permissible
because an overriding business purpose existed which made the conduct necessary for the safe and
efficient operation of Defendant’s business, which purpose could not be accomplished by a reasonable
accommodation, and even if it could, such accommodation would pose an undue hardship on
Defendant.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant contends that Plaintiff's injuries, if any there were, were caused in whole or in part
by third parties not under the control of Defendant, and that Defendant had no reason to anticipate the
10 actions of said third persons who caused Plaintiffs alleged injuries. Defendant further contend that
1] pursuant to Frances T. Village Green Owners Assoc., (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 490, 501, and their progeny,
12 they had no duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of any third party, since such
13 conduct could not be reasonably anticipated by Defendant.
14 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 Defendant contends that he is entitled to indemnification, either in whole or in part, from all
16 persons or entities whose negligence and/or fault proximately contributed to Plaintiff's damages, if
17 any. Defendant hereby reserves the right to pursue and settle any and all indemnity claims it may
18 have in this action, including declaratory relief.
19 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 Defendant contends that he is entitled to a defense, either in whole or in part, from all persons
21 or entities whose negligence and/or fault proximately contributed to Plaintiffs damages, if any.
22 Defendant hereby reserves the right to pursue and settle any and all claims to a defense it may have in
23 this action, including declaratory relief.
24 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 Defendant contends that Plaintiffs Complaint in its entirety is defective and/or fails to join a
26 necessary party.
27 //1
28 //
5
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT
] TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 Defendant alleges that presently he has insufficient knowledge or information on which to
3 || form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant
4 reserves herein the right to assert additional defenses in the event that discovery indicates that such
5 additional defenses are applicable.
6 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment against Plaintiff
as follows:
7 1 For dismissal of this action, with prejudice;
2 For attorneys’ fees, costs, and expert witness fees incurred in defense of this action; and
3 For such other, further relief, as this Court may deem just and proper.
10
1]
DATED: June 25, 2020 PHILLIPS, SPALLAS & ANGSTADT LLP
13
14
By WwW
Robert K. Phillips
Priya Navaratnasingham
15 Attorneys for Defendant, ROBERT M. BAUER
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT
PROOF OF SERVICE
Kimberly
F. Silva v. Robert M. Bauer, et al.
Placer County Superior Court Case No. S-CV-0044896
I, the undersigned, declare:
I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and am
not a party to the within action. My business address is PHILLIPS, SPALLAS & ANGSTADT LLP, 505
Sansome Street, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111.
On June 25, 2020, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
**% SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST ***
on all other parties and/ or their attorney(s) of record to this action as follows:
10 BY MAIL SERVICE: by placing such envelopes for collection and to be mailed on this date
following ordinary business practices.
11
By FACSIMILE: By faxing a copy of the above-referenced document(s) to the addressee at the
12 number set forth beneath their above-listed address. At the completion of the transm: 5 a
Transmission Report was generated, confirming transmission and receipt by the address(es).
13 By E-MAIL: ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Only by e-mailing the
document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es). This is necessitated during the declared
14 National Emergency due to the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic because this office will be
working remotely, not able to send physi 1 ma sual, and is therefore using only electronic
15 mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was
received within a reasonable time after the transr jon.
16
By PERSONAL DELIVERY: By personally delivering a true copy thereof to the person(s)
17 and at the address(es) set forth below.
By OVERNIGHT DELIVERY (FedEx): At the address(es) listed herein below
18 by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with a label (billed to our account)
affixed to the envelope. I am readily familiar with my office business practice for collection and
19 processing of correspondence for FedEx and the within correspondence will be deposited with
FedEx on this date in the ordinary course of business.
20
Sean Banfsheh, Kevin Danesh, Owili K. Eison
21 BANAFSHEH, DANESH & JAVID, PC
9701 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
22 Beverly Hills, California 90212
Phone: (310) 887-1818
23 Fax: (310) 887-1880
Email: sb@bhattorneys.com; kd@bhattorneys.com;
24
oe@bhattorneys.com
25
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
26
and correct. Executed on June 25, 2020 at San Leandro, California.
27 yo
YO
28
SERVICE LIST
DEFENDANT ROBERT M. BAUER’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY F.
SILVA’S COMPLAINT
DEFENDANT ROBERT M. BAUER’S CROSS-COMPLAINT
DEFENDANT ROBERT M. BAUER’S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND NOTICE OF
POSTING JURY FEES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, Robert K. Phillips [SBN 135088] Priya Navaratnasingham [SBN 252686 Count yo9f Blac er 06/: PHILLIPS, SPALLAS & ANGSTADT, LLP 505 Sansome Street, Sixth Floor jy: Marina Olivarez Fuentes, Deputy Clert San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 278-9400 Facsimile: (415) 278-9411 Attorneys for Defendant, ROBERT M. BAUER SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 KIMBERLY F. SILVA, an individual Case No.: S-CV-0044896 1] Plaintiff, DEFENDANT ROBERT M. BAUER’S 12 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY v F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT 13 14 ROBERT M. BAUER, an individual; and DOES 1 — 20, inclusive, Complaint Filed: May 15, 2020 15 Trial Date: None Set. Defendants. 16 17 COMES NOW Defendant ROBERT M. BAUER (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), and 18 answers Plaintiff's Complaint on file herein for himself and no other defendant as follows: 19 Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every, all and singular, allegation 20 contained in the Complaint, and in each cause of action thereof. Defendant further denies that 21 Plaintiff has been injured or damaged in any sum, or at all, by reason of any act or omission on the 22 part of Defendant or of his agents or employees, if any. 23 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 Defendant contends that the Complaint, and each and every purported cause of action 25 contained therein, fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 26 //1 27 //1 28 1 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant contends that each cause of action asserted in Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the statute of limitations as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §§ 335.1, 337.1, 337.15, and 340. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant contends that Plaintiff was concurrently and contributorily negligent in and about the matters referred to in the Complaint on file herein, and that said carelessness and negligence on Plaintiff's own part proximately and directly contributed to and caused the injuries, loss, and damages complained of by Plaintiff, if any there were. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 Defendant contends that the injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiff, if any there were, 1] were either wholly or in part proximately caused by negligence or other wrongful acts or omissions of 12 persons or entities other than Defendant, and that said negligence or wrongful acts or omissions either 13 are imputed to Plaintiff by reason of her relationship with said persons or entities, or comparatively 14 reduces the proportion of negligence and corresponding liability of Defendant, if any, which liability 15 is specifically denied. 16 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 Defendant contends that if liability is assessed against him, pursuant to Civil Code § 1431 et. 18 seq., Defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to him in 19 direct proportion to the percentage of fault assessed against him by the trier of fact and request that a 20 separate judgment be rendered against him for that amount; but Defendant, in setting forth this 21 affirmative defense, makes no admission that he is liable to Plaintiff in any amount or in any 22 proportion; and Defendant, in setting forth this affirmative defense, makes no admission that Plaintiff 23 have been damaged in any sum or sums at all. 24 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to avoid loss 26 and to minimize and mitigate her damages, if any, and that this failure alone aggravated any damages 27 or injuries to Plaintiff, if any there were, and therefore precludes or reduces recovery against 28 Defendant. 2 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant contends that Plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the risks and hazards involved in the undertaking in which she was engaged, but nevertheless and with full knowledge of these things, did fully and voluntarily consent to assume the risks and hazards involved in the undertaking. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant contends that, pursuant to Government Code §830.2, the risk, if any, created by the alleged dangerous condition was of such a minor, trivial or insignificant nature in view of the surrounding circumstances that no reasonable person would conclude that the condition created a 10 substantial risk of injury when such property or adjacent property was used with due care in a manner 1] in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used. 12 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 Defendant contends that the events, injuries, losses, and damages, if any, complained of were 14 the result of an unavoidable accident insofar as Defendant is concerned, and occurred without any 15 negligence, want of care, default, or other breach of duty to Plaintiff on the part of Defendant. 16 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 Defendant contends that Plaintiff's exclusive remedy for her alleged injuries lies under the 18 provisions of the California Workers’ Compensation Act, California Labor Code § 3600 et. seg. 19 Defendant further contends that the action of Plaintiff's employer(s) was the sole proximate cause of 20 Plaintiff's injuries. As such, Defendant is entitled to a credit for the amount of worker’s compensation 21 payments made by Plaintiff's employer(s) to Plaintiff, pursuant to Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 22 57, and their progeny. 23 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 The provisions of the “Fair Responsibility Act of 1986" (commonly known as Proposition 51), 25 Civil Code §§ 1430, 1431, 1431.1, 1431.2, 1431.3, 1431.4, 1431.5 and 1432, are applicable to this 26 action to the extent that Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, were legally caused or contributed to 27 by the negligence or fault of persons or entities other than Defendant. 28 //1 3 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant contends that any and all conduct of which Plaintiff complains and which is attributed to Defendant or his agents or employees was a just and proper exercise of management discretion on the part of Defendant and his agents and employees, undertaken for a fair and honest reason and regulated by good faith under the circumstances then existing. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant contends that any loss or damage suffered by Plaintiff was caused, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff's own conduct and negligence, acts or omissions. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 Defendant contends that Plaintiff is estopped by action of law and/or by conduct from asserting 1] and maintaining each and every cause of action asserted in her Complaint. 12 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 Defendant contends that this court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and 14 of each claim asserted therein. 15 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 As a result of Plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in bringing this action, without good cause 17 therefore, in addition to other unreasonable acts and omissions, Plaintiff has waived each or some of 18 the claims asserted in the Complaint. 19 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 Defendant contends that Plaintiff directed, approved and/or consented to Defendant’s conduct, 21 thereby barring Plaintiff from seeking the relief prayed for in her Complaint. 22 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 Defendant contends that if Plaintiff suffered any injury or damage as a result of the conduct 24 they attribute to Defendant, prior to the incident giving rise to this action, Plaintiff was aware of the 25 risks and hazards, if any, at the time and place of the incident, and that whatever the conditions were at 26 such time and place, they were obvious, discernible, and were in fact known to and by Plaintiff, and 27 that Plaintiff nonetheless freely and voluntarily consented to assume and did assume the risks and 28 hazards, if any there were. 4 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant contends that the conduct complained of, if it actually occurred, was permissible because an overriding business purpose existed which made the conduct necessary for the safe and efficient operation of Defendant’s business, which purpose could not be accomplished by a reasonable accommodation, and even if it could, such accommodation would pose an undue hardship on Defendant. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant contends that Plaintiff's injuries, if any there were, were caused in whole or in part by third parties not under the control of Defendant, and that Defendant had no reason to anticipate the 10 actions of said third persons who caused Plaintiffs alleged injuries. Defendant further contend that 1] pursuant to Frances T. Village Green Owners Assoc., (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 490, 501, and their progeny, 12 they had no duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of any third party, since such 13 conduct could not be reasonably anticipated by Defendant. 14 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 Defendant contends that he is entitled to indemnification, either in whole or in part, from all 16 persons or entities whose negligence and/or fault proximately contributed to Plaintiff's damages, if 17 any. Defendant hereby reserves the right to pursue and settle any and all indemnity claims it may 18 have in this action, including declaratory relief. 19 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 Defendant contends that he is entitled to a defense, either in whole or in part, from all persons 21 or entities whose negligence and/or fault proximately contributed to Plaintiffs damages, if any. 22 Defendant hereby reserves the right to pursue and settle any and all claims to a defense it may have in 23 this action, including declaratory relief. 24 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 Defendant contends that Plaintiffs Complaint in its entirety is defective and/or fails to join a 26 necessary party. 27 //1 28 // 5 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT ] TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 Defendant alleges that presently he has insufficient knowledge or information on which to 3 || form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant 4 reserves herein the right to assert additional defenses in the event that discovery indicates that such 5 additional defenses are applicable. 6 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment against Plaintiff as follows: 7 1 For dismissal of this action, with prejudice; 2 For attorneys’ fees, costs, and expert witness fees incurred in defense of this action; and 3 For such other, further relief, as this Court may deem just and proper. 10 1] DATED: June 25, 2020 PHILLIPS, SPALLAS & ANGSTADT LLP 13 14 By WwW Robert K. Phillips Priya Navaratnasingham 15 Attorneys for Defendant, ROBERT M. BAUER 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE Kimberly F. Silva v. Robert M. Bauer, et al. Placer County Superior Court Case No. S-CV-0044896 I, the undersigned, declare: I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and am not a party to the within action. My business address is PHILLIPS, SPALLAS & ANGSTADT LLP, 505 Sansome Street, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111. On June 25, 2020, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: **% SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST *** on all other parties and/ or their attorney(s) of record to this action as follows: 10 BY MAIL SERVICE: by placing such envelopes for collection and to be mailed on this date following ordinary business practices. 11 By FACSIMILE: By faxing a copy of the above-referenced document(s) to the addressee at the 12 number set forth beneath their above-listed address. At the completion of the transm: 5 a Transmission Report was generated, confirming transmission and receipt by the address(es). 13 By E-MAIL: ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es). This is necessitated during the declared 14 National Emergency due to the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic because this office will be working remotely, not able to send physi 1 ma sual, and is therefore using only electronic 15 mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transr jon. 16 By PERSONAL DELIVERY: By personally delivering a true copy thereof to the person(s) 17 and at the address(es) set forth below. By OVERNIGHT DELIVERY (FedEx): At the address(es) listed herein below 18 by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with a label (billed to our account) affixed to the envelope. I am readily familiar with my office business practice for collection and 19 processing of correspondence for FedEx and the within correspondence will be deposited with FedEx on this date in the ordinary course of business. 20 Sean Banfsheh, Kevin Danesh, Owili K. Eison 21 BANAFSHEH, DANESH & JAVID, PC 9701 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 22 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Phone: (310) 887-1818 23 Fax: (310) 887-1880 Email: sb@bhattorneys.com; kd@bhattorneys.com; 24 oe@bhattorneys.com 25 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true 26 and correct. Executed on June 25, 2020 at San Leandro, California. 27 yo YO 28 SERVICE LIST DEFENDANT ROBERT M. BAUER’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY F. SILVA’S COMPLAINT DEFENDANT ROBERT M. BAUER’S CROSS-COMPLAINT DEFENDANT ROBERT M. BAUER’S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28