Preview
Electronically Filed
8/7/2020 5:32 PM
Superior Court of California
County of Stanislaus
1 David J. Frankenberger, #186140
Carol Ann M. Seita, #300705 Clerk of the Court
2 ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT By: Erin Barnett, Deputy
Attorneys at Law
3 2440 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 101
Fresno, California 93711 $435 paid
4 Phone (559) 449-2600
Fax (559) 449-2603
5
Attorneys for Defendant(s) Dragon Products, LLC, Dragon Products PES, Inc. Dragon Products
6 Group, LLC
7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
11
12 RYAN LIMA, JR., an individual; ) Case No. CV-20-000378
)
13 )
Plaintiff, ) DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC,
14 ) DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, INC.
v. ) DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S
15 ) ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’
J.JESUS MUNOZ VELASCO, an individual; ) COMPLAINT
16 )
KOOGER FARMS, LLC, a limited liability )
17 company; ROBERT TREY CHEYENNE )
FLETCHER, an individual; HENRY D. )
18 MORRIS JR., an individual, AMERICAN )
RIVER AG, INC., corporation; SUZANNE E. )
19
TYLER, an individual; VICTOR DE ANDA, an )
)
20 individual; MARGARITA DE ANDA, an )
individual; KELLY E. POWERS, an individual; )
21 BARBARA JEANETTE BOEGE, an )
individual; PAUL WEGNER, an individual; )
22
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, a government )
)
23 entity; CITY OF MODESTO, a government )
entity; THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
24 including but not limited to CALTRANS and )
THE DEPARTMENT OF )
25
TRANSPORTATION, a government entity; )
)
26 VANTAGE TRAILERS, INC, a corporation; )
and DOES 1-400 INCLUSIVE; )
27 )
Defendants. )
28
1
__________________________________________________________________
DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 COME NOW, defendants DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PES,
2 INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC (“Defendants”) and for an Answer to the unverified
3 Complaint on file herein, admits, denies and alleges as follows:
4 Under the provisions of Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, these
5 answering defendants deny each and every and all of the allegations in said Complaint, and each
6 cause of action thereof, and the whole thereof, and further deny that Plaintiff has sustained
7 damages in any sum or sums whatsoever or at all.
8 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
9 Without assuming the burden of proof with respect to the matters asserted, for further
10 and separate answer to the Complaint, and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants allege as
11 follows upon information and belief:
12 AS FOR A FIRST SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering defendants
13 allege that the plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this matter before this Court.
14 AS AND FOR A SECOND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering
15 defendants allege that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against these answering
16 defendants.
17
AS AND FOR A THIRD SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering
18
defendants are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the plaintiff has failed to mitigate
19
the damages complained of, if any, and are therefore barred from recovery of damages flowing
from said failure to mitigate.
20
AS AND FOR A FOURTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering
21
defendants allege that plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by the relevant statute of limitations
22
provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to §§ 335.1, 337,
23
338, 339 and 340, or any other statute of limitations applicable to the present action.
24
AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering defendants allege
25
that plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by equitable the doctrine of judicial estoppel.
26
AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering defendants allege
27
that, by conduct, representations and omissions, plaintiff is equitably estopped from asserting any
28
2
__________________________________________________________________
DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 claim for relief as against these answering defendants respecting the matters which are the subject
2 of the Complaint.
3 AS AND FOR A SEVENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering
4 defendants allege that Plaintiff’s delayed and waited an unreasonable period in commencing this
5 action, which has unduly prejudiced Defendants.
6 AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering
7 defendants allege that Plaintiff failed to take adequate precaution that would have avoided and/or
8 diminished his injuries and damages, if any, including failing to wear a proper seat belt.
9 AS AND FOR A NINTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering
10 defendants allege that the alleged contract on which the causes of action in the Complaint are
11 based, or portions thereof, is void or voidable as a matter of law.
12 AS AND FOR A TENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering
13 defendants allege they are entitled to an offset in an amount equal to the amount of monies which
14 Plaintiffs’ health care providers received, or would have received had a claim been made, from any
15 insurer(s) affording coverage for Plaintiff, and for monies Plaintiff received from Defendants or on
16 behalf of Defendants.
17 AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these
18 answering defendants allege that plaintiff would be unjustly enriched if allowed to recover under
19 the Complaint.
20 AS AND FOR A TWELFTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering
21 defendants alleges that they exercised due diligence and relied in good faith on the representations
22 of others, and was not aware, nor had any way of becoming aware, of any alleged wrongdoing or
23 omission.
24 AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering defendants
25 allege that the damages alleged in Complaint, and each purported cause of action contained or
26 described in said Complaint, have been reimbursed to said Plaintiff by collateral sources according
27 to the provisions of California Civil Code § 3333.1.
28 ///
3
__________________________________________________________________
DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering
2 defendants allege that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against these answering
3 Defendants as they are not successors in interest to any cause of action against any other defendant
4 to this action.
5 AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering defendants
6 allege that at all times and places set forth in the Complaint, any injuries, damages or loss, if any,
7 for which Plaintiff seeks recovery, Plaintiff is barred from such recovery for damages from any
8 breach of implied or express warranty that were part of a valid disclaimer by any Defendant to this
9 action.
10 AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering defendants
11 allege that the damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were excessive, exaggerated,
12 unreasonable, speculative, inflated or otherwise unnecessary and/or unrelated to the alleged
13 incident.
14 AS AND FOR AN SEVENTEENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these
15 answering defendants allege that plaintiff was negligent in and about the matters complained of
16 and is therefore either barred entirely from recovery or may not recover damages to the extent of
17 their own degree of fault.
18 AS AND FOR A EIGHTEENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these
19 answering defendants assert that the products did not contain a dangerous or defective condition,
20 which in any manner may have contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.
21 AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these
22 answering defendants allege that the damages complained of by plaintiff if any there were, were
23 proximately caused by the negligence of other parties, and that said negligence comparatively
24 reduces the percentage of fault of these answering defendants, which negligence is expressly
25 denied.
26 AS AND FOR A TWENTIETH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these
27 answering defendants allege that if any liability or responsibility is found on the part of answering
28 defendants, which liability is expressly denied, said liability, if any, of these answering defendants
4
__________________________________________________________________
DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 for non-economic damages shall be several only, and shall not be joint, and these answering
2 defendants shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to it in direct
3 proportion to its percentage of fault, if any, and a separate judgment, if any there is,shall be
4 rendered against said defendants for that amount only, pursuant to Civil Code §1431.2.
5 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, the
6 damages alleged (which are denied by answering defendants) were sustained as a result of an
7 intervening or superseding cause, barring any recovery against answering defendants.
8 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering
9 defendants alleges that any and all conditions in the product described in the Complaint, if any
10 there were, were solely a result of the failure to properly maintain and service the products.
11 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-THIRD SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these
12 answering defendants allege that each of the causes of action in plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state
13 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering defendants.
14 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these
15 answering defendants allege the condition of the products did not create a substantial risk of harm
16 of injury to foreseeable users who used due care.
17 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these
18 answering defendants allege they did not breach any duties, if any, to Plaintiff, thereby barring
19 and/or precluding Plaintiff from recovery.
20 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these
21 answering defendants allege there was no affirmative conduct on the part of Defendants, which
22 allegedly caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and therefore Plaintiff has no cause of
23 action against Defendants.
24 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these
25 answering defendants allege upon information and belief, at all times during the design,
26 manufacture, assembly, and inspection of alleged defective product, the same were in compliance
27 with all applicable federal and state legislative regulatory laws and standards or administrative
28 regulatory safety standards relating to the design and manufacture of the product at issue, and
5
__________________________________________________________________
DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
therefore, Plainti‘ may not recover against Defendants.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY—EIGHTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these
answering defendants allege that they did not assume any rights, responsibilities, and or liabilities
of any other palty to this action, therefore Plaintiff cannot recover against Defendants.
WHEREFORE, these answering defendants pray that nothing be taken by said Complaint,
for attorney’s fees and costs of suit incurred herein, and for any and all other relief that the Court
deems just and proper.
DATED: August 7, 2020 ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT
10
11
12
MW v
David J. Frankenberger
Carol Ann M. Seita
Attorneys for Dragon Products,
l3 LLC, Dragon Products PES, Inc.
Dragon Products Group, LLC
14
15
l6
17
18
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY 0F FRESNO )
I am a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the
Within action; my business address is: 2440 West Shaw, Suite 101, Fresno, CA 9371 1-3300. 1am
familiar with the regular mail collection and processing practices of said business, and in the
31;de course of business the mail is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same
y.
On August 7, 2020, I served the within DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON
10 PRODUCTS PES, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER T0
11
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT by electronic transmission. Itransmitted a PDF version of this
document by electronic mail to the party(ies) identied below using the e-mail address(es)
12 indicated.
13
14
Attorney for Plaintiff, Rvgn Lim_a_
15 Otto L. Haselhoff, P.C.
Law Ofces of Otto L. Haselhoff
16 201 Wilshire Boulevard, Second Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
l7
Ofce: (800) 667—1880
18 Mobile: (310) 995-6886
Email: otto@olhpc.com
l9
20
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California the above is true
21
and correct.
22
Executed on August 7, 2020, at Fresno, California.
23
24
Terri Delgado
25
26
27
28
7
DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PBS, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Preview
Electronically Filed 8/7/2020 5:32 PM Superior Court of California County of Stanislaus 1 David J. Frankenberger, #186140 Carol Ann M. Seita, #300705 Clerk of the Court 2 ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT By: Erin Barnett, Deputy Attorneys at Law 3 2440 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 101 Fresno, California 93711 $435 paid 4 Phone (559) 449-2600 Fax (559) 449-2603 5 Attorneys for Defendant(s) Dragon Products, LLC, Dragon Products PES, Inc. Dragon Products 6 Group, LLC 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 11 12 RYAN LIMA, JR., an individual; ) Case No. CV-20-000378 ) 13 ) Plaintiff, ) DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, 14 ) DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, INC. v. ) DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S 15 ) ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’ J.JESUS MUNOZ VELASCO, an individual; ) COMPLAINT 16 ) KOOGER FARMS, LLC, a limited liability ) 17 company; ROBERT TREY CHEYENNE ) FLETCHER, an individual; HENRY D. ) 18 MORRIS JR., an individual, AMERICAN ) RIVER AG, INC., corporation; SUZANNE E. ) 19 TYLER, an individual; VICTOR DE ANDA, an ) ) 20 individual; MARGARITA DE ANDA, an ) individual; KELLY E. POWERS, an individual; ) 21 BARBARA JEANETTE BOEGE, an ) individual; PAUL WEGNER, an individual; ) 22 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, a government ) ) 23 entity; CITY OF MODESTO, a government ) entity; THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 24 including but not limited to CALTRANS and ) THE DEPARTMENT OF ) 25 TRANSPORTATION, a government entity; ) ) 26 VANTAGE TRAILERS, INC, a corporation; ) and DOES 1-400 INCLUSIVE; ) 27 ) Defendants. ) 28 1 __________________________________________________________________ DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 COME NOW, defendants DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, 2 INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC (“Defendants”) and for an Answer to the unverified 3 Complaint on file herein, admits, denies and alleges as follows: 4 Under the provisions of Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, these 5 answering defendants deny each and every and all of the allegations in said Complaint, and each 6 cause of action thereof, and the whole thereof, and further deny that Plaintiff has sustained 7 damages in any sum or sums whatsoever or at all. 8 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 9 Without assuming the burden of proof with respect to the matters asserted, for further 10 and separate answer to the Complaint, and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants allege as 11 follows upon information and belief: 12 AS FOR A FIRST SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering defendants 13 allege that the plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this matter before this Court. 14 AS AND FOR A SECOND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering 15 defendants allege that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against these answering 16 defendants. 17 AS AND FOR A THIRD SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering 18 defendants are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the plaintiff has failed to mitigate 19 the damages complained of, if any, and are therefore barred from recovery of damages flowing from said failure to mitigate. 20 AS AND FOR A FOURTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering 21 defendants allege that plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by the relevant statute of limitations 22 provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to §§ 335.1, 337, 23 338, 339 and 340, or any other statute of limitations applicable to the present action. 24 AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering defendants allege 25 that plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by equitable the doctrine of judicial estoppel. 26 AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering defendants allege 27 that, by conduct, representations and omissions, plaintiff is equitably estopped from asserting any 28 2 __________________________________________________________________ DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 claim for relief as against these answering defendants respecting the matters which are the subject 2 of the Complaint. 3 AS AND FOR A SEVENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering 4 defendants allege that Plaintiff’s delayed and waited an unreasonable period in commencing this 5 action, which has unduly prejudiced Defendants. 6 AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering 7 defendants allege that Plaintiff failed to take adequate precaution that would have avoided and/or 8 diminished his injuries and damages, if any, including failing to wear a proper seat belt. 9 AS AND FOR A NINTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering 10 defendants allege that the alleged contract on which the causes of action in the Complaint are 11 based, or portions thereof, is void or voidable as a matter of law. 12 AS AND FOR A TENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering 13 defendants allege they are entitled to an offset in an amount equal to the amount of monies which 14 Plaintiffs’ health care providers received, or would have received had a claim been made, from any 15 insurer(s) affording coverage for Plaintiff, and for monies Plaintiff received from Defendants or on 16 behalf of Defendants. 17 AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these 18 answering defendants allege that plaintiff would be unjustly enriched if allowed to recover under 19 the Complaint. 20 AS AND FOR A TWELFTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering 21 defendants alleges that they exercised due diligence and relied in good faith on the representations 22 of others, and was not aware, nor had any way of becoming aware, of any alleged wrongdoing or 23 omission. 24 AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering defendants 25 allege that the damages alleged in Complaint, and each purported cause of action contained or 26 described in said Complaint, have been reimbursed to said Plaintiff by collateral sources according 27 to the provisions of California Civil Code § 3333.1. 28 /// 3 __________________________________________________________________ DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering 2 defendants allege that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against these answering 3 Defendants as they are not successors in interest to any cause of action against any other defendant 4 to this action. 5 AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering defendants 6 allege that at all times and places set forth in the Complaint, any injuries, damages or loss, if any, 7 for which Plaintiff seeks recovery, Plaintiff is barred from such recovery for damages from any 8 breach of implied or express warranty that were part of a valid disclaimer by any Defendant to this 9 action. 10 AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering defendants 11 allege that the damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were excessive, exaggerated, 12 unreasonable, speculative, inflated or otherwise unnecessary and/or unrelated to the alleged 13 incident. 14 AS AND FOR AN SEVENTEENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these 15 answering defendants allege that plaintiff was negligent in and about the matters complained of 16 and is therefore either barred entirely from recovery or may not recover damages to the extent of 17 their own degree of fault. 18 AS AND FOR A EIGHTEENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these 19 answering defendants assert that the products did not contain a dangerous or defective condition, 20 which in any manner may have contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. 21 AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these 22 answering defendants allege that the damages complained of by plaintiff if any there were, were 23 proximately caused by the negligence of other parties, and that said negligence comparatively 24 reduces the percentage of fault of these answering defendants, which negligence is expressly 25 denied. 26 AS AND FOR A TWENTIETH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these 27 answering defendants allege that if any liability or responsibility is found on the part of answering 28 defendants, which liability is expressly denied, said liability, if any, of these answering defendants 4 __________________________________________________________________ DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 1 for non-economic damages shall be several only, and shall not be joint, and these answering 2 defendants shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to it in direct 3 proportion to its percentage of fault, if any, and a separate judgment, if any there is,shall be 4 rendered against said defendants for that amount only, pursuant to Civil Code §1431.2. 5 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, the 6 damages alleged (which are denied by answering defendants) were sustained as a result of an 7 intervening or superseding cause, barring any recovery against answering defendants. 8 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering 9 defendants alleges that any and all conditions in the product described in the Complaint, if any 10 there were, were solely a result of the failure to properly maintain and service the products. 11 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-THIRD SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these 12 answering defendants allege that each of the causes of action in plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state 13 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering defendants. 14 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these 15 answering defendants allege the condition of the products did not create a substantial risk of harm 16 of injury to foreseeable users who used due care. 17 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these 18 answering defendants allege they did not breach any duties, if any, to Plaintiff, thereby barring 19 and/or precluding Plaintiff from recovery. 20 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these 21 answering defendants allege there was no affirmative conduct on the part of Defendants, which 22 allegedly caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and therefore Plaintiff has no cause of 23 action against Defendants. 24 AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these 25 answering defendants allege upon information and belief, at all times during the design, 26 manufacture, assembly, and inspection of alleged defective product, the same were in compliance 27 with all applicable federal and state legislative regulatory laws and standards or administrative 28 regulatory safety standards relating to the design and manufacture of the product at issue, and 5 __________________________________________________________________ DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT therefore, Plainti‘ may not recover against Defendants. AS AND FOR A TWENTY—EIGHTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, these answering defendants allege that they did not assume any rights, responsibilities, and or liabilities of any other palty to this action, therefore Plaintiff cannot recover against Defendants. WHEREFORE, these answering defendants pray that nothing be taken by said Complaint, for attorney’s fees and costs of suit incurred herein, and for any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper. DATED: August 7, 2020 ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT 10 11 12 MW v David J. Frankenberger Carol Ann M. Seita Attorneys for Dragon Products, l3 LLC, Dragon Products PES, Inc. Dragon Products Group, LLC 14 15 l6 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PES, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY 0F FRESNO ) I am a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the Within action; my business address is: 2440 West Shaw, Suite 101, Fresno, CA 9371 1-3300. 1am familiar with the regular mail collection and processing practices of said business, and in the 31;de course of business the mail is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same y. On August 7, 2020, I served the within DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON 10 PRODUCTS PES, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER T0 11 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT by electronic transmission. Itransmitted a PDF version of this document by electronic mail to the party(ies) identied below using the e-mail address(es) 12 indicated. 13 14 Attorney for Plaintiff, Rvgn Lim_a_ 15 Otto L. Haselhoff, P.C. Law Ofces of Otto L. Haselhoff 16 201 Wilshire Boulevard, Second Floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 l7 Ofce: (800) 667—1880 18 Mobile: (310) 995-6886 Email: otto@olhpc.com l9 20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California the above is true 21 and correct. 22 Executed on August 7, 2020, at Fresno, California. 23 24 Terri Delgado 25 26 27 28 7 DRAGON PRODUCTS, LLC, DRAGON PRODUCTS PBS, INC. DRAGON PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT