Preview
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F4441A6-509E-4A1B-8B84-C3F8A9DB1BAB
Electronically Filed
11/17/2020 11:13 PM
Superior Court of California
1 Armando S. Mendez, SBN 203909 County of Stanislaus
1231 8th Street, Suite 600 Clerk of the Court
2 Modesto, CA. 95354 By: Marie Brillon, Deputy
Telephone: (209)622-0600
3
Fax: (916) 405-3554 $435 PD
4
E-Mail: Amendezlaw@aol.com
Attorneys for Defendants Francisca Gonzalez and Michael Anthony Lentini
5
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
6 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
7 THOMAS E. CHAFEE, SUE A. CHAFFEE Case No: CV-20-002758
8 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT FRANCISCA GONZALEZ
vs. and MICHAEL ANTHONY LENTINI’s
9
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
FRANCISCA GONZALEZ, MICHAEL AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
10
ANTHONY LENTINI; and DOES 1-25, DECLARATORY RELIEF TO
11 Inclusive, DETERMINE EXISTENCE OF
EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION
12 Defendants,
13
14
Defendants FRANCISCA GONZALEZ and MICHAEL ANTHONY LENTINI (Collectively
15
DEFENDANTS) answers Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief to
Determine Existence of Easement by Prescription (Complaint) as follows:
16
17 GENERAL DENIAL
18 Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30 DEFENDANTS deny
generally each and every allegation of the Complaint and the whole thereof and denies that the
19 Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief, right or sustained any damages by reason of any act, error,
and /or omission on the part of DEFENDANTS.
20
21
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
22
As separate and distinct affirmative defenses to the Complaint on file herein, DEFENDANTS,
23 allege as follows:
24 I
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25
The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action.
Defendant FRANCISCA GONZALEZ and MICHAEL ANTHONY LENTINI’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint. - 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F4441A6-509E-4A1B-8B84-C3F8A9DB1BAB
1
II
2 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3
Plaintiffs had a duty to mitigate, minimize, or prevent damages, if any there were, and they have
4
failed and refused to do so.
5 III
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6
The allegations in the Complaint are barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
7
IV
8 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9
The allegations in the Complaint are barred by the doctrine of waiver.
10
V
11 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 Other parties, individuals and entities were a sole and/or contributing cause in and about the
matters alleged in the Complaint, and that actions on the part of said others proximately caused
13 or contributed to the happening of the incident, and to the alleged injuries, losses and/or damages
against this answering Defendants. Defendant is therefore entitled to have the amount of losses
14 or damages proven by the Plaintiff to be abated, reduced, or eliminated in proportion to the
percentage of contributing conduct of said others.
15
VI
16
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17
The allegations in the Complaint are barred by the doctrine of laches.
18
VII
19 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 The acts, omissions, losses and damages of which Plaintiffs complain were caused solely by
other persons or entities over which this answering DEFENDANTS had no control.
21
VIII
22
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23
The allegations in the Complaint are barred because DEFENDANTS had at all times mentioned
24 in the Complaint exclusive ownership, use, possession and control of the subject disputed real
property and any use by Plaintiffs has been merely permissive and by consent of
25 DEFENDANTS.
Defendant FRANCISCA GONZALEZ and MICHAEL ANTHONY LENTINI’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint. - 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F4441A6-509E-4A1B-8B84-C3F8A9DB1BAB
1
IX
2 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3
The allegations in the Complaint are barred because DEFENDANTS have at all times mentioned
4
in the Complaint timely paid all state, county, or municipal taxes on the subject disputed real
property.
5
X
6 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 The allegations in the Complaint are barred because Plaintiffs cannot establish that they have
ever timely paid all state, county, or municipal taxes on the subject disputed real property.
8
XI
9
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10
The allegations in the Complaint are barred because Plaintiffs’ use of the subject disputed real
11 property is merely permissive and only by virtue of the consent of DEFENDANTS.
12 XII
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13
The Complaint, and each and every cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the applicable
14 statute of limitations. (California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 318, 319, 320, 321, 325)
15
XIII
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16
17 Plaintiff’s own intentional and/or negligent acts proximately caused or contributed to the claims
raised by Plaintiffs and to the alleged injuries, losses or damages if any there were. Plaintiff’s
18 intentional and/or negligent acts bar or proportionately reduce any potential recovery.
19 XIV
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20
The allegations in the Complaint are barred because Plaintiffs’ use of the subject disputed real
21 property was not open and notorious; hostile to DEFENDANTS for a continuous and
uninterrupted period of five years.
22
23
XV
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24
The allegations in the Complaint are barred because Plaintiffs have no claim of right to the
25 subject disputed real property.
Defendant FRANCISCA GONZALEZ and MICHAEL ANTHONY LENTINI’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint. - 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F4441A6-509E-4A1B-8B84-C3F8A9DB1BAB
1
XVI
2 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3
The allegations in the Complaint are barred because Plaintiffs do not need or require any portion
4
of the subject disputed real property for purposes of ingress or egress to, or from, their own real
property
5
6 XVII
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7
The allegations in the Complaint are barred because Plaintiffs are seek an exclusive easement in
8 their favor in violation of settled California law. Harrison v. Welch, 116 Cal. App. 4th 1084
(2004). Should Plaintiffs seek to establish what the law does not allow DEFENDANTS shall
9
seek an award of attorney fees by way of sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 128.5
10
and 128.7
11
12 WHEREFORE, DEFENDANTS pray for judgment as follows:
13 1. That Plaintiffs be granted no relief in this action;
2. For costs herein incurred as allowed by law;
14 3. For reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in defending against the Complaint,
4. Attorney Fees and Costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 128.5 and 128.7
15
5. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper
16
17 Respectfully Submitted,
18
11/17/2020
19 Date:_______________________ _____________________________
Armando S. Mendez
20 Attorney for Defendants
FRANCISCA GONZALEZ and
21 MICHAEL ANTHONY LENTINI
22
23
24
25
Defendant FRANCISCA GONZALEZ and MICHAEL ANTHONY LENTINI’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint. - 4
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F4441A6-509E-4A1B-8B84-C3F8A9DB1BAB