Preview
Electronically Filed
1 GREG T. MINO, ESQ. (SBN 173597) 1/11/2021 3:20 PM
TIZA SERRANO THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES Superior Court of California
2 Employees of the Law Department
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company County of Stanislaus
3 980 9th Street, Suite 2250 Clerk of the Court
Sacramento, CA 95814 By: Mouang Saechao, Deputy
4 Telephone: (916) 561-2780
Facsimile: (855) 886-5559 $435 PAID
5 Email: greg.mino@statefarm.com
6 Attorneys for Defendants
Brian Allen Szuggar II, Brianne Nichole Szuggar, and Brian Szuggar
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS COUNTY / UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
11 JANET CROSTHWAITE, NO. CV-20-004947
12 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR
13 v. JURY TRIAL
14 BRIAN ALLEN SZUGGAR II, BRIANNE
NICHOLE SZUGGAR AND BRIAN
15 SZUGGAR, AND DOES 1 TO 25,
INCLUSIVE,
16
Defendants.
17
18 Defendants, BRIAN ALLEN SZUGGAR II, BRIANNE NICHOLE SZUGGAR, AND
19 BRIAN SZUGGAR, in answer to the Unverified Complaint filed by Plaintiff, JANET
20 CROSTHWAITE, herein admit, deny and allege as follows:
21 Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State
22 of California, these answering defendants deny, generally and specifically, all and singular,
23 each and every allegation contained in the Unverified Complaint of Plaintiff herein, and the
24 whole thereof, and specifically deny that Plaintiff has been injured or damaged as alleged
25 herein, or in any other sum or manner, or otherwise or at all.
26 1. AS A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
27 Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that Plaintiff was careless and
28 negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that said
-1-
_______________________________________
Answer to Unverified Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial
1 carelessness and negligence on Plaintiff's own part proximately contributed to the
2 happening of the incident in question, and to the injuries, loss, and damages complained
3 of, if there were any.
4 2. AS A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each
5 alleged Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that the injuries and
6 damages complained of by Plaintiff, if there were any, were either wholly or in part directly
7 and proximately caused by the negligence of persons or entities other than these
8 answering defendants, and said negligence comparatively reduces the proportion of
9 negligence and corresponding liability of these answering defendants.
10 3. AS A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
11 Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that said Complaint fails to
12 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering defendants or
13 at all.
14 4. AS A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each
15 alleged Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that the injuries, loss
16 and damages complained of, if there were any, were increased by the failure of Plaintiff to
17 use reasonable diligence to mitigate them.
18 5. AS A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
19 Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that if liability is assessed
20 against them, pursuant to Civil Code Section 1431 et seq., these answering defendants
21 shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to them in direct
22 proportion to the percentage of fault assessed against them by the trier of fact and request
23 that a separate judgment be rendered against them for that amount.
24 6. AS A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged
25 Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that the Complaint and each
26 Cause of Action alleged therein is barred by California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1
27 and/or the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, California Code of
28 Civil Procedure §§337, 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340.3 and 343.
-2-
_______________________________________
Answer to Unverified Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial
1 7. AS A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each
2 alleged Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that Plaintiff knew, or
3 in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the risk and hazards involved in
4 the undertaking in which she engaged, but nevertheless and with full knowledge of these
5 things did fully and voluntarily consent to assume the risk and hazards involved in this
6 undertaking, thereby assuming all risks of any injuries and damages, if any, referred to in
7 the Complaint.
8 8. AS AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each
9 alleged Cause of Action, these answering defendants are informed and believe that at all
10 times mentioned herein Plaintiff was in the course and scope of her employment and that
11 Plaintiff's exclusive remedy lies within the workers’ compensation laws; or, in the
12 alternative, the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were caused or contributed to by the
13 carelessness, negligence or other fault of Plaintiff's employer and/or said employer’s
14 agents, servants or employees and that from any award made to Plaintiff these defendants
15 are entitled to a credit, set-off or reduction in damages in an amount in direct proportion to
16 said employer’s and/or said employer’s agents’, servants’ or employees’ percentage of
17 fault pursuant to the rule of Witt v. Jackson.
18 WHEREFORE, these answering defendants pray that Plaintiff takes nothing by
19 reason of her Complaint, that these answering defendants have judgment for their costs
20 of suit incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
21 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants, Brianne Nichole Szuggar, Brian Szuggar
22 and Brian Allen Szuggar, demand a jury trial and have deposited jury fees in the amount
23 of $150 with the court pursuant to CCP Section 631.
24 Dated: January 11, 2021 TIZA SERRANO THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES
25
26 Greg T. Mino
Attorneys for Defendants
27 Brian Allen Szuggar II, Brianne Nichole
Szuggar, and Brian Szuggar
28 Electronic signature pursuant to Civil Code §1633.7(d).
-3-
_______________________________________
Answer to Unverified Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
Crosthwaite v. Szuggar
3 Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. CV-20-004947
4 I, the undersigned, declare that I am a resident of the United States; employed
in the City of Sacramento and County of Sacramento, State of California; over the age
5 of 18 years; not a party to the within entitled cause; and my business address is 980
6 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
7 On January 11, 2021, I served the within document(s),
8 ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
9
10
on the interested parties in this action as follows:
11
Attorney(s) for Plaintiff Janet
12 Crosthwaite
Frederick Sette
13 Sette Law
707 Commons Drive, Suite 103
14
Sacramento, CA 95825
15 Email: info@settelaw.com;
fred@settelaw.com
16
17
[ x ] ONLY BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION - Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §
18 1010.6(e)(1), I served a true copy of the aforementioned document(s) via electronic mail on the
parties in said action by transmitting by e-mail to the e-mail addresses as set forth above on this
19 date before 5:00 p.m. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the submission.
20
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
22 the above is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on January 11,
23 2021, at Sacramento, California.
24
25 Elisabeth Stilwell
26
27
28
-1-
_____________________________________
Proof of Service
Preview
Electronically Filed 1 GREG T. MINO, ESQ. (SBN 173597) 1/11/2021 3:20 PM TIZA SERRANO THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES Superior Court of California 2 Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company County of Stanislaus 3 980 9th Street, Suite 2250 Clerk of the Court Sacramento, CA 95814 By: Mouang Saechao, Deputy 4 Telephone: (916) 561-2780 Facsimile: (855) 886-5559 $435 PAID 5 Email: greg.mino@statefarm.com 6 Attorneys for Defendants Brian Allen Szuggar II, Brianne Nichole Szuggar, and Brian Szuggar 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS COUNTY / UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 11 JANET CROSTHWAITE, NO. CV-20-004947 12 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR 13 v. JURY TRIAL 14 BRIAN ALLEN SZUGGAR II, BRIANNE NICHOLE SZUGGAR AND BRIAN 15 SZUGGAR, AND DOES 1 TO 25, INCLUSIVE, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Defendants, BRIAN ALLEN SZUGGAR II, BRIANNE NICHOLE SZUGGAR, AND 19 BRIAN SZUGGAR, in answer to the Unverified Complaint filed by Plaintiff, JANET 20 CROSTHWAITE, herein admit, deny and allege as follows: 21 Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State 22 of California, these answering defendants deny, generally and specifically, all and singular, 23 each and every allegation contained in the Unverified Complaint of Plaintiff herein, and the 24 whole thereof, and specifically deny that Plaintiff has been injured or damaged as alleged 25 herein, or in any other sum or manner, or otherwise or at all. 26 1. AS A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged 27 Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that Plaintiff was careless and 28 negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and that said -1- _______________________________________ Answer to Unverified Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 1 carelessness and negligence on Plaintiff's own part proximately contributed to the 2 happening of the incident in question, and to the injuries, loss, and damages complained 3 of, if there were any. 4 2. AS A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each 5 alleged Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that the injuries and 6 damages complained of by Plaintiff, if there were any, were either wholly or in part directly 7 and proximately caused by the negligence of persons or entities other than these 8 answering defendants, and said negligence comparatively reduces the proportion of 9 negligence and corresponding liability of these answering defendants. 10 3. AS A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged 11 Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that said Complaint fails to 12 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering defendants or 13 at all. 14 4. AS A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each 15 alleged Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that the injuries, loss 16 and damages complained of, if there were any, were increased by the failure of Plaintiff to 17 use reasonable diligence to mitigate them. 18 5. AS A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged 19 Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that if liability is assessed 20 against them, pursuant to Civil Code Section 1431 et seq., these answering defendants 21 shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to them in direct 22 proportion to the percentage of fault assessed against them by the trier of fact and request 23 that a separate judgment be rendered against them for that amount. 24 6. AS A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each alleged 25 Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that the Complaint and each 26 Cause of Action alleged therein is barred by California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 27 and/or the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, California Code of 28 Civil Procedure §§337, 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340.3 and 343. -2- _______________________________________ Answer to Unverified Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 1 7. AS A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each 2 alleged Cause of Action thereof, these answering defendants allege that Plaintiff knew, or 3 in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the risk and hazards involved in 4 the undertaking in which she engaged, but nevertheless and with full knowledge of these 5 things did fully and voluntarily consent to assume the risk and hazards involved in this 6 undertaking, thereby assuming all risks of any injuries and damages, if any, referred to in 7 the Complaint. 8 8. AS AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each 9 alleged Cause of Action, these answering defendants are informed and believe that at all 10 times mentioned herein Plaintiff was in the course and scope of her employment and that 11 Plaintiff's exclusive remedy lies within the workers’ compensation laws; or, in the 12 alternative, the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were caused or contributed to by the 13 carelessness, negligence or other fault of Plaintiff's employer and/or said employer’s 14 agents, servants or employees and that from any award made to Plaintiff these defendants 15 are entitled to a credit, set-off or reduction in damages in an amount in direct proportion to 16 said employer’s and/or said employer’s agents’, servants’ or employees’ percentage of 17 fault pursuant to the rule of Witt v. Jackson. 18 WHEREFORE, these answering defendants pray that Plaintiff takes nothing by 19 reason of her Complaint, that these answering defendants have judgment for their costs 20 of suit incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. 21 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants, Brianne Nichole Szuggar, Brian Szuggar 22 and Brian Allen Szuggar, demand a jury trial and have deposited jury fees in the amount 23 of $150 with the court pursuant to CCP Section 631. 24 Dated: January 11, 2021 TIZA SERRANO THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES 25 26 Greg T. Mino Attorneys for Defendants 27 Brian Allen Szuggar II, Brianne Nichole Szuggar, and Brian Szuggar 28 Electronic signature pursuant to Civil Code §1633.7(d). -3- _______________________________________ Answer to Unverified Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Crosthwaite v. Szuggar 3 Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. CV-20-004947 4 I, the undersigned, declare that I am a resident of the United States; employed in the City of Sacramento and County of Sacramento, State of California; over the age 5 of 18 years; not a party to the within entitled cause; and my business address is 980 6 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. 7 On January 11, 2021, I served the within document(s), 8 ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 9 10 on the interested parties in this action as follows: 11 Attorney(s) for Plaintiff Janet 12 Crosthwaite Frederick Sette 13 Sette Law 707 Commons Drive, Suite 103 14 Sacramento, CA 95825 15 Email: info@settelaw.com; fred@settelaw.com 16 17 [ x ] ONLY BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION - Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 18 1010.6(e)(1), I served a true copy of the aforementioned document(s) via electronic mail on the parties in said action by transmitting by e-mail to the e-mail addresses as set forth above on this 19 date before 5:00 p.m. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the submission. 20 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 22 the above is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on January 11, 23 2021, at Sacramento, California. 24 25 Elisabeth Stilwell 26 27 28 -1- _____________________________________ Proof of Service