Preview
LAW OFFICES OF MELANIE D. JOHNSON Electronically Filed
1234567009
1798 Technology Drive, Ste 238 3/1/2021 8:52 AM
San Jose, CA 951 10~1399 Superior Court of California
Telephone: (408) 392-6972 County of Stanislaus
By: EMILY A. MAHONEY Clerk of the Court
State Bar No. 314948
By: Nicole Nelson, Deputy
Our File No. 05084040841
Attorneys for Defendant(s):
DANIELA ESPINOZA and ANTONIO C. ESPINOZA
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS —
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10 BENNY AMIRFAR, CASE NO. CV-20-002843
11 Plaintiff,
ANSWER T0 COMPLAINT
12 vs.
13 DANIELA ESPINOZA, ANTONIO C.
ESPINOZA and DOES 1 to 100,
l4
Defendants.
15
Defendant(s), DANIELA ESPINOZA, allege(s) as follows:
l6
1. The Defendant(s), DANIELA ESPINOZA, answering all the paragraphs in the
17
unverified Complaint herein and by virtue of the provisions of the California Code of Civil
18
Procedure Section 431.30, now generally denies/deny each and every allegation therein contained
19
and the whole thereof.
2222222
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2. That the cause of action stated in the Complaint herein is barred by the provisions
of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 335 .1, of the. For actions arising out of accidents
occurring before January 1, 2003, former California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340
subdivision 3 applies.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. That the Complaint on file herein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
27
of action entitling each and every Plaintiff to prejudgment interest.
28
1
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. Each and every Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action against any answering party herein.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5. That the Complaint is barred by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 474
and case law interpreting said Code.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. That at the alleged time and place in question, each and every Plaintiff so
negligently and carelessly acted as to proximately cause and contribute to the happening of the
10 accident complained of, and to whatever injury or damage, if any, each and every Plaintiff claims
11 to have sustained therefrom.
12 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 7. That if any Plaintiff(s) received any injuries, and/0r damages, if any, as a result of
l4 the accident complained of herein, then said Plaintiff(s) proximately caused, aggravated and/or
15 failed to take proper action to mitigate and/or reduce sa'id injuries if any, or damages, if any.
16 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 8. Defendant(s) liability, if any, for each and every Plaintiff(s) non—economic
18 damages, is limited to Defendant(s) proportionate share of fault in accordance With California
l9 Civil Code Section 1431.2.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
222
9. If it should be found that any answering party herein is in any manner legally
responsible for injuries or damages, if any, sustained by any Plaintiff(s), which supposition is not
23 admitted but merely stated for the purpose of this defense, that any such injuries or damages
24 found to have been incurred or suffered by said Plaintiff(s) in this action was proximately
25 contributed to or by other Defendant(s) or Cross-Defendant(s) in this case, whether served or not
26 served and/or by other persons or companies, whether made patties to this action or not, be
27 determined and prorated, and that any judgment that might be rendered against any answering
28 party herein be reduced not only by that degree of contributory negligence and/or assumption of
2
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
risk
1234567009
found to exist as to any Plaintiffls), but also a‘s to the total of that degree of negligence
and/or fault found to exist as to said other persons or companies.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10. At all times relevant on and before the date of the accident alleged herein, each
and every Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the particular danger, if any there was, involved in
the activities referred to in the Complaint, and knew and understood the degree of the risk
involved, and is therefore barred from recovery of any damages as a matter of law.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11. Defendant(s) are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times
lO Plaintiff is/are barred from recovering non—economic damages pursuant to the “Personal
ll Responsibility Act of 1996," amending the California Civil Code adding Sections 3333.3 and
12 3333.4 and applicable California Vehicle Code Sections.
l3 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
l4 12. Defendant’(s) liability is limited pursuant to California Vehicle Code section
15 17151.
16 Each and every Plaintiff, having the freedom to make a choice as to what action to take,
l7 voluntarily assumed said risks, if any there was, in the activities referred to in the Complaint.
18 This affinnative defense is interposed to the Complaint of each and every Plaintiff in its entirety
19 and separately as to each individual cause of action or count therein although not restated under
20 separate headings as to each cause of action or count.
21 WHEREFORE, Defendant(s) pray(s) that Plaintiff(s) take nothing by reason of the
22 Complaint and that Defendant(s) be given judgment for costs of suit incurred herein and for such
23 other and further relief as the Court may deemjust and proper.
24 DATED: February 17, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF MELANIE D. JOHNSON
25
26
27
«amp/«r
28
EMILY A. MAHONEY
Attorney for Defendant(s) DANIELA
ESPINOZA and ANTONIO ESPINOZA
3
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
PROOF 0F SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
1234567890123456789012345678
ICCP 1010.61azgzggAui1, 1010.6(an211A21ii), CRC 2.251gczg3), 2.25119“
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, I am over the age of
eighteen (18) years, and not a party to the Within action; my business address is 1798
Technology Drive, Ste 238, San Jose, CA 95110-1399.
That the necessity resulting from Executive Order N—33—20 (also referred to as the
“Stay-at-Home Order“) issued on March 19, 2020, by the Governor of the State of
California in response to the Covid-19 virus which has presented a national emergency as
declared the President of the United
1111111111222222222
by States, has resulted in this office’s use of remote
working stafi' members and the interruption of our normal capabilities to accept, dispatch
and process physical mail causing the use of electronic service as this office’s principal
means of diSpatch.
On Februfl l7, 2021, I caused the within ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, DEMAND
FOR JURY, SPECIAL INTEROGATORIES, JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM
INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION
AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS on the party or parties named on the attached mailing
list to be served, by dispatching a true and correct copy thereof via electronic mail (e—mail)
addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST.
20 No electronic message or other notice that the transmission electronically sent was
21 unsuccessfully dispatched, was received within a reasonable period after the transmission.
22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
23 foregoing Proof of Service is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on February
24 17, 2021, at San Jose, California.
n1
25
26
27
By:
Tien T. Luong
28 Email: SanJoseLegal@alZstate.com
PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
1234567009
PROOF OF SERVICE E-MAILING LIST
Amirfar vs. Espinoza & Espinoza
Case No. CV—20-002843
Peter B. Tiemann (SBN 195875)
TIEMANN LAW FIRM
701 University Avenue, Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95 825
TELEPHONE NO.: (916) 999-9000
FAX NO.: (916) 985-0500
Email: felicia@tiemannlawfinn.com
10
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
BENNY AMIRFAR
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
2222
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF 0F SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
Preview
LAW OFFICES OF MELANIE D. JOHNSON Electronically Filed 1234567009 1798 Technology Drive, Ste 238 3/1/2021 8:52 AM San Jose, CA 951 10~1399 Superior Court of California Telephone: (408) 392-6972 County of Stanislaus By: EMILY A. MAHONEY Clerk of the Court State Bar No. 314948 By: Nicole Nelson, Deputy Our File No. 05084040841 Attorneys for Defendant(s): DANIELA ESPINOZA and ANTONIO C. ESPINOZA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF STANISLAUS — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 BENNY AMIRFAR, CASE NO. CV-20-002843 11 Plaintiff, ANSWER T0 COMPLAINT 12 vs. 13 DANIELA ESPINOZA, ANTONIO C. ESPINOZA and DOES 1 to 100, l4 Defendants. 15 Defendant(s), DANIELA ESPINOZA, allege(s) as follows: l6 1. The Defendant(s), DANIELA ESPINOZA, answering all the paragraphs in the 17 unverified Complaint herein and by virtue of the provisions of the California Code of Civil 18 Procedure Section 431.30, now generally denies/deny each and every allegation therein contained 19 and the whole thereof. 2222222 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. That the cause of action stated in the Complaint herein is barred by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 335 .1, of the. For actions arising out of accidents occurring before January 1, 2003, former California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340 subdivision 3 applies. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. That the Complaint on file herein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause 27 of action entitling each and every Plaintiff to prejudgment interest. 28 1 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. Each and every Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against any answering party herein. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. That the Complaint is barred by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 474 and case law interpreting said Code. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. That at the alleged time and place in question, each and every Plaintiff so negligently and carelessly acted as to proximately cause and contribute to the happening of the 10 accident complained of, and to whatever injury or damage, if any, each and every Plaintiff claims 11 to have sustained therefrom. 12 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 7. That if any Plaintiff(s) received any injuries, and/0r damages, if any, as a result of l4 the accident complained of herein, then said Plaintiff(s) proximately caused, aggravated and/or 15 failed to take proper action to mitigate and/or reduce sa'id injuries if any, or damages, if any. 16 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 8. Defendant(s) liability, if any, for each and every Plaintiff(s) non—economic 18 damages, is limited to Defendant(s) proportionate share of fault in accordance With California l9 Civil Code Section 1431.2. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 222 9. If it should be found that any answering party herein is in any manner legally responsible for injuries or damages, if any, sustained by any Plaintiff(s), which supposition is not 23 admitted but merely stated for the purpose of this defense, that any such injuries or damages 24 found to have been incurred or suffered by said Plaintiff(s) in this action was proximately 25 contributed to or by other Defendant(s) or Cross-Defendant(s) in this case, whether served or not 26 served and/or by other persons or companies, whether made patties to this action or not, be 27 determined and prorated, and that any judgment that might be rendered against any answering 28 party herein be reduced not only by that degree of contributory negligence and/or assumption of 2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT risk 1234567009 found to exist as to any Plaintiffls), but also a‘s to the total of that degree of negligence and/or fault found to exist as to said other persons or companies. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. At all times relevant on and before the date of the accident alleged herein, each and every Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the particular danger, if any there was, involved in the activities referred to in the Complaint, and knew and understood the degree of the risk involved, and is therefore barred from recovery of any damages as a matter of law. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11. Defendant(s) are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times lO Plaintiff is/are barred from recovering non—economic damages pursuant to the “Personal ll Responsibility Act of 1996," amending the California Civil Code adding Sections 3333.3 and 12 3333.4 and applicable California Vehicle Code Sections. l3 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE l4 12. Defendant’(s) liability is limited pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 15 17151. 16 Each and every Plaintiff, having the freedom to make a choice as to what action to take, l7 voluntarily assumed said risks, if any there was, in the activities referred to in the Complaint. 18 This affinnative defense is interposed to the Complaint of each and every Plaintiff in its entirety 19 and separately as to each individual cause of action or count therein although not restated under 20 separate headings as to each cause of action or count. 21 WHEREFORE, Defendant(s) pray(s) that Plaintiff(s) take nothing by reason of the 22 Complaint and that Defendant(s) be given judgment for costs of suit incurred herein and for such 23 other and further relief as the Court may deemjust and proper. 24 DATED: February 17, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF MELANIE D. JOHNSON 25 26 27 «amp/«r 28 EMILY A. MAHONEY Attorney for Defendant(s) DANIELA ESPINOZA and ANTONIO ESPINOZA 3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PROOF 0F SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION 1234567890123456789012345678 ICCP 1010.61azgzggAui1, 1010.6(an211A21ii), CRC 2.251gczg3), 2.25119“ STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, I am over the age of eighteen (18) years, and not a party to the Within action; my business address is 1798 Technology Drive, Ste 238, San Jose, CA 95110-1399. That the necessity resulting from Executive Order N—33—20 (also referred to as the “Stay-at-Home Order“) issued on March 19, 2020, by the Governor of the State of California in response to the Covid-19 virus which has presented a national emergency as declared the President of the United 1111111111222222222 by States, has resulted in this office’s use of remote working stafi' members and the interruption of our normal capabilities to accept, dispatch and process physical mail causing the use of electronic service as this office’s principal means of diSpatch. On Februfl l7, 2021, I caused the within ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, DEMAND FOR JURY, SPECIAL INTEROGATORIES, JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS on the party or parties named on the attached mailing list to be served, by dispatching a true and correct copy thereof via electronic mail (e—mail) addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST. 20 No electronic message or other notice that the transmission electronically sent was 21 unsuccessfully dispatched, was received within a reasonable period after the transmission. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 23 foregoing Proof of Service is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on February 24 17, 2021, at San Jose, California. n1 25 26 27 By: Tien T. Luong 28 Email: SanJoseLegal@alZstate.com PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION 1234567009 PROOF OF SERVICE E-MAILING LIST Amirfar vs. Espinoza & Espinoza Case No. CV—20-002843 Peter B. Tiemann (SBN 195875) TIEMANN LAW FIRM 701 University Avenue, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95 825 TELEPHONE NO.: (916) 999-9000 FAX NO.: (916) 985-0500 Email: felicia@tiemannlawfinn.com 10 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF BENNY AMIRFAR 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 2222 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF 0F SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION