Preview
1 TED DANIEL WOOD, SBN 191768
LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS G. MACKAY
2 11290 Pyrites Way Suite 210 11/20/2020
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
3 Telephone: 916-851-3750
4 Facsimile: 916-851-3770
E-Mail: ted.wood@zurichna.com
5
Counsel for Defendant
6 Chuck Patterson, Inc. DBA Chuck
Patterson Autoworld
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
10
11 NICOLE LINDNER, Case No. 20CV01798
12 Plaintiff,
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
13
vs.
14
CHUCK PATTERSON, INC. DBA
15 PATTERSON AUTOWORLD AND
DOES 1 TO 20, TRIAL DATE: NONE
16 ACTION FILED: SEPTEMBER 14, 2020
Defendants.
17
18
19 I.
20 GENERAL DENIAL
21 Comes now Defendant CHUCK PATTERSON, INC. DBA CHUCK PATTERSON
22 AUTOWORLD, sued erroneously herein as CHUCK PATTERSON, INC. DBA
23 PATTERSON AUTOWORLD, (hereinafter "this answering Defendant") and it responds to
24 and answers the unverified Complaint of Plaintiff NICOLE LINDNER (“Plaintiff”) on file
25 herein, and allege as follows: Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d),
26 this answering Defendant denies each and every allegation in the Complaint, all and
27 singularly, generally and specifically, and each and every part and each alleged cause of
28 action thereof; and, in that connection, denies that Plaintiff has been injured or damaged in
___________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PAGE -1-
1 the sums alleged, or in any sum, or at all, by reason of any act or omission of this
2 answering Defendant.
3 II.
4 FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION
5 This answering Defendant alleges that said Complaint does not state facts sufficient
6 to constitute a cause of action against this answering Defendant.
7 III.
8 NO JURISDICTION
9 This answering Defendant alleges that the above-named court lacks jurisdiction.
10 IV.
11 STANDING
12 This answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue this answering
13 Defendant.
14 V.
15 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
16 This answering Defendant alleges that this Complaint, and each cause of action
17 thereof, is barred by the statute of limitations set forth in the California Code of Civil
18 Procedure, commencing with section 335 and continuing through section 349.4, more
19 particularly, but not limited to, the following sections: 312, 315, 335, 337, section 337.1,
20 section 337.15, section 338, section 339, section 340, section 342, and section 343; and by
21 sections 1201(2-5)(c), 2601, 2602(1), 2513(1). 2513(3), 2510(1), 2605(1)(a), 2605(1)(b),
22 2606(1)(a), 2606(1)(b), 2607, 2607(3)(a), 2715(2)(a), 2719(3), 2725(1) and (2) of the
23 Uniform Commercial Code of the State of California.
24 VI.
25 JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL
26 This answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of
27 judicial estoppel.
28 ///
___________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PAGE -2-
1 VII.
2 FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES
3 This answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff, with the exercise of reasonable
4 diligence and effort, would have and could have mitigated the damages alleged in the
5 Complaint, if indeed any there are; that the resultant damages, if any, complained of in said
6 Complaint were directly and proximately caused by the failure, negligence and refusal of
7 the Plaintiff to exercise reasonable diligence in an effort to mitigate the damages alleged.
8 VIII.
9 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
10 This answering Defendant alleges that at the time and place referred to in said
11 Complaint and immediately prior thereto, Plaintiff was careless and negligent in that Plaintiff
12 failed to exercise ordinary care for Plaintiff’s own safety, and such carelessness and
13 negligence on the part of Plaintiff proximately caused and contributed to the injuries and
14 damages complained of, if any there were; and that by reason of the doctrine of
15 comparative negligence, Plaintiff is barred from recovery, in whole and/or in part, of such
16 portion of said damages, if any, as proximately resulted from the aforementioned conduct.
17 This answering Defendant alleges that other defendants in this lawsuit, as well as
18 other persons and entities not parties to this lawsuit, were themselves responsible for the
19 Plaintiff’s damages, if any there were. This answering Defendant requests that their
20 liability, jointly and severally, if any, be assessed in proportion to the liability of other co-
21 defendants, persons and entities who are not parties to this action, and that this answering
22 Defendant be required to pay only for their proportionate share of fault, if any there be.
23 IX.
24 PROPOSITION 51
25 This answering Defendant alleges that its liability for non-economic damages, if any,
26 should be reduced pursuant to the provisions of California Civil Code section 1431, et seq.
27 ///
28 ///
___________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PAGE -3-
1 X.
2 DANGEROUS CONDITION
3 This answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has not stated sufficient facts to
4 demonstrate that a dangerous condition exists or existed at the time alleged in the
5 Complaint.
6 XI.
7 NO NOTICE
8 This answering Defendant alleges that the condition of which Plaintiff complains was
9 a condition of which this answering Defendant did not have notice, either actual and/or
10 constructive and had insufficient time prior to the alleged incident to have taken any
11 remedial action.
12 XII.
13 MINOR DEFECT
14 This answering Defendant alleges that as a matter of law the risk created by the
15 subject condition was of such a minor, trivial and insignificant nature in view of the
16 surrounding circumstances that no reasonable person could conclude that the situation
17 created a substantial risk of injury when the subject property was used with due care and in
18 a manner in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used.
19 XIII.
20 OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION
21 This answering Defendant alleges that all risks and damages as described in
22 Plaintiff’s Complaint, if any such exist, were in an open and obvious condition such that
23 they served as a warning to Plaintiff, thereby barring Plaintiff from recovering against this
24 answering Defendant.
25 XIV.
26 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
27 This answering Defendant alleges that, as a matter of law, this Defendant may not
28 be held liable for any injury caused by the plan, design or construction of the area
___________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PAGE -4-
1 described in Plaintiff’s Complaint, in that said plan, design or construction of said property is
2 not legally or factually the responsibility of this Defendant.
3 XV.
4 NO CONTROL
5 This answering Defendant alleges that this answering Defendant is not, nor has
6 Defendant ever been, an owner of the subject premises, nor an occupant of the subject
7 premises, nor has this answering Defendant ever had control or a right to control or
8 possess the subject premises.
9 XVI.
10 NO VALID CLAIM FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
11 This answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to
12 set forth a claim for emotional distress damages.
13 PRAYER
14 Wherefore, Defendant CHUCK PATTERSON, INC. DBA CHUCK PATTERSON
15 AUTOWORLD prays as follows:
16 1. This lawsuit be tried before a jury;
17 2. Plaintiff’s request for relief, in all respects, be denied, and that Plaintiff take
18 nothing by this action;
19 3. Judgment be entered dismissing the Complaint and each cause of action alleged
20 against this answering Defendant;
21 4. This answering Defendant be awarded costs of suit incurred in this action,
22 including reasonable attorneys fees; and
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26
27
28
___________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PAGE -5-
1 5. The Court grant such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper.
2
3 DATED: November 19, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS G. MACKAY
4
5 By:_______________________________
TED DANIEL WOOD
6 Counsel for Defendant
7 Chuck Patterson, Inc. DBA
Chuck Patterson Autoworld
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
___________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PAGE -6-
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 [C.C.P. §§ 1013a AND 2015.5]
3 CASE NAME: LINDNER v. CHUCK PATTERSON, INC. DBA PATTERSON AUTOWORLD
COURT / NO: BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT#20CV01798
4
I, the undersigned, declare as follows:
5
I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. I am over the age of 18
6
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 11290 Pyrites Way, Suite 210,
7 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6338.
8 On this date I served the attached, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
addressed as follows:
9
Counsel for Plaintiff
10
Lawrence A. Puritz, Esq.
11 Law Offices of Lawrence A. Puritz
PO Box 935
12 Chico, CA 95927
530-343-1614
13 Fax: 530-343-1629
Email: puritz@sbcglobal.net
14
puritzlawoffices@sbcglobal.net
15
16 X (BY ESERVICE) Per CRC 2.251. My electronic service address is
marci.baker@zurichna.com. I electronically served the document described above to the
17 electronic service addresses listed above.
18
19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct. Executed on NOVEMBER 20, 2020, at Rancho Cordova, California.
20
21
____________________________
22
MARCI S. BAKER
23
24
25
26
27
28
___________________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PAGE -7-
Preview
1 TED DANIEL WOOD, SBN 191768 LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS G. MACKAY 2 11290 Pyrites Way Suite 210 11/20/2020 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 3 Telephone: 916-851-3750 4 Facsimile: 916-851-3770 E-Mail: ted.wood@zurichna.com 5 Counsel for Defendant 6 Chuck Patterson, Inc. DBA Chuck Patterson Autoworld 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 10 11 NICOLE LINDNER, Case No. 20CV01798 12 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 13 vs. 14 CHUCK PATTERSON, INC. DBA 15 PATTERSON AUTOWORLD AND DOES 1 TO 20, TRIAL DATE: NONE 16 ACTION FILED: SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 Defendants. 17 18 19 I. 20 GENERAL DENIAL 21 Comes now Defendant CHUCK PATTERSON, INC. DBA CHUCK PATTERSON 22 AUTOWORLD, sued erroneously herein as CHUCK PATTERSON, INC. DBA 23 PATTERSON AUTOWORLD, (hereinafter "this answering Defendant") and it responds to 24 and answers the unverified Complaint of Plaintiff NICOLE LINDNER (“Plaintiff”) on file 25 herein, and allege as follows: Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d), 26 this answering Defendant denies each and every allegation in the Complaint, all and 27 singularly, generally and specifically, and each and every part and each alleged cause of 28 action thereof; and, in that connection, denies that Plaintiff has been injured or damaged in ___________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PAGE -1- 1 the sums alleged, or in any sum, or at all, by reason of any act or omission of this 2 answering Defendant. 3 II. 4 FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION 5 This answering Defendant alleges that said Complaint does not state facts sufficient 6 to constitute a cause of action against this answering Defendant. 7 III. 8 NO JURISDICTION 9 This answering Defendant alleges that the above-named court lacks jurisdiction. 10 IV. 11 STANDING 12 This answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue this answering 13 Defendant. 14 V. 15 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 16 This answering Defendant alleges that this Complaint, and each cause of action 17 thereof, is barred by the statute of limitations set forth in the California Code of Civil 18 Procedure, commencing with section 335 and continuing through section 349.4, more 19 particularly, but not limited to, the following sections: 312, 315, 335, 337, section 337.1, 20 section 337.15, section 338, section 339, section 340, section 342, and section 343; and by 21 sections 1201(2-5)(c), 2601, 2602(1), 2513(1). 2513(3), 2510(1), 2605(1)(a), 2605(1)(b), 22 2606(1)(a), 2606(1)(b), 2607, 2607(3)(a), 2715(2)(a), 2719(3), 2725(1) and (2) of the 23 Uniform Commercial Code of the State of California. 24 VI. 25 JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL 26 This answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of 27 judicial estoppel. 28 /// ___________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PAGE -2- 1 VII. 2 FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES 3 This answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff, with the exercise of reasonable 4 diligence and effort, would have and could have mitigated the damages alleged in the 5 Complaint, if indeed any there are; that the resultant damages, if any, complained of in said 6 Complaint were directly and proximately caused by the failure, negligence and refusal of 7 the Plaintiff to exercise reasonable diligence in an effort to mitigate the damages alleged. 8 VIII. 9 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE 10 This answering Defendant alleges that at the time and place referred to in said 11 Complaint and immediately prior thereto, Plaintiff was careless and negligent in that Plaintiff 12 failed to exercise ordinary care for Plaintiff’s own safety, and such carelessness and 13 negligence on the part of Plaintiff proximately caused and contributed to the injuries and 14 damages complained of, if any there were; and that by reason of the doctrine of 15 comparative negligence, Plaintiff is barred from recovery, in whole and/or in part, of such 16 portion of said damages, if any, as proximately resulted from the aforementioned conduct. 17 This answering Defendant alleges that other defendants in this lawsuit, as well as 18 other persons and entities not parties to this lawsuit, were themselves responsible for the 19 Plaintiff’s damages, if any there were. This answering Defendant requests that their 20 liability, jointly and severally, if any, be assessed in proportion to the liability of other co- 21 defendants, persons and entities who are not parties to this action, and that this answering 22 Defendant be required to pay only for their proportionate share of fault, if any there be. 23 IX. 24 PROPOSITION 51 25 This answering Defendant alleges that its liability for non-economic damages, if any, 26 should be reduced pursuant to the provisions of California Civil Code section 1431, et seq. 27 /// 28 /// ___________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PAGE -3- 1 X. 2 DANGEROUS CONDITION 3 This answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has not stated sufficient facts to 4 demonstrate that a dangerous condition exists or existed at the time alleged in the 5 Complaint. 6 XI. 7 NO NOTICE 8 This answering Defendant alleges that the condition of which Plaintiff complains was 9 a condition of which this answering Defendant did not have notice, either actual and/or 10 constructive and had insufficient time prior to the alleged incident to have taken any 11 remedial action. 12 XII. 13 MINOR DEFECT 14 This answering Defendant alleges that as a matter of law the risk created by the 15 subject condition was of such a minor, trivial and insignificant nature in view of the 16 surrounding circumstances that no reasonable person could conclude that the situation 17 created a substantial risk of injury when the subject property was used with due care and in 18 a manner in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used. 19 XIII. 20 OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION 21 This answering Defendant alleges that all risks and damages as described in 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint, if any such exist, were in an open and obvious condition such that 23 they served as a warning to Plaintiff, thereby barring Plaintiff from recovering against this 24 answering Defendant. 25 XIV. 26 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 27 This answering Defendant alleges that, as a matter of law, this Defendant may not 28 be held liable for any injury caused by the plan, design or construction of the area ___________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PAGE -4- 1 described in Plaintiff’s Complaint, in that said plan, design or construction of said property is 2 not legally or factually the responsibility of this Defendant. 3 XV. 4 NO CONTROL 5 This answering Defendant alleges that this answering Defendant is not, nor has 6 Defendant ever been, an owner of the subject premises, nor an occupant of the subject 7 premises, nor has this answering Defendant ever had control or a right to control or 8 possess the subject premises. 9 XVI. 10 NO VALID CLAIM FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 11 This answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to 12 set forth a claim for emotional distress damages. 13 PRAYER 14 Wherefore, Defendant CHUCK PATTERSON, INC. DBA CHUCK PATTERSON 15 AUTOWORLD prays as follows: 16 1. This lawsuit be tried before a jury; 17 2. Plaintiff’s request for relief, in all respects, be denied, and that Plaintiff take 18 nothing by this action; 19 3. Judgment be entered dismissing the Complaint and each cause of action alleged 20 against this answering Defendant; 21 4. This answering Defendant be awarded costs of suit incurred in this action, 22 including reasonable attorneys fees; and 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 28 ___________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PAGE -5- 1 5. The Court grant such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper. 2 3 DATED: November 19, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS G. MACKAY 4 5 By:_______________________________ TED DANIEL WOOD 6 Counsel for Defendant 7 Chuck Patterson, Inc. DBA Chuck Patterson Autoworld 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ___________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PAGE -6- 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 [C.C.P. §§ 1013a AND 2015.5] 3 CASE NAME: LINDNER v. CHUCK PATTERSON, INC. DBA PATTERSON AUTOWORLD COURT / NO: BUTTE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT#20CV01798 4 I, the undersigned, declare as follows: 5 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. I am over the age of 18 6 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 11290 Pyrites Way, Suite 210, 7 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6338. 8 On this date I served the attached, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT addressed as follows: 9 Counsel for Plaintiff 10 Lawrence A. Puritz, Esq. 11 Law Offices of Lawrence A. Puritz PO Box 935 12 Chico, CA 95927 530-343-1614 13 Fax: 530-343-1629 Email: puritz@sbcglobal.net 14 puritzlawoffices@sbcglobal.net 15 16 X (BY ESERVICE) Per CRC 2.251. My electronic service address is marci.baker@zurichna.com. I electronically served the document described above to the 17 electronic service addresses listed above. 18 19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on NOVEMBER 20, 2020, at Rancho Cordova, California. 20 21 ____________________________ 22 MARCI S. BAKER 23 24 25 26 27 28 ___________________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PAGE -7-