Preview
A
San Francisco Superior Courts
{nformation Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jul-25-2002 3:07 pm
Case Number: CGC-02-405626
Filing Date: Jul-19-2002 3:06
Juke Box: 001 Image: 00470450
ANSWER
LESLIE KILBY BLACK VS. TAMOTSU SAKAI et al
001000470450
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.LAW OFFICES:
JACKSON & HARRIGAN
(ONE MARKET, SPEAR Tower, 8™ FLOOR
{415) $43-3434
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
_
Geo
YwoNM wy MY YR RY RR | S— B= SF B= es Be Be Be
S VA mM Ff VY YH §— Ss © we IW A A FY NY KF Ss
WY
BARBARA ANN E. CAULFIELD (State Bar No. 160667)
JACKSON & HARRIGAN
One Market, Spear Tower, 8th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 543-3434
Attorneys for Defendant
TAMOTSU SAKAI; CHIEKO SAKAI
YS
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
LESLIE KILBY BLACK,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
TAMOTSU SAKAI; CHIEKO SAKAI; S.
HANDA & SONS, INC.; T. OKAMOTO & CO.;
and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive,
Defendants,
T. OKAMOTO & CO.
Cross-Complainant,
Vv.
TAMOTSU SAKAI; CHIEKO SAKAI; S.
HANDA & SONS, INC.; and ROES 1 through 20,
inclusive.
CASE NO: CGC-02-405626
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
BY CROSS-DEFENDANT TAMOTSU
SAKAI AND CHIEKO SAKAI
THE CROSS-DEFENDANTS, TAMOTSU SAKAI and CHIEKO SAKAI,
ANSWER THE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. OKAMOTO & CO, AS FOLLOWS:
GENERAL DENIAL
i. By virtue of and pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section
431,30, the answering cross-defendants generally and specifically deny each and every,
conjunctively and disjunctively, the allegations contained in said cross-complaint, and each and.
-1l-
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTLAWOFFICES
JACKSON & HARRIGAN
‘SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 543-3434
ONE MARKET, SPEAR TOWER, 8™ FLOOR
NSS Vw
every part thereof, and each and every cause of action thereof, and further specifically deny that
cross-complainant has been injured and/or damaged in the sum alleged, or in any other sum, of at
all, by reason of any carelessness, negligence, act or omission of the answering cross-defendants.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION
2. Asa first and separate affirmative defense to each cause of action asserted, the
answering cross-defendants allege that each cause of action contained in the cross-complaint
herein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as against these answering
cross-defendants.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION
3. Asa-second and separate affirmative defense to cach cause of action asserted, the
answering cross-defendants allege that cross-complainant was careless, negligent and/or guilty of
willful misconduct in and about the matters alleged in the cross-complaint, and that said careless-
ness, negligence and/or willful misconduct on the part of the cross-complainant proximately
contributed to the happening of the incident and to cross-complainant's injuries, loss and/or
damage, if any, allegedly sustained. Therefore, any damages awarded to cross-complainant shal]
be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributed to cross-complainant.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION
4. Asa third and separate affirmative defense to each cause of action asserted, the
answering cross-defendants allege that third parties were careless, negligent and/or guilty of
willful misconduct in and about the matters alleged in the cross-complaint, and that said
carelessness, negligence and/or willful misconduct on the part of said third parties proximately
contributed to the happening of the incident and to cross-complainant's injuries, loss and/or
damage, if any, allegedly sustained. Therefore, any damages awarded to cross-complainant shall
be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributed to said third parties.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION
5. Asa fourth and separate affirmative defense to each cause of action asserted, the
answering cross-defendants allege that cross-complainant's injuries, loss and/or damage, if any,
allegedly sustained, were the result of an open, obvious and apparent danger which was known
-2-
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTLAW OFFICES
JACKSON & HARRIGAN
ONE MARKET, SPEAR TOWER, 8™ FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 543-3434
ODO tl
NR YY NY NY Ww RD Be ee eB em Be ee ee
ee 3 8 &2 F SRY 8 FS Fa RaE SE = S
VS we
to and recognized by cross-complainant, who, nevertheless knowingly, willingly, intentionally
and voluntarily exposed themselves to said danger, thereby assuming the risk of injury, loss
and/or damage.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION
6, Asa fifth and separate affirmative defense to each cause of action asserted, the
answering cross-defendants allege that the action is barred by provisions of California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 345.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION
7. Asa sixth and separate affirmative defense to each cause of action asserted, the
answering cross-defendants allege that none of the parties named in this action are or ever have
been employees, agents, employers or principals of the answering cross-defendants.
WHEREFORE, the answering cross-defendants pray that cross-complainant take nothing
by the cross-complaint, and that the answering cross-defendants be dismissed herefrom with
costs of suit incurred, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
DATE: July 12, 2002
JACKSON & HARRIGAN
By:
Barbara Ann E, Caulfield
Attorneys for Defendant
TAMOTSU SAKAI; CHIEKO SAKAI
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTLAWOFFICES
JACKSON & HARRIGAN
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94105
(415) 543-3434
ONE MARKET, SPEAR Tower, 8™ FLOOR
VY VV
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P )
Tam employed in the City of San Francisco; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a
party to the within action; my business address is One Market, Spear Street Tower, Suite 800,
San Francisco, California 94105.
On the date given below, I served a copy of the attached ANSWER TO CROSS-
COMPLAINT, by placing copies in sealed envelopes for collection and mailing on the date and
at the place shown below by following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar
with this business' practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the
same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
course of business with the United States Postal Service in sealed envelopes with postage fully
prepaid,
Attomeys for Plaintiff, Leslie Kilby Black
John C. Miller, Jt., Rocco R. Paternoster
CHARTER MILLER DAVIS, LLP
1515 K Street, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attorneys for Co-Defendant, T. Okamoto & Co.
Nicole Meredith, Esq.
Vogl & Meredith
456 Montgomery Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
I declare, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: July 18, 2002
San Francisco CA
L.\3890\Answer to Cross Complaint 07-12-02.doc
ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
Preview
A San Francisco Superior Courts {nformation Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jul-25-2002 3:07 pm Case Number: CGC-02-405626 Filing Date: Jul-19-2002 3:06 Juke Box: 001 Image: 00470450 ANSWER LESLIE KILBY BLACK VS. TAMOTSU SAKAI et al 001000470450 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.LAW OFFICES: JACKSON & HARRIGAN (ONE MARKET, SPEAR Tower, 8™ FLOOR {415) $43-3434 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 _ Geo YwoNM wy MY YR RY RR | S— B= SF B= es Be Be Be S VA mM Ff VY YH §— Ss © we IW A A FY NY KF Ss WY BARBARA ANN E. CAULFIELD (State Bar No. 160667) JACKSON & HARRIGAN One Market, Spear Tower, 8th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 543-3434 Attorneys for Defendant TAMOTSU SAKAI; CHIEKO SAKAI YS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO LESLIE KILBY BLACK, Plaintiff, Vv. TAMOTSU SAKAI; CHIEKO SAKAI; S. HANDA & SONS, INC.; T. OKAMOTO & CO.; and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, Defendants, T. OKAMOTO & CO. Cross-Complainant, Vv. TAMOTSU SAKAI; CHIEKO SAKAI; S. HANDA & SONS, INC.; and ROES 1 through 20, inclusive. CASE NO: CGC-02-405626 ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT BY CROSS-DEFENDANT TAMOTSU SAKAI AND CHIEKO SAKAI THE CROSS-DEFENDANTS, TAMOTSU SAKAI and CHIEKO SAKAI, ANSWER THE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF T. OKAMOTO & CO, AS FOLLOWS: GENERAL DENIAL i. By virtue of and pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 431,30, the answering cross-defendants generally and specifically deny each and every, conjunctively and disjunctively, the allegations contained in said cross-complaint, and each and. -1l- ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTLAWOFFICES JACKSON & HARRIGAN ‘SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 (415) 543-3434 ONE MARKET, SPEAR TOWER, 8™ FLOOR NSS Vw every part thereof, and each and every cause of action thereof, and further specifically deny that cross-complainant has been injured and/or damaged in the sum alleged, or in any other sum, of at all, by reason of any carelessness, negligence, act or omission of the answering cross-defendants. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION 2. Asa first and separate affirmative defense to each cause of action asserted, the answering cross-defendants allege that each cause of action contained in the cross-complaint herein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as against these answering cross-defendants. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION 3. Asa-second and separate affirmative defense to cach cause of action asserted, the answering cross-defendants allege that cross-complainant was careless, negligent and/or guilty of willful misconduct in and about the matters alleged in the cross-complaint, and that said careless- ness, negligence and/or willful misconduct on the part of the cross-complainant proximately contributed to the happening of the incident and to cross-complainant's injuries, loss and/or damage, if any, allegedly sustained. Therefore, any damages awarded to cross-complainant shal] be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributed to cross-complainant. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION 4. Asa third and separate affirmative defense to each cause of action asserted, the answering cross-defendants allege that third parties were careless, negligent and/or guilty of willful misconduct in and about the matters alleged in the cross-complaint, and that said carelessness, negligence and/or willful misconduct on the part of said third parties proximately contributed to the happening of the incident and to cross-complainant's injuries, loss and/or damage, if any, allegedly sustained. Therefore, any damages awarded to cross-complainant shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributed to said third parties. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION 5. Asa fourth and separate affirmative defense to each cause of action asserted, the answering cross-defendants allege that cross-complainant's injuries, loss and/or damage, if any, allegedly sustained, were the result of an open, obvious and apparent danger which was known -2- ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTLAW OFFICES JACKSON & HARRIGAN ONE MARKET, SPEAR TOWER, 8™ FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 (415) 543-3434 ODO tl NR YY NY NY Ww RD Be ee eB em Be ee ee ee 3 8 &2 F SRY 8 FS Fa RaE SE = S VS we to and recognized by cross-complainant, who, nevertheless knowingly, willingly, intentionally and voluntarily exposed themselves to said danger, thereby assuming the risk of injury, loss and/or damage. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION 6, Asa fifth and separate affirmative defense to each cause of action asserted, the answering cross-defendants allege that the action is barred by provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 345. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE OF ACTION 7. Asa sixth and separate affirmative defense to each cause of action asserted, the answering cross-defendants allege that none of the parties named in this action are or ever have been employees, agents, employers or principals of the answering cross-defendants. WHEREFORE, the answering cross-defendants pray that cross-complainant take nothing by the cross-complaint, and that the answering cross-defendants be dismissed herefrom with costs of suit incurred, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. DATE: July 12, 2002 JACKSON & HARRIGAN By: Barbara Ann E, Caulfield Attorneys for Defendant TAMOTSU SAKAI; CHIEKO SAKAI ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINTLAWOFFICES JACKSON & HARRIGAN SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94105 (415) 543-3434 ONE MARKET, SPEAR Tower, 8™ FLOOR VY VV PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P ) Tam employed in the City of San Francisco; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is One Market, Spear Street Tower, Suite 800, San Francisco, California 94105. On the date given below, I served a copy of the attached ANSWER TO CROSS- COMPLAINT, by placing copies in sealed envelopes for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below by following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business' practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in sealed envelopes with postage fully prepaid, Attomeys for Plaintiff, Leslie Kilby Black John C. Miller, Jt., Rocco R. Paternoster CHARTER MILLER DAVIS, LLP 1515 K Street, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attorneys for Co-Defendant, T. Okamoto & Co. Nicole Meredith, Esq. Vogl & Meredith 456 Montgomery Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 I declare, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED: July 18, 2002 San Francisco CA L.\3890\Answer to Cross Complaint 07-12-02.doc ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT