Answer: Lenthe VS Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA, Inc.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                OAC     22791034




                                       PILI
                               Al     Anse.            aAasarT?



                                       Wt
                                            OCT 15 2019
                                             stemow,     ae    =~.

                           W
    S.A.
                  ‘
\HA
ATION OF


\F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    RENE C, DAVIDSON COURTHOUSE


            Case No.:      RG19034284

             Hon. Michael M. Markman
             Dept.:   16

             DEFENDANTS YAMAHA MOTOR
             CORPORATION, U.S.A. AND YAMAHA
SA,          MOTOR MANUFACTURING
             CORPORATION OF AMERICA’S
             ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
D.,          UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

             DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

             Complaint Filed:                September 9, 2019
             Trial Date:                     None




'
‘      CORPORATION,                 U.S.A.      (erroneously     sued   as

IN,        USA,       INC.)          and       YAMAHA            MOTOR

)F AMERICA            (“Defendants”), answer the unverified

tiffs HUNTER          LENTHE            and MYCALAH             LENTHE




1D YMMC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
TRAL DENIAL

e California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendants deny

ly and generally, of each cause of action contained in

that Plaintiffs were injured and/or damaged in any sum



TIRMATIVE DEFENSE

parate cause of action alleged in it, fails to state facts

ainst Defendants.

FIRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that any injuries or

:d or contributed to by the negligence or other

rships, corporations, municipalities, or entities other

r other wrongful conduct comparatively reduces the

if any, of Defendants.

IRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that the injuries and

»ximately caused by the superseding, intervening acts

ies for which Defendants are neither responsible nor



‘FIRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that the damages

nplaint were legally and proximately caused or

ligence per se, assumption of risk, and other culpable

of damages, if any, that Plaintiffs may recover against

sortion that such conduct contributed to the alleged




      2
{iD YMMC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
TRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that the damages

nplaint were legally and proximately caused by, and

»oth knowledge and understanding and that Plaintiffs



IRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that the damages

nplaint were legally and proximately caused by, and

n of risk.

FFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that Plaintiffs have

the manner and to the extent required by law.

FIRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that if there is any

or entities other than Defendants, then this percentage

nomic damages, if any, that Plaintiffs can recover from



‘IRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that Plaintiffs’ causes

the applicable statute of limitations.

FIRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that the claims

prior settlement and/or release of all claims.

.FFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that Plaintiffs are

ants by reason of their negligent or otherwise wrongful

serve evidence relating to the accident that forms the

: not limited to, the 2016 Yamaha YXZ vehicle


       3
1D YMMC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
|


FFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

    d believe, and on that basis allege, that they will not be

    their defense has been substantially interfered with

    and/or failure to preserve evidence involved in this

shicle and its component parts.

    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

    d believe, and on that basis allege, that the damages

    legally and proximately caused by the alteration or



    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

    d believe, and on that basis allege, that the damages

    legally and proximately caused by the unforeseeable



\FFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

    d believe, and on that basis allege, that the Vehicle was

: event as it was when it allegedly left Defendants’



\FFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    d believe, and on that basis allege, that they discharged

the Vehicle, if any, by providing adequate warnings

distribution of the Vehicle, including Plaintiffs.

1 about products, modifications, or alterations that were

i third party or third parties for which Defendants are



LAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

‘fective condition at any time when it left the possession,



          4
ID YMMC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

nent parts, referred to in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, were

iny non-conformities or defects, and complied with all



AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that they were not in

be held liable to Plaintiffs for breach of any warranty,



AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that they did not

; the Vehicle, or warrant the Vehicle to Plaintiffs for a



[ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that Plaintiffs failed

breach of an express or implied warranty that was

2 therefore barred from proceeding under any type of



(D AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that Plaintiffs’ cause

| warranties is barred because the warranties on the

t described in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

D AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that an entity or

varranty responsibilities or voided any warranty

ity altered, modified, changed, or repaired the

thorized by Defendants, and that such alteration was

»nconformity.




      5
ID YMMC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
‘H AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

d believe, and on that basis allege, that venue in the

er.

LAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

: of Civil Procedure section 397(c), this case should be

inconvenient venue for non-party witnesses.

1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

tia Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30(a), this case

meda County and California are inconvenient forums.

[H AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

i be dismissed or stayed based on the doctrine of forum



'‘H AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Court lacks personal and/or subject matter jurisdiction



LAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

t to amend their answer to assert further affirmative

nay become known and available through further



  PRAYER

wr judgment on the Answer as follows:

aint with prejudice;

2fendants and against Plaintiffs;

‘rein; and

elief as the Court may deem just and proper.




       6
ID YMMC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
) FOR JURY TRIAL
voration,     U.S.A.    and   Yamaha     Motor   Manufacturing

tial by jury.


            SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

                                   ONG
            By:
                  Daniel = Rodman
                  Katharine H. Adams
                  Attorneys for Defendants
                  YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION,
                  U.S.A. (erroneously sued as YAMAHA
                  MOTOR CORPORATION, USA, INC.)
                  and YAMAHA MOTOR
                  MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
                  OF AMERICA




       7
ID YMMC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
JF OF SERVICE

ange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
is address is 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400, Costa


ve manner indicated below, the foregoing document
MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A. AND
1G CORPORATION OF AMERICA’S ANSWER
-PLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL on
ng true copies thereof, enclosed in sealed envelopes,


CHED SERVICE LIST****

aused such envelopes to be deposited in the United
-alifornia, with postage thereon fully prepaid. 1 am
n’s practice of collection and processing
. It is deposited with the United States Postal Service
vas followed in the ordinary course of business for the
CP. § 1013(a)).]

    1013(e)(f)).
"OVERNITE EXPRESS: | caused such envelopes to
with next day service, to the offices of the addressees


:      Lcaused such envelopes to be delivered by hand to
;. (C.C.P. § 1011(a)(b)).
    document to be served via e-mail to the below-



        EEA KK



nder the laws of the State of California that the above



‘osta Mesa, California.




             Emily Hall




         8
ID YMMC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
ERVICE LIST
tha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Inc., et al.
 Court Case No.: RG19034284


           ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

           Telephone: (415) 981-7210
           Facsimile: (415) 391-6965

           Email: rschoenberger@walkuplawoffice.com
                  amcdevitt@walkuplawoffice.com
           ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
200K
           Telephone: (925) 947-1147
           Facsimile: (925) 947-1131

           Email: cook@cmslaw.com

           ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
           EAST BAY MOTORSPORTS, INC.

           Telephone: (415) 527-2804
           Facsimile: (415) 512-6791

           Email: dschrader@mgmlaw.com




       9
1D YMMC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT