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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                MAN
                                                         ies



                         @                     ‘O_ 22640564


                     FILE DNTY
                       A COU
                    ALAMED
                         DEC 20 2019
              CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
              By

                     oye
                                           Deputy



rerica and


OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

F ALAMEDA

      Case No. RG19034284

      Assigned to:
      Honorable Michael Markman; Dept. 16

      DEFENDANT YAMAHA MOTOR CO., LTD.’S
      ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED
      COMPLAINT

      DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

      Complaint Filed:       September 9, 2019
      Trial Date:            None


C’), for itself alone and for no other parties,

inter Lenthe and Mycalah Lenthe (“Plaintiffs”)



tion 431.30, YMC denies each of the

nplaint, and every cause of action of it, and

nd/or damaged in any sum or sums, or at all.


TIVE DEFENSE

e ceuse of action alleged in        it, fails to state

ainst YMC.




  4

SWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
#

\ATIVE DEFENSE
1d on that basis alleges, that any injuries or

‘contributed to by the negligence or other
         4
;, corporations, municipalities, or entities other

ngful conduct comparatively reduces the

, of YMC.

\TIVE DEFENSE
ieve, and on that basis allege, that the injuries

‘imately caused by the superseding, intervening

:s for which Defendants are neither responsible



|ATIVE DEFENSE
id on that basis alleges, that the damages and

e legally and proximately caused or contributed

ssumption of risk, and other culpable conduct of

y, that Plaintiffs may recover against

) that such conduct contributed to the alleged



TIVE DEFENSE

id on that basis alleges, that the damages

    were legally and proximately caused by, and

1owledge and understanding and that Plaintiffs



TIVE DEFENSE
id on that basis alleges, that the damages

    were legally and proximately caused by, and
         '
k
         1




     2
SWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
®
MATIVE DEFENSE
nd on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs have

anner and to the extent required by law.

IATIVE DEFENSE
nd on that basis alleges, that if there is any

ities iother than YMC, then this percentage of

iamages, if any, that Plaintiffs can recover from



ATIVE DEFENSE
nd on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs' causes

ble statute of limitations.

ATIVE DEFENSE
ad on that basis alleges, that the claims

settlement and/or release of all claims.

MATIVE DEFENSE

id on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs are
son of their negligent or otherwise wrongful

e evidence relating to the accident that forms

ot limited to, the 2016 Yamaha YXZ vehicle



WATIVE DEFENSE
id on that basis alleges, that it will not be

fense has been substantially interfered with

‘or failure to preserve evidence involved in this

and its component parts.

RMATIVE DEFENSE

1d on that basis alleges, that the damages

y and proximately caused by the alteration or
      ¢

      '



  3
ISWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
@

RMATIVE DEFENSE

nd on that basis alleges, that the damages

ly and proximately caused by the unforeseeable



MATIVE DEFENSE
ad on that basis alleges, that the Vehicle was

it oe it was when it allegedly left YMC's

        1

MATIVE DEFENSE
ves, and on that basis alleges, that it

d in the Vehicle, if any, by providing adequate

n of distribution of the Vehicle, including

warn about products, modifications, or

* performed by a third party or third parties for

able.

IRMATIVE DEFENSE

e condition at any time when it left the



aMATIVE DEFENSE

varts, referred to in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint,

iny non-conformities or defects, and complied



3MATIVE DEFENSE

id on that basis alleges, that it was not in privity

2 to Plaintiffs for breach of any warranty,



(MATIVE DEFENSE
1d on that basis alleges, that it did not

2hicle, or warrant the Vehicle to Plaintiffs for a


        \
   4
ISWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
@

‘IRMATIVE DEFENSE
nd on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs failed

express or implied warranty that was

‘efore barred from proceeding under any type of



‘FIRMATIVE DEFENSE
nd on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs' cause of

ties ‘s barred because the warranties on the

wibed in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

‘IRMATIVE DEFENSE

nd on that basis alleges, that an entity or

iponsibilities or voided any warranty

tered, modified, changed, or repaired the

zed by Defendants, and that such alteration was

nformity.

FIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1d on that basis alleges, that venue in the



IRMATIVE DEFENSE
      1
vil Procedure section 397(c), this case should
      {
iconvenient venue for non-party witnesses.

IRMATIVE DEFENSE

je of Civil Procedure section 410.30(a), this

ameda County and California are inconvenient



*FIRMATIVE DEFENSE

smissed or stayed based on-the doctrine of




  5
ISW! aR TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
t
          1
                           ®
      |
      ‘

FIRMATIVE DEFENSE
; personal and/or subject matter jurisdiction



‘IRMATIVE DEFENSE
| their answer to assert further affirmative

become known and available through further



lotor Co., Ltd. prays as follows:
Complaint;

      ‘


          '

of as the court deems proper.




                    BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP




                  Ov    indse¥ R“Adams-Hess
                          rneys for Defendants
                  Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.,
              Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation of
                            America, and
                       Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd.




  6
ISWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
/EMAND

ury trial.


             BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP




               Attorneys for Defendants
          Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.,
      Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation of
                   America, and
               Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd.




  7
ISWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
&
yn, USA,   Inc., et al.



OF SERVICE

his action and employed in San Jose, California at

lifornia 95110-1355.

joing documents described as: DEFENDANT
\INTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT;
action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed




envelope to be deposited in the mail at San Jose,
‘ prepaid thereof.        | am readily familiar with the
sing of correspondence for mailing with the United
| the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the
motion of the party served, service is presumed
neter date is more than one day after the date of
*
   The documents were enveloped, properly
night delivery (Federal Express, United Parcel
‘ized courier or driver authorized by the
an envelope or a package designated by the
provided for, addressed to the person on
ast given by that person on any document filed
, at that person's place of residence.

ient was served electronically and the
vut error.

document was served on the above party in
int to be transmitted by facsimile to the
of Service.   The transmission was reported as


i envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date


ie laws of the State of California that the foregoing

=xecuted on December 20, 2019, at San Jose,




   CPve     ca
   Rebecca A. Fuller
                     DARI N.