Preview
FAX 415 352 0986 ROECA HAAS HAGER, LLP oo2
01/04/2007 11:38
FILED BY FAX
EDWARD D. HAAS (State Bar # 76647) ALAMEDA COUNTY
RUSSELL 8. ROECA (State Bar # 97297)
NATHANIEL L. NICOLL (State Bar # 225509) January O04, 2007
ba
ROECA HAAS HAGER LLP CLERE OF
180 Sutter Street, Suite 200 THE SUPERIOR COURT
Ww
San Francisco, CA 94104 By Robbi Mcintosh, Deput
Telephone: (415) 352-0980 CASE NUMBER:
&
Facsimile: (415) 352-0988 RGO06279317
La
Attomeys for Defendant
THE MICHAEL BLUMENFELD CORPORATION as
NSH
successor in interest to THE MICHAEL BLUMENFELD
LAW CORPORATION, MICHAEL BLUMENFELD, a
Professional Corporation, and MICHAEL JOEL
BLUMENFELD, DECEASED
we
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
OO
Co
[80 Sutter Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94104
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
WW
12
Fox 415.352.0988
VELMA SONNY-SONIA, aka. VELMA Case No. RG-06279317
Roeca Haas Hager LLP
SONIA,
13 . ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
14
415.352.0980
V8.
15
| THE MICHAEL BLUMENFELD LAW
16 ' CORPORATION, MICHAEL
| BLUMENFELD a Professional
17 | Corporation, MICHAEL JOEL
' BLUMENFELD, deceased, and DOES 1
18 | through 50, inclusive,
19 \ , Defendants.
20
Defendant THE MICHAEL BLUMENFELD CORPORATION as successor in interest to
21
THE MICHAEL BLUMENFELD LAW CORPORATION, MICHAEL BLUMENFELD, a
22
, Professional Corporation, and MICHAEL JOEL BLUMENFELD, DECEASED (“Defendant”)
23
. answers the unverified Complaint of Plaintiff VELMA SONNY-SONIA, a.k.a. VELMA SONIA
24
(“Plaintiff") as follows:
25
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §431.30(d), Defendant denies each and every
26
allegation contained in the Complaint and further denies that Plaintiff has been damaged in any
27
' amount as a result of the alleged conduct of this answering Defendant, or at all.
28
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO; RG-06279317
01/04/2007 11:38 FAX 415 352 0988 ROECA HAAS HAGER, LLP 003
‘
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Fault)
ined
1. Plaintiff and/or her agents or employees were negligent in and about the conduct,
events, and matters alleged in the Complaint and their carelessness and negligence proximately
a
caused and contributed to the damages, if any, which Plaintiff incurred and any damages to which
La)
Plaintiff might be entitled should be abated or reduced as a result of such carelessness and
a
negligence.
~
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ca
(Comparative Fault of Third Parties)
2]
2. Individuals and entities other then this answering Defendant willfully, or by want
of ordinary care, or otherwise, brought about the injuries complained of im the Complaint, and as
[80 Sutter Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94104
12 such the alleged damages claimed by Plaintiff should be apportioned according to the amount of
415.352.0980 Fax 415.352.0988
fault attributable to the conduct of such other entities and/or individuals.
Roeca Haas Hager LLP
13
14 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Failure to Mitigate)
16 3. Plaintiff
has a duty to take reasonable steps to avoid and/or mitigate her alleged
17 damages. Plaintiff failed to take any such steps, delayed in reasonably doing so, or took steps that
18 compounded her alleged damages. Had Plaintiff timely and diligently taken reasonable steps to
19 avoid and/or mitigate her alleged damages, such damages would have been reduced or avoided
20 altogether. By failing to mitigate damages, Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from recovering
21 damages, if any, in this action.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Assumption of Risk)
24 4. At all times material to the incidents in the Complaint, Plaintiff, with full
25 understanding thereof, knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of the conduct, events, and
26 matters alleged in the Complaint, and the damages, if any, incurred by Plaintiff were the
27 proximate result of the risks so assumed.
28
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO. RG-06279317
2
01/04/2007 11:38 FAX 415 352 0988 ROECA HAAS HAGER, LLP 004
\
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
5. Plaintiff is estopped by reason of her conduct, acts and omissions to recover on
any claim that Plaintiff might have against Defendant.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFEN SE
(Consent/Ratification)
6. Plaintiff, by her own acts or omissions, and/or by and through her agent or agents
expressly and impliedly consented to the conduct described in Plaintiff's Complaint, authorized
Defendant’s conduct and ratified the actions undertaken by Defendant thereby barring Plaintiff
from maintaining the present action against this answering Defendant.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
180 Sutter Street, Suile 200, San Francisco, CA 94104
(Waiver)
Fox 415.352.0988
7. Plaintiff expressly and/or implicitly waived the causes of action and claims for
Roeca Haas Hager LLP
relief alleged in her Complaint.
415.352.0080
(Failure to State Cause of Action)
8. The Complaint and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action against this answering Defendant.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
9. The Complaint, and each cause of action, is barred by virtue of Plaintiff's conduct
: under the doctrine of unclean hands.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
10. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including but
‘ not limited to that set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure §340.6.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO. RG-06279317
3
01/04/2007 11:38 FAX 415 352 0988 ROECA HAAS HAGER, LLP 005
'I
|
| \
1 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Perform)
hk
ll. Tf as is alleged in the Complaint, Defendant failed to perform an obligation as
WwW
alleged by Plaintiff, such failure resulted from Plaintiff's own failure to perform her duties and
mB
obligations, and performance by Plaintiff of her duties and obligations was a condition precedent
to the performance of Defendant’s obligations to Plaintiff, if any.
|
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unwarranted Action)
12, Defendant is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
10 alleges that this action was not warranted by existing law as against Defendant and/or was
11 brought for an improper purpose and Defendant is entitled to sanctions for Plaintiffs violation of
180 Sutter Street, Suide 200, Sen Francisco, CA 94104
2 California Code of Civil Procedure §128.7.
Fax 415.352.0988
13
Roeca Haas Hager LLP
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Doctrine Of Laches)
15 13. On information and belief Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs Complaint and each
415.352.0980
16 | cause of action in it is barred by the doctrine of laches in that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in
17 bringing this action and such delay caused prejudice to this answering Defendant.
18 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Superseding Cause)
20 14. The damages complained of, which damages Defendant denies, were caused as a
21 result of an intcrvening or superseding cause, barring any recovery against Defendant.
- FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Insufficient Knowledge/Unstated Defenses)
24 15. This answering Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information on
25 ' which to form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses, and the
26 allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint are not sufficiently detailed or clear to allow Defendant to
27
28
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO. RG-062793 17
4
01/04/2007 11:38 FAX 415 352 0988 ROECA HAAS HAGER, LLP Mo06
|
| | make this determination. Defendant reserves herein the right to assert additional defenses in the
2 | event discovery or investigation indicates that they would be appropriate.
3 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:
4 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by her Complaint and that the Complaint be dismissed
5 | with prejudice;
6 2. That Defendant be awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the extent recoverable by
7 | law; and
8 3. That the Court order such other and further relief as is just and proper under the
9 } circumstances.
10 | Dated: January 4, 2007 ROECA HAAS HAGER LLP
E 11
&
S12
Sie os
5 é 4 R A'S. Roeca
2 a= 14 ‘Attomteys for Defendant
yok | THE MICHAEL BLUMENFELD
2B 15 |i CORPORATION as successor in interest to THE
gat | MICHAEL BLUMENFELD LAW
23m 16 | CORPORATION, MICHAEL BLUMENFELD,
a | a Professional Corporation, and MICHAEL
g 17 | JOEL BLUMENFELD, DECEASED
EE 138 GAS onhy-Sonia\Pleadings\Answer.doc
19 |
|
20 |:
2)
22
23
24
25 |
26 |
27 1
28
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO, RG-06279317
5
01/04/2007 11:38 FAX 415 352 0988 ROECA HAAS HAGER, LLP 007
PROOF OF MAILING/SERVICE
Wt
I, Peter Koresinszky, hereby declare:
YW
Tam over the age of 18 years and not a party to or interested in the within entitled cause. I
BP
am an employee of Roeca Haas Hager LLP and my business address is 180 Sutter Street, Suite
200, San Francisco, CA 94104, On the date stated below, I served a true copy of:
WH
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
A
(x) ~—- By mail, by placing said document(s) in an envelope addressed as shown below. | am
SN
teadily familiar with my finm’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence
for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Said correspondence will be deposited
with the United Statcs Postal Service this same day in the ordinary course of business. I
sealed said envelope and placed it for collection and mailing on the date stated below to
the addressee stated below, following the firm's ordinary business practices.
11
J&0 Sutter $1. Suile 200, San Francisco, C4 94104
Matthew J. Webb, Esq.
12 Law Offices of Matthew J. Wcbb
409 13" Street, 17" Floor
Fax 415.352.0988
13 Oakland, CA 94612
Roeca Haas Hager LLP
15 | I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the
ANS. 452.0980
foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed at San Francisco, California
16 on January 4, 2007. Pe. |
17
Peter Koresinszky |
18 |
G\Sonny-Sonia\Pleadings\POS
doc
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Casc No. RG06279317
Preview
FAX 415 352 0986 ROECA HAAS HAGER, LLP oo2 01/04/2007 11:38 FILED BY FAX EDWARD D. HAAS (State Bar # 76647) ALAMEDA COUNTY RUSSELL 8. ROECA (State Bar # 97297) NATHANIEL L. NICOLL (State Bar # 225509) January O04, 2007 ba ROECA HAAS HAGER LLP CLERE OF 180 Sutter Street, Suite 200 THE SUPERIOR COURT Ww San Francisco, CA 94104 By Robbi Mcintosh, Deput Telephone: (415) 352-0980 CASE NUMBER: & Facsimile: (415) 352-0988 RGO06279317 La Attomeys for Defendant THE MICHAEL BLUMENFELD CORPORATION as NSH successor in interest to THE MICHAEL BLUMENFELD LAW CORPORATION, MICHAEL BLUMENFELD, a Professional Corporation, and MICHAEL JOEL BLUMENFELD, DECEASED we SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA OO Co [80 Sutter Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94104 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA WW 12 Fox 415.352.0988 VELMA SONNY-SONIA, aka. VELMA Case No. RG-06279317 Roeca Haas Hager LLP SONIA, 13 . ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Plaintiff, 14 415.352.0980 V8. 15 | THE MICHAEL BLUMENFELD LAW 16 ' CORPORATION, MICHAEL | BLUMENFELD a Professional 17 | Corporation, MICHAEL JOEL ' BLUMENFELD, deceased, and DOES 1 18 | through 50, inclusive, 19 \ , Defendants. 20 Defendant THE MICHAEL BLUMENFELD CORPORATION as successor in interest to 21 THE MICHAEL BLUMENFELD LAW CORPORATION, MICHAEL BLUMENFELD, a 22 , Professional Corporation, and MICHAEL JOEL BLUMENFELD, DECEASED (“Defendant”) 23 . answers the unverified Complaint of Plaintiff VELMA SONNY-SONIA, a.k.a. VELMA SONIA 24 (“Plaintiff") as follows: 25 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §431.30(d), Defendant denies each and every 26 allegation contained in the Complaint and further denies that Plaintiff has been damaged in any 27 ' amount as a result of the alleged conduct of this answering Defendant, or at all. 28 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO; RG-06279317 01/04/2007 11:38 FAX 415 352 0988 ROECA HAAS HAGER, LLP 003 ‘ FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Fault) ined 1. Plaintiff and/or her agents or employees were negligent in and about the conduct, events, and matters alleged in the Complaint and their carelessness and negligence proximately a caused and contributed to the damages, if any, which Plaintiff incurred and any damages to which La) Plaintiff might be entitled should be abated or reduced as a result of such carelessness and a negligence. ~ SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ca (Comparative Fault of Third Parties) 2] 2. Individuals and entities other then this answering Defendant willfully, or by want of ordinary care, or otherwise, brought about the injuries complained of im the Complaint, and as [80 Sutter Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94104 12 such the alleged damages claimed by Plaintiff should be apportioned according to the amount of 415.352.0980 Fax 415.352.0988 fault attributable to the conduct of such other entities and/or individuals. Roeca Haas Hager LLP 13 14 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Failure to Mitigate) 16 3. Plaintiff has a duty to take reasonable steps to avoid and/or mitigate her alleged 17 damages. Plaintiff failed to take any such steps, delayed in reasonably doing so, or took steps that 18 compounded her alleged damages. Had Plaintiff timely and diligently taken reasonable steps to 19 avoid and/or mitigate her alleged damages, such damages would have been reduced or avoided 20 altogether. By failing to mitigate damages, Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from recovering 21 damages, if any, in this action. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Assumption of Risk) 24 4. At all times material to the incidents in the Complaint, Plaintiff, with full 25 understanding thereof, knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of the conduct, events, and 26 matters alleged in the Complaint, and the damages, if any, incurred by Plaintiff were the 27 proximate result of the risks so assumed. 28 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. RG-06279317 2 01/04/2007 11:38 FAX 415 352 0988 ROECA HAAS HAGER, LLP 004 \ FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 5. Plaintiff is estopped by reason of her conduct, acts and omissions to recover on any claim that Plaintiff might have against Defendant. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFEN SE (Consent/Ratification) 6. Plaintiff, by her own acts or omissions, and/or by and through her agent or agents expressly and impliedly consented to the conduct described in Plaintiff's Complaint, authorized Defendant’s conduct and ratified the actions undertaken by Defendant thereby barring Plaintiff from maintaining the present action against this answering Defendant. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 180 Sutter Street, Suile 200, San Francisco, CA 94104 (Waiver) Fox 415.352.0988 7. Plaintiff expressly and/or implicitly waived the causes of action and claims for Roeca Haas Hager LLP relief alleged in her Complaint. 415.352.0080 (Failure to State Cause of Action) 8. The Complaint and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering Defendant. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 9. The Complaint, and each cause of action, is barred by virtue of Plaintiff's conduct : under the doctrine of unclean hands. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 10. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including but ‘ not limited to that set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure §340.6. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. RG-06279317 3 01/04/2007 11:38 FAX 415 352 0988 ROECA HAAS HAGER, LLP 005 'I | | \ 1 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Perform) hk ll. Tf as is alleged in the Complaint, Defendant failed to perform an obligation as WwW alleged by Plaintiff, such failure resulted from Plaintiff's own failure to perform her duties and mB obligations, and performance by Plaintiff of her duties and obligations was a condition precedent to the performance of Defendant’s obligations to Plaintiff, if any. | TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unwarranted Action) 12, Defendant is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 10 alleges that this action was not warranted by existing law as against Defendant and/or was 11 brought for an improper purpose and Defendant is entitled to sanctions for Plaintiffs violation of 180 Sutter Street, Suide 200, Sen Francisco, CA 94104 2 California Code of Civil Procedure §128.7. Fax 415.352.0988 13 Roeca Haas Hager LLP THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Doctrine Of Laches) 15 13. On information and belief Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs Complaint and each 415.352.0980 16 | cause of action in it is barred by the doctrine of laches in that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in 17 bringing this action and such delay caused prejudice to this answering Defendant. 18 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Superseding Cause) 20 14. The damages complained of, which damages Defendant denies, were caused as a 21 result of an intcrvening or superseding cause, barring any recovery against Defendant. - FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Insufficient Knowledge/Unstated Defenses) 24 15. This answering Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information on 25 ' which to form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses, and the 26 allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint are not sufficiently detailed or clear to allow Defendant to 27 28 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. RG-062793 17 4 01/04/2007 11:38 FAX 415 352 0988 ROECA HAAS HAGER, LLP Mo06 | | | make this determination. Defendant reserves herein the right to assert additional defenses in the 2 | event discovery or investigation indicates that they would be appropriate. 3 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 4 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by her Complaint and that the Complaint be dismissed 5 | with prejudice; 6 2. That Defendant be awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the extent recoverable by 7 | law; and 8 3. That the Court order such other and further relief as is just and proper under the 9 } circumstances. 10 | Dated: January 4, 2007 ROECA HAAS HAGER LLP E 11 & S12 Sie os 5 é 4 R A'S. Roeca 2 a= 14 ‘Attomteys for Defendant yok | THE MICHAEL BLUMENFELD 2B 15 |i CORPORATION as successor in interest to THE gat | MICHAEL BLUMENFELD LAW 23m 16 | CORPORATION, MICHAEL BLUMENFELD, a | a Professional Corporation, and MICHAEL g 17 | JOEL BLUMENFELD, DECEASED EE 138 GAS onhy-Sonia\Pleadings\Answer.doc 19 | | 20 |: 2) 22 23 24 25 | 26 | 27 1 28 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO, RG-06279317 5 01/04/2007 11:38 FAX 415 352 0988 ROECA HAAS HAGER, LLP 007 PROOF OF MAILING/SERVICE Wt I, Peter Koresinszky, hereby declare: YW Tam over the age of 18 years and not a party to or interested in the within entitled cause. I BP am an employee of Roeca Haas Hager LLP and my business address is 180 Sutter Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94104, On the date stated below, I served a true copy of: WH ANSWER TO COMPLAINT A (x) ~—- By mail, by placing said document(s) in an envelope addressed as shown below. | am SN teadily familiar with my finm’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Said correspondence will be deposited with the United Statcs Postal Service this same day in the ordinary course of business. I sealed said envelope and placed it for collection and mailing on the date stated below to the addressee stated below, following the firm's ordinary business practices. 11 J&0 Sutter $1. Suile 200, San Francisco, C4 94104 Matthew J. Webb, Esq. 12 Law Offices of Matthew J. Wcbb 409 13" Street, 17" Floor Fax 415.352.0988 13 Oakland, CA 94612 Roeca Haas Hager LLP 15 | I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the ANS. 452.0980 foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed at San Francisco, California 16 on January 4, 2007. Pe. | 17 Peter Koresinszky | 18 | G\Sonny-Sonia\Pleadings\POS doc 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Casc No. RG06279317