Preview
e eee
: ||
i {| WOLLTAM 1. CASEY (SBN 116531) ae e a
woe TTANDREW G. WANGER (SBN 166449) a [ on f. 3
“2 JDANCOCK ROTOERT & BUNSTIONT LLP ALAMIS BA COUNT Y
Four Hinbare AG: a Center, Suite 300 —
3 i} San Pyaacisea, ahtoriuta 94111-4168 AUG i 7 2004
Yelephone: is YO8h-Sse
4 I destinies, CLS) O55 ARTHUR oH 5, Even ee fOr oa,
re, rt ane ao ys
BY recon
§ ie mee
Allorneys for De feurtants
6 HT MICHAEL GHIYA, JOLIN TILL
and LAW OFFiCHS Gr JOHN } 1 FHLB
7
h SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
; POR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
10 ;
H) FP MICHAL SMe rd, CASE NO. RG 046347
i? Ydoiitlh
CROSS-COMYPLAINT >
13 Vv. q
re | Li
P4 JOURN EL LHD, MICHATAL GOUTA, LAW >
OFFICES
PPICES OF OF J JONN 1. 1 TULL,
JNLL, aand
nd DOES
DORS 1 Summons 1eUeO . co
1S |) through 100, incinsive,
16 lectendann.
One Lega \
Filed By
JOUN TL TACT, MICTIAUL GUTA, LAW
18 | OPFICES OF JOUNE: UL,
19 Cross-Cornplainants,
20 v.
21 0 CLULIPJ. DUNCAN, DUNCAN &
RAINWATER, and } LOUS 1 through 30,
22 |! inclusive,
23 Crose-Defendants,
24
55 Doferidanis and cross-camplainants JONN E, HILL, MICHAL GUTA, AND
6 LAW OPCICES OF JOTIN Li HELL allege against all cross-defendiants as follows:
a9
27
28
MAGLORR IT TA
AUNEAEYEL TD
{SEDQC
ROL SAT 2H EL _.. _ a RG 04163416
CROSS-COMPLAINT
415 955 2563 PAGE. 12
RUG 13 2884 14:14
© FAX NO. 415 965 259¢ >, II
AUG-13-04 FRI 02:11 PM HANCOCK ROTHERT BUNSHOFT
|
f od @
l FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
“ 2 {Comparative Indemnity and Declaratory Relicll
4 i. Theil at all times herein mentioned, cross-complainant JOJIN [. HILL was
an attorney, licensed in vood stariding with the State of California, with a practice of law in
=
Oakland, Califerain.
LA
G 2, ‘That at all times herein mentioned, cross-complainant MICHAL GUTA
7 [Pwas an altomvy, liccased in good standing with the State of California, and practices with the firm
K Hof LAW OFFICES OF JOUN FE. HULL.
9 3, ‘Phat at all times herein mentioned, cross-complainant LAW OFFICES OF
10 HJOUN E. ILC wwas a professional corporation, in good standing with the State of California,
I) idoing business ip Oakland, California.
2 d That at all times herein mentioned PFUETIP DUNCAN was an attorney
13 |) licensed in the Siste of Arkansas that counseled, advised, represented and maintained an altomey-
I if chent relatioush}p wilh Michael Smith, plaintiff, a California resident. DUNCAN represcated
15 |} plaintiffand oiaingtined a atiomey-client relationship with plaintiff with regard to the lawsuit
16 Hontited. Affehie? MM. Saati vy. Quad Rep, OR, Ine., William Mackin, Thomas MeCarthy, Patrick
7 Morion, filed inthe Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, Case no, CV791193.
Is 5. That alall dimes herein mentioned DUNCAN & RAINWATER, business
19 fH formiumkowat, represented plainti(( and maintained an attomey-client relationship with plaintiff
20 |] with regard to the fawauil entitled, Michael M Satith v. Quad Rep, OR. Ine, William Mackin,
211) Thonias MeCortiy, Mairick Morton, Med in the Superior Court tor the County of Santa Clara,
22 || Case no, CV/91 (93,
23 6. That at all tines ROBS | through 10 were individuals residing or doing
2) ft business im the Sive of Calilorata. |
25 7. that at all tines herein mentioned cross-delendants and ROKS 11 through
26 [/ 30 were and row sre corporations authorized to do business and doing business in the State of
27 California. .
ISEDOCGLBIIAIIO-U oa nae . RG .04163416,
CROSS-COMPLAINT
415 955 2599 PAGE.11
FUG 13 2006 14:14
FAX NO. 415 965 259 g >, le
AUG-13-04 FRI C2512 PM | HANCOCK ROTHERT BUNSHOFT
a, That the true names and capacities of crass-defendants, ROES 21 through
30, are unknowz to cross-complainant and therefore, cross-complainant sues said cross-defendants
by such fictitious naines. Cross-complainant Will move to amend the cross-complaint when the
rug names and identities are aseertained.
“i, Vhat at all times herein mentioned, cross-defend:inls, and each of them,
were the agents and servants of cach other and acting within the scope of such agency or
claplayment. .
10. Cross-complainants hereby incorporate the allegations of plaintiffs
complaint hecein ia the action cntitled Michael Smith v. Joha £. Hill, ev al., Alameda County
Supertor Couri, Case No, G04163436 (the “Complaint”) solely for the purpose of demonstrating
the mature of the causes of action being alleged against the eross-complainants, |
11. ‘That cross-complainants deny liability to the plaintiff, but thatil'such
hiahilily is found, cross-defendants, and each of therm, contributed to causing the alleged damages
suffered by plainill, if ary, in that on or before the dates alleged in the Complaint, said cross-
defendants, and cach of them, negligentlyor otherwise toriiously acted in such a manner and
fashion as to cause plainvilfto sustain injuries and damages, if any, as sect forth in the Complaint.
It. “That in the event that any party to this action should establish any liability
1$ on the put of cress: complainants, by whom liability is expressly denicd, cross-complainants may
be obligated io pay sums representing a portion or percentage of fault not cross-conyplainants’
own, or Uiird persons not parties to this action. ‘Therefore, cross-comptainants request an
adjudication si} determination of the respective proportions or percentage of fault, if any, on
cross-camplatnarts’ part and on the part of all cross-defendants, other parties to this action, and
thicd persons not partics lo this action,
13. A determination of the respective portions or perecitage of fault, if any, of
cross-Complainanis and the cross-defendants, other parties and third persons not parties to this
achon is nevessary io protest the rights of cross-camplainant.
Heamescen wine Fer
Filta td be
POUT TAHA ADL AGA LCE US
3 ; _ . RGD: A
RANTING OCR UV SED ROTTS EO
ISEROC _
CU ad 60h.
CROSS-COMPLA INT Gia
, 415 955 2599 PAGE. 12
AUG 13 2004 14:15
eee
FAX NO. 415 955 2592 P, 13
aUG-13-04 FRI 02:13 PM HANCOCK RCTHERT BUNSHOFT
WITEREFORE, eross-complainants pray for recovery as set forth hereinafter:
SECOND CAUSE QE ACTION
‘[Iniplied Jademnily)
14. Crass-complainants incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1
through [4 of tle Miest Cause of Action hercofas though set forth fully herein.
15, That cross-complainants deay their aveged liability to the plaintiff, but that
if sugh liability is found, eross-complainants will be entitled to recover full indemnity against
crass-defendants, aad cach of them, for any amounts paid as damage or in settlement of the main
action beoanse crossedifendants? active and primary neghgcnee or Fail was the proximate cause
ofthe plaintiff's alleged injury and damages, ifany. The cross-covnplainants’ alleged negligence
or fault was passive anid secondary only consisting of failing to discover and remedy the allegedly
neglipoat ar otheiwise toriious acts of cross-detendaits, and cach of them, as set forth in the
Complaint
WITEREPORE, DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMITAINANTS PRAY AS
FOLLOWS:
UNDER TIE FERST CAUSE OF ACTION
IG. Fora declaration of the respective proportions or percentages of fault, if
1s any, of cross-commplaingats and of crass-defendants, other parties to this action, and third persons
Not parties to this setion, |
| 1%, For indemnity frony cross-defendants, and cach of them, for cross-
compluinanls’ payment, ifany, of any and all damages foundto have been sustained by plaindffin
the Complaint by way of judyment, verdict or settlement, in direct proportion to the pereentage by
which each sich en-ilefendant negligently or otherwise proximately contributed to causing the
damages av injury of plaiatiff clainsed therein, if any.
UNDER THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
18. For indemnity from cross-defendants, and cach of them, for cross-
complainants’ payaient, any, of any and all damages found to have been sustained by plaintiffin
28 the Complains for cay and all raosies paid by it in settlement thereof, and for its entire attorneys’
PAMOGK IEEE
CHI tay
ISEDQCHOL
SOD IUO Ue ee nace 4 os a RG OALGI4 16
CROSS-COMPLAINT
4i5 955 2599 PAGE. 13
AUG 13 2866 14:15
AUG-13-04 FRI 02:13 PM HANCOCK ROTHERT BUNSHOFT = FAX NO, 415 955 259 14
co
U
1 |} fees ond cests iecurred in the defense thercof from this day forward.
.
UNDER THE FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OY ACTION
bo
3 19. Vor cosls of suit in this action, attorneys’ fecs incurred in this aclion, and for
4 |tsuch other and cdditional relteFas the Court deems just and proper.
6H DATED: Aveust 13, 2004 HANCOCK ROTHER & BUNSHOFT LLP
7
&
NY, f
; by. AL _—
? Willian J. AYuy
Andeoew Cr, War i ft
1) Attorneys for Defendant#MICHAEL GUTA, JOHN
, TILL and LAW OFFICES OF JONN FE. HIL L
INA SBDY BADD VOU oo cece es eee eueesee oe a) _. «couse RG04163416
CROSS-COMPLAINE
AUG 13 2084 14:16 415 955 2559 PAGE. 14
Preview
e eee : || i {| WOLLTAM 1. CASEY (SBN 116531) ae e a woe TTANDREW G. WANGER (SBN 166449) a [ on f. 3 “2 JDANCOCK ROTOERT & BUNSTIONT LLP ALAMIS BA COUNT Y Four Hinbare AG: a Center, Suite 300 — 3 i} San Pyaacisea, ahtoriuta 94111-4168 AUG i 7 2004 Yelephone: is YO8h-Sse 4 I destinies, CLS) O55 ARTHUR oH 5, Even ee fOr oa, re, rt ane ao ys BY recon § ie mee Allorneys for De feurtants 6 HT MICHAEL GHIYA, JOLIN TILL and LAW OFFiCHS Gr JOHN } 1 FHLB 7 h SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ; POR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 ; H) FP MICHAL SMe rd, CASE NO. RG 046347 i? Ydoiitlh CROSS-COMYPLAINT > 13 Vv. q re | Li P4 JOURN EL LHD, MICHATAL GOUTA, LAW > OFFICES PPICES OF OF J JONN 1. 1 TULL, JNLL, aand nd DOES DORS 1 Summons 1eUeO . co 1S |) through 100, incinsive, 16 lectendann. One Lega \ Filed By JOUN TL TACT, MICTIAUL GUTA, LAW 18 | OPFICES OF JOUNE: UL, 19 Cross-Cornplainants, 20 v. 21 0 CLULIPJ. DUNCAN, DUNCAN & RAINWATER, and } LOUS 1 through 30, 22 |! inclusive, 23 Crose-Defendants, 24 55 Doferidanis and cross-camplainants JONN E, HILL, MICHAL GUTA, AND 6 LAW OPCICES OF JOTIN Li HELL allege against all cross-defendiants as follows: a9 27 28 MAGLORR IT TA AUNEAEYEL TD {SEDQC ROL SAT 2H EL _.. _ a RG 04163416 CROSS-COMPLAINT 415 955 2563 PAGE. 12 RUG 13 2884 14:14 © FAX NO. 415 965 259¢ >, II AUG-13-04 FRI 02:11 PM HANCOCK ROTHERT BUNSHOFT | f od @ l FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION “ 2 {Comparative Indemnity and Declaratory Relicll 4 i. Theil at all times herein mentioned, cross-complainant JOJIN [. HILL was an attorney, licensed in vood stariding with the State of California, with a practice of law in = Oakland, Califerain. LA G 2, ‘That at all times herein mentioned, cross-complainant MICHAL GUTA 7 [Pwas an altomvy, liccased in good standing with the State of California, and practices with the firm K Hof LAW OFFICES OF JOUN FE. HULL. 9 3, ‘Phat at all times herein mentioned, cross-complainant LAW OFFICES OF 10 HJOUN E. ILC wwas a professional corporation, in good standing with the State of California, I) idoing business ip Oakland, California. 2 d That at all times herein mentioned PFUETIP DUNCAN was an attorney 13 |) licensed in the Siste of Arkansas that counseled, advised, represented and maintained an altomey- I if chent relatioush}p wilh Michael Smith, plaintiff, a California resident. DUNCAN represcated 15 |} plaintiffand oiaingtined a atiomey-client relationship with plaintiff with regard to the lawsuit 16 Hontited. Affehie? MM. Saati vy. Quad Rep, OR, Ine., William Mackin, Thomas MeCarthy, Patrick 7 Morion, filed inthe Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, Case no, CV791193. Is 5. That alall dimes herein mentioned DUNCAN & RAINWATER, business 19 fH formiumkowat, represented plainti(( and maintained an attomey-client relationship with plaintiff 20 |] with regard to the fawauil entitled, Michael M Satith v. Quad Rep, OR. Ine, William Mackin, 211) Thonias MeCortiy, Mairick Morton, Med in the Superior Court tor the County of Santa Clara, 22 || Case no, CV/91 (93, 23 6. That at all tines ROBS | through 10 were individuals residing or doing 2) ft business im the Sive of Calilorata. | 25 7. that at all tines herein mentioned cross-delendants and ROKS 11 through 26 [/ 30 were and row sre corporations authorized to do business and doing business in the State of 27 California. . ISEDOCGLBIIAIIO-U oa nae . RG .04163416, CROSS-COMPLAINT 415 955 2599 PAGE.11 FUG 13 2006 14:14 FAX NO. 415 965 259 g >, le AUG-13-04 FRI C2512 PM | HANCOCK ROTHERT BUNSHOFT a, That the true names and capacities of crass-defendants, ROES 21 through 30, are unknowz to cross-complainant and therefore, cross-complainant sues said cross-defendants by such fictitious naines. Cross-complainant Will move to amend the cross-complaint when the rug names and identities are aseertained. “i, Vhat at all times herein mentioned, cross-defend:inls, and each of them, were the agents and servants of cach other and acting within the scope of such agency or claplayment. . 10. Cross-complainants hereby incorporate the allegations of plaintiffs complaint hecein ia the action cntitled Michael Smith v. Joha £. Hill, ev al., Alameda County Supertor Couri, Case No, G04163436 (the “Complaint”) solely for the purpose of demonstrating the mature of the causes of action being alleged against the eross-complainants, | 11. ‘That cross-complainants deny liability to the plaintiff, but thatil'such hiahilily is found, cross-defendants, and each of therm, contributed to causing the alleged damages suffered by plainill, if ary, in that on or before the dates alleged in the Complaint, said cross- defendants, and cach of them, negligentlyor otherwise toriiously acted in such a manner and fashion as to cause plainvilfto sustain injuries and damages, if any, as sect forth in the Complaint. It. “That in the event that any party to this action should establish any liability 1$ on the put of cress: complainants, by whom liability is expressly denicd, cross-complainants may be obligated io pay sums representing a portion or percentage of fault not cross-conyplainants’ own, or Uiird persons not parties to this action. ‘Therefore, cross-comptainants request an adjudication si} determination of the respective proportions or percentage of fault, if any, on cross-camplatnarts’ part and on the part of all cross-defendants, other parties to this action, and thicd persons not partics lo this action, 13. A determination of the respective portions or perecitage of fault, if any, of cross-Complainanis and the cross-defendants, other parties and third persons not parties to this achon is nevessary io protest the rights of cross-camplainant. Heamescen wine Fer Filta td be POUT TAHA ADL AGA LCE US 3 ; _ . RGD: A RANTING OCR UV SED ROTTS EO ISEROC _ CU ad 60h. CROSS-COMPLA INT Gia , 415 955 2599 PAGE. 12 AUG 13 2004 14:15 eee FAX NO. 415 955 2592 P, 13 aUG-13-04 FRI 02:13 PM HANCOCK RCTHERT BUNSHOFT WITEREFORE, eross-complainants pray for recovery as set forth hereinafter: SECOND CAUSE QE ACTION ‘[Iniplied Jademnily) 14. Crass-complainants incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through [4 of tle Miest Cause of Action hercofas though set forth fully herein. 15, That cross-complainants deay their aveged liability to the plaintiff, but that if sugh liability is found, eross-complainants will be entitled to recover full indemnity against crass-defendants, aad cach of them, for any amounts paid as damage or in settlement of the main action beoanse crossedifendants? active and primary neghgcnee or Fail was the proximate cause ofthe plaintiff's alleged injury and damages, ifany. The cross-covnplainants’ alleged negligence or fault was passive anid secondary only consisting of failing to discover and remedy the allegedly neglipoat ar otheiwise toriious acts of cross-detendaits, and cach of them, as set forth in the Complaint WITEREPORE, DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMITAINANTS PRAY AS FOLLOWS: UNDER TIE FERST CAUSE OF ACTION IG. Fora declaration of the respective proportions or percentages of fault, if 1s any, of cross-commplaingats and of crass-defendants, other parties to this action, and third persons Not parties to this setion, | | 1%, For indemnity frony cross-defendants, and cach of them, for cross- compluinanls’ payment, ifany, of any and all damages foundto have been sustained by plaindffin the Complaint by way of judyment, verdict or settlement, in direct proportion to the pereentage by which each sich en-ilefendant negligently or otherwise proximately contributed to causing the damages av injury of plaiatiff clainsed therein, if any. UNDER THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 18. For indemnity from cross-defendants, and cach of them, for cross- complainants’ payaient, any, of any and all damages found to have been sustained by plaintiffin 28 the Complains for cay and all raosies paid by it in settlement thereof, and for its entire attorneys’ PAMOGK IEEE CHI tay ISEDQCHOL SOD IUO Ue ee nace 4 os a RG OALGI4 16 CROSS-COMPLAINT 4i5 955 2599 PAGE. 13 AUG 13 2866 14:15 AUG-13-04 FRI 02:13 PM HANCOCK ROTHERT BUNSHOFT = FAX NO, 415 955 259 14 co U 1 |} fees ond cests iecurred in the defense thercof from this day forward. . UNDER THE FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OY ACTION bo 3 19. Vor cosls of suit in this action, attorneys’ fecs incurred in this aclion, and for 4 |tsuch other and cdditional relteFas the Court deems just and proper. 6H DATED: Aveust 13, 2004 HANCOCK ROTHER & BUNSHOFT LLP 7 & NY, f ; by. AL _— ? Willian J. AYuy Andeoew Cr, War i ft 1) Attorneys for Defendant#MICHAEL GUTA, JOHN , TILL and LAW OFFICES OF JONN FE. HIL L INA SBDY BADD VOU oo cece es eee eueesee oe a) _. «couse RG04163416 CROSS-COMPLAINE AUG 13 2084 14:16 415 955 2559 PAGE. 14