Preview
1 WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
ROBERT A. SHIELDS (206042)
2 HANG ALEXANDRA DO (305839)
402 West Broadway, Suite 1600
3 San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 236-9600
4 Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
Email: rshields@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
5 Email: hdo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
Email: warrantyeservice@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
6
7 Attorneys for Defendant
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. (erroneously
8 sued herein as Nissan North America, Inc. d/b/a
Nissan USA and Nissan Security Plus)
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
13 ROGER LEE, Case No. 20CIV00364
14 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF HANG
ALEXANDRA DO IN SUPPORT OF
15 v. MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF
DEFAULT
16 STEVEN NG; WEI YING; NISSAN
SECURITY PLUS; BBVA COMPASS; LTD Complaint Filed: January 17, 2020
17 FINANCIAL SERVICES; DOES 1 to X,
Date: June 20, 2022
18 Defendants. Time: 2:00 p.m.
Dept.: 23
19 Judge: Hon. Raymond Swope
Trial Date: Not set
20
21 I, Hang Alexandra Do, declare:
22 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am an
23 associate with the law firm of Wilson Turner Kosmo, LLP, 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1600, San
24 Diego, CA 92101, counsel for Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Defendant; erroneously sued
25 herein as Nissan North America, Inc. d/b/a Nissan USA and Nissan Security Plus) in this action.
26 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called upon
27 to testify, I would and could do so as set forth herein, except as to those matters that are explicitly set
28 ///
1
DECLARATION OF HANG ALEXANDRA DO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT
1 forth as based upon information and belief and, as to such matters, I am informed and believe that
2 they are true and correct.
3 3. On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging claims for breach of contract
4 against Nissan Security Plus.
5 4. On February 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint substituting Nissan
6 Security Plus with Nissan.
7 5. On January 14, 2022, I emailed Plaintiff’s counsel, Terence Rayner, a draft
8 stipulation to set aside default. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
9 6. On January 17, 2022, after not receiving a response from Plaintiff’s counsel, I called
10 him. Plaintiff counsel stated that he would not agree to stipulate to set aside the default until the
11 correct party/defendant was identified.
12 7. At this time, Nissan is unable to determine whom the correct party to be name is
13 without further discovery. Having no other choice, Nissan was forced to file this Motion.
14 8. A true and correct copy of Nissan’s answer proposed to be filed is attached hereto as
15 Exhibit 2.
16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
17 is true and correct.
18 Executed this 4th day of February, 2022, at San Diego, California.
19
20
_______________________
21
Hang Alexandra Do
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DECLARATION OF HANG ALEXANDRA DO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT
EXHIBIT 1
Chelsie Hughes
From: Hang Alexandra Do
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 9:22 AM
To: terryrayner@comcast.net
Cc: Chelsie Hughes
Subject: Lee v. Nissan North America, et al - 20CIV00364
Attachments: Stip to Set Aside Default - Lee (NNA) (HAD) (03108911xB6C3C).docx
Importance: High
Mr. Rayner,
My firm is representing Nissan North America in this case. I believe you spoke to Amir Nassihi from Shook Hardy
regarding the stipulation to vacate the default. I have attached the stipulation for your review and for your
signature. Please let me know if you have any edits, if not, please affix your signature to the document and I can have it
filed today.
In addition, can you please provide the VIN for Plaintiff’s vehicle (Nissan Sentra)?
Best,
Hang
Hang Alexandra Do | Attorney
WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
402 West Broadway | Suite 1600 | San Diego, California 92101
P: 619‐236‐9600 | F: 619‐236‐9669
hdo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
www.wilsonturnerkosmo.com
Due to state and local government directives regarding efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, I
will be working remotely until further notice. I should be able to respond to calls and emails in close
to real time. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
This electronic transmission contains information from the law firm of Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, which may be confidential or protected by the attorney‐client
privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this
message is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e‐mail and delete the original message.
1
EXHIBIT 2
1 WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
ROBERT A. SHIELDS (206042)
2 HANG ALEXANDRA DO (305839)
402 West Broadway, Suite 1600
3 San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 236-9600
4 Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
Email: rshields@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
5 Email: hdo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
Email: warrantyeservice@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
6
7 Attorneys for Defendant
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. (erroneously
8 sued herein as Nissan North America, Inc. d/b/a
Nissan USA and Nissan Security Plus)
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
13 ROGER LEE, Case No. 20CIV00364
14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH
AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO
15 v. PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED
AMENDED COMPLAINT
16 STEVEN NG; WEI YING; NISSAN
SECURITY PLUS; BBVA COMPASS; LTD Complaint Filed: January 17, 2020
17 FINANCIAL SERVICES; DOES 1 to X,
Dept.: 23
18 Defendants. Judge: Hon. Raymond Swope
Trial Date: Not set
19
20 Defendant, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. (“Defendant”), answers the unverified
21 Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) on file herein as follows:
22 Defendant answers the unverified Complaint on file herein pursuant to California Code of
23 Civil Procedure section 431.30 by denying, generally and specifically, each, and every and all of the
24 allegations contained in the Complaint and each and every part thereof, including each and every
25 cause of action purportedly contained therein, and denies that Plaintiff has or will sustain damages in
26 the sum or sums referred to therein, or in any other sum or sums, or at all.
27 Defendant further answers the unverified Complaint on file herein and each and every
28 purported cause of action contained therein by denying that Plaintiff has sustained, or will sustain,
1
DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1 any damage in any sum at all by reason of the carelessness, negligence or other fault, act or omission
2 on the part of the answering Defendant, its agents, servants or employees.
3 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO THE COMPLAINT
AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF
4
5 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Failure to State a Claim)
7 The Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, fails to state facts
8 sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Defendant.
9 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (No Opportunity to Cure)
11 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff is barred from obtaining
12 the relief sought in the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed and refused to allow
13 Defendant a reasonable opportunity to cure any alleged breach by Defendant.
14 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Failure to Mitigate Damages)
16 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if
17 any, are the result in whole or in part, of Plaintiff’s failure to exercise reasonable care to reduce or
18 mitigate damages.
19 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Equitable Defenses)
21 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff is barred in whole or in
22 part by his negligence, unclean hands, fault, assumption of the risk or otherwise from any and/or all
23 legal or equitable relief against Defendant, as requested in the Complaint or otherwise.
24 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Statute of Limitations)
26 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Complaint, and each cause of
27 action thereof, is barred by application of the statutes and limitation set forth in California Code of
28
2
DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1 Civil Procedure Sections 337(a), 337(b), 337(c), 338.1, 339(1), 343, and Commercial Code section
2 2725(1), and/or any other statute of limitation applicable to the present action.
3 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 (Intervening/Superseding Cause)
5 Any and all damages, if any, sustained or suffered by Plaintiff were proximately caused and
6 contributed to by the superseding, intervening acts or omission of persons other than Defendant in
7 that said persons, and each of them, were careless and negligent concerning the matters alleged in
8 the Complaint, and such negligence and carelessness proximately contributed to the loss, damage or
9 detriment alleged in the Complaint with the result that the damages, if any, recoverable by Plaintiff
10 herein must be diminished in proportion to the fault attributable to such other persons.
11 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Misuse/Improper Use)
13 Any and all damages, if any, sustained or suffered by Plaintiff were directly and proximately
14 caused and contributed to by the misuse of and the unreasonable and improper use of Defendant’s
15 product. Further, the misuse or failure to properly use Defendant’s product contributed to the loss,
16 damages or detriment, if any, alleged in the Complaint and the damages, if any, recoverable by
17 Plaintiff herein must be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to such misuse
18 or unreasonable or improper use.
19 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Unintended Use)
21 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any and all damages, if any,
22 sustained or suffered by Plaintiff, was proximately caused and contributed to by Plaintiff’s use of the
23 vehicle which is the subject of this lawsuit, for a purpose to which said product was not intended to
24 be so used. Plaintiff knew, or should have known, that the use to which Plaintiff put the vehicle was
25 not the use for which the vehicle was manufactured or intended and that such unintended use could
26 cause damage to Plaintiff.
27 ///
28 ///
3
DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (No Proximate Cause)
3 No act or omission of Defendant was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of the damages,
4 if any, sustained by the Plaintiff. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any
5 breach of warranty of fitness or merchantability, if any, and any other breach of warranty, if any, and
6 any breach of contractual undertakings of Defendant, if any, were neither the cause in fact nor the
7 proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages. Rather, any said breaches, if any, were only secondary,
8 inconsequential, indirect and in no way contributed to or caused the alleged damages of Plaintiff.
9 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Response, Laches, and Estoppel)
11 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by
12 the statute of repose and/or the equitable doctrines of laches and estoppel.
13 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Waiver)
15 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff has waived his rights, if
16 any, to obtain the relief sought in the Complaint.
17 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Defendant Fulfilled Duties)
19 Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that to the extent Defendant owed
20 Plaintiff any duties of any kind, Defendant performed and fully discharged any and all obligations
21 and legal duties to Plaintiff pertinent to the matters alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint on file herein
22 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (In Pari Delicto)
24 The Complaint and each of its causes of action are barred because Plaintiff is equally
25 responsible for the alleged violations for which they now seek redress.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
4
DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Injury Caused By Third Party)
3 If any loss, injury, damage, or detriment occurred as alleged in the Complaint, the loss,
4 injury, damage, or detriment was caused and contributed to by the actions of Plaintiffs or by other
5 factors outside of Plaintiff’s relationship with Defendant.
6 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Plaintiff’s Negligence)
8 Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that any and all damages, if any,
9 sustained or suffered by Plaintiff may have been proximately caused and contributed to by Plaintiff’s
10 own negligence. Plaintiff’s recovery in this action must be reduced by an amount equivalent to such
11 percentage of negligence up to and including 100%.
12 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 (Contributory Negligence)
14 Plaintiff and/or other parties and/or third persons not parties to this action may have been
15 careless and negligent in the matters alleged, thereby causing and contributing to any damage or loss
16 to Plaintiff.
17 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Apportionment)
19 If Plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss, injury or damage, either as alleged in the
20 Complaint or at all, Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such loss, injury or
21 damage may have been directly and proximately caused by persons or entities other than Defendant.
22 The liability of Defendant and responsible parties, named or unnamed, must be apportioned
23 according to their relative degrees of fault or causation, and the liability of Defendant must be
24 reduced accordingly.
25 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 (Comparative Fault of Others)
27 Defendant alleges that other parties, or third persons not parties to this action, may have been
28 negligent, legally responsible, or otherwise at fault for Plaintiff’s alleged damage or loss. Defendant
5
DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1 therefore requests that, in the event of a finding of any liability in favor of Plaintiff or a judgment
2 against Defendant is entered, an apportionment of fault be made among all parties and third persons
3 as permitted under Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal. 3d 804 (1975) and American Motorcycle Assn. v.
4 Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 578 (1978). Defendant further requests a judgment and declaration of
5 partial indemnification and contribution against other parties or third persons in accordance with the
6 apportionment of fault.
7 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (Assumption of Risk)
9 The risks and dangers in Plaintiff’s conduct were known to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff
10 nevertheless conducted himself in such a manner so as to expose himself and remain exposed to said
11 risks and damages and by doing so assumed all the risks attendant thereto. At said time, date and
12 place of the incidents described in the Complaint, Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risks of the
13 activities in which he was then and there engaged and under the circumstances and conditions then
14 and there existing, and the resultant damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff were proximately caused
15 by Plaintiff’s own voluntary assumption of risk.
16 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Accord and Satisfaction)
18 Plaintiff’s claims are extinguished by accord and satisfaction.
19 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Good Faith)
21 Defendant alleges that at all times relevant to this action, Defendant acted in good faith and
22 believes its actions to have been legal. In addition, all acts of Defendant were motivated by
23 legitimate, lawful reasons, and/or as a result of business necessity.
24 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Improper Venue)
26 Defendant hereby raises, asserts, and preserves its defense of improper venue.
27 ///
28 ///
6
DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Inconvenient Forum)
3 Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or part because they have been filed in an inconvenient
4 forum or forum non conveniens.
5 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (No Breach)
7 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any breach, if any, and any
8 breach of contractual undertakings of defendant, if any, were neither the cause in fact nor the
9 proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages. Rather, any said breaches, if any, were only secondary,
10 inconsequential, indirect and in no way contributed to or caused the alleged damages of the Plaintiff.
11 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Failure of Conditions Precedent)
13 Plaintiff failed to perform conditions precedent to the alleged contract or obligation.
14 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Offset)
16 Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant is entitled to an
17 offset for any monies received by Plaintiff from any source in compensation for their alleged
18 economic damages and non-economic damages under the common law doctrine of offset and under
19 the doctrine prohibiting double recovery set forth under Witt v. Jackson, 57 Cal.2d 57 (1961) and its
20 progeny.
21 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Non-Economic Damages)
23 Defendant is not liable for the events and occurrences, tortious or otherwise, described in the
24 Complaint. While denying the allegations of the Complaint, Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff
25 recovers, then, pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1431.1, et. seq., Defendant is not liable for
26 any non-economic damage that is not directly proportional to Defendant’s percentage of fault.
27 ///
28 ///
7
DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Recovery Limitations)
3 Plaintiff’s claims for damages are barred in whole or in part by the limitations imposed by
4 law as to the recovery of such damages.
5 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Limited Damages)
7 Defendant, in response to the Complaint and each of its cause of action, states that Plaintiff’s
8 claims for certain damages are specifically barred by the terms of the warranty in question and
9 applicable law.
10 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Adequate Remedy at Law)
12 Injunctive relief is not appropriate because Plaintiff has an adequate legal remedy.
13 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Punitive Damages – Failure to State a Claim)
15 Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to warrant the imposition of punitive or exemplary
16 damages or attorneys’ fees or costs.
17 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Punitive Damages – Constitutionality)
19 Plaintiff’s purported claim for punitive damages cannot be sustained because an award of
20 punitive damages against Defendant based on the allegations of the Complaint, and without proper
21 guidelines to the jury setting an appropriate limit and bifurcation of the trial, would violate
22 Defendant's constitutional rights under the United States and California Constitutions.
23 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Punitive Damages – No Punitive Damages)
25 Defendant did not engage in any act or omission which was oppressive, fraudulent, or
26 malicious under California Civil Code Section 3294, or otherwise. Accordingly, any claim for
27 punitive or exemplary damages is barred. Any claim for punitive or exemplary damages is also
28 barred under California Civil Code Section 3294(b).
8
DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Punitive Damages – Excessive Fines)
3 Defendant is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff’s claim for punitive
4 damages violates the Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution
5 and Article 1, Section 7(a) of the Constitution of the State of California; the 8th Amendment to the
6 United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of California
7 barring the imposition of excessive fines; and Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution
8 and Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution of the State of California barring the impairment of
9 contracts and other law.
10 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (No Punitive Damages)
12 Punitive damages are not available to Plaintiff under the facts of this matter and the
13 applicable law.
14 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Barred by Arbitration Agreement)
16 The Complaint and each of its causes of action are barred by a valid and enforceable
17 agreement to arbitrate.
18 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel)
20 Defendant alleges, on information and belief, that Plaintiff’s claim(s) against this answering
21 Defendant are barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel, issue preclusion and/or res judicata.
22 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Other Defenses)
24 Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief
25 as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, affirmative defenses available. Defendant
26 reserves herein the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates that
27 they would be appropriate.
28 ///
9
DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1 WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays:
2 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by the Complaint;
3 2. For costs of suit;
4 3. For such attorney’s fees as may be allowed by law; and
5 4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
6
7 Dated: January 21, 2022 WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
8
9
10 By:
Robert A. Shields
11 Hang Alexandra Do
Attorneys for Defendant
12 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
(erroneously sued herein as Nissan North
13 America, Inc. d/b/a Nissan USA and Nissan
Security Plus)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Roger Lee v. Steven Ng, et al.
3 Case No.: 20CIV00364
4 I, the undersigned, declare as follows:
5
I am employed with the law firm of WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP, whose address is 402
6 West Broadway, Suite 1600, San Diego, California 92101. I am readily familiar with the business
practices of this office for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United
7 States Postal Service; I am over the age of eighteen and I am not a party to this action.
8 On January 21, 2022, I served the following document(s), bearing the title(s):
9 1. DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT
10
by placing the original a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed
11 as follows:
12 Terence Rayner, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff,
P.O. Box 85, 300 Arroyo Roger Lee
13 Lagunitas, CA 94938
Tel: (415) 298-9116
14 Email: terryrayner@comcast.net
15 Parisa Jassim Attorney for Defendant,
Akerman LLP BBVA USA f/k/a Compass Bank
16 601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 688-9500
17 Fax: (213) 627-6342
Email: parisa.jassim@akerman.com
18
Barbara H. Olsen Attorney for Defendant,
19 Carbone, Smith & Koyama Stephen Ng and Wei Ying Ng
Attorneys at Law
20 1735 Technology Drive, Suite 500 Tel: (408) 392-8652
San Jose, CA 95110 Email: barbara.olsen@csaa.com
21
Timothy P. Johnson Attorney for Defendant,
22 Barron & Newburger, P.C. LTD Financial Services
1970 Old Tustin Avenue, Second Floor
23 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Tel: (714) 832-1170
Fax: (714) 832-1179
24 Email: tjohnson@bn-lawyers.com
25
(By MAIL SERVICE) I placed such envelope for collection, deposit and mailing with the
26 United States Postal Service following ordinary business practices at my place of business. I
am readily familiar with the business practice of my place of business for collection and
27 processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service.
28 ///
11
DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1 (By E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an
agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail, I caused the documents to be sent to the
2 persons as listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any
electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
3
(By OVERNIGHT CARRIER – NEXT DAY DELIVERY) I enclosed the documents in
4 an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed it to the
person listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at
5 an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct.
7
Executed on January 21, 2022 at San Diego, California.
8
9
10
11 Chelsie Hughes
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Preview
1 WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP ROBERT A. SHIELDS (206042) 2 HANG ALEXANDRA DO (305839) 402 West Broadway, Suite 1600 3 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 236-9600 4 Facsimile: (619) 236-9669 Email: rshields@wilsonturnerkosmo.com 5 Email: hdo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com Email: warrantyeservice@wilsonturnerkosmo.com 6 7 Attorneys for Defendant NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. (erroneously 8 sued herein as Nissan North America, Inc. d/b/a Nissan USA and Nissan Security Plus) 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 13 ROGER LEE, Case No. 20CIV00364 14 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF HANG ALEXANDRA DO IN SUPPORT OF 15 v. MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT 16 STEVEN NG; WEI YING; NISSAN SECURITY PLUS; BBVA COMPASS; LTD Complaint Filed: January 17, 2020 17 FINANCIAL SERVICES; DOES 1 to X, Date: June 20, 2022 18 Defendants. Time: 2:00 p.m. Dept.: 23 19 Judge: Hon. Raymond Swope Trial Date: Not set 20 21 I, Hang Alexandra Do, declare: 22 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am an 23 associate with the law firm of Wilson Turner Kosmo, LLP, 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1600, San 24 Diego, CA 92101, counsel for Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Defendant; erroneously sued 25 herein as Nissan North America, Inc. d/b/a Nissan USA and Nissan Security Plus) in this action. 26 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called upon 27 to testify, I would and could do so as set forth herein, except as to those matters that are explicitly set 28 /// 1 DECLARATION OF HANG ALEXANDRA DO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT 1 forth as based upon information and belief and, as to such matters, I am informed and believe that 2 they are true and correct. 3 3. On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging claims for breach of contract 4 against Nissan Security Plus. 5 4. On February 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint substituting Nissan 6 Security Plus with Nissan. 7 5. On January 14, 2022, I emailed Plaintiff’s counsel, Terence Rayner, a draft 8 stipulation to set aside default. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 9 6. On January 17, 2022, after not receiving a response from Plaintiff’s counsel, I called 10 him. Plaintiff counsel stated that he would not agree to stipulate to set aside the default until the 11 correct party/defendant was identified. 12 7. At this time, Nissan is unable to determine whom the correct party to be name is 13 without further discovery. Having no other choice, Nissan was forced to file this Motion. 14 8. A true and correct copy of Nissan’s answer proposed to be filed is attached hereto as 15 Exhibit 2. 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 17 is true and correct. 18 Executed this 4th day of February, 2022, at San Diego, California. 19 20 _______________________ 21 Hang Alexandra Do 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DECLARATION OF HANG ALEXANDRA DO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT EXHIBIT 1 Chelsie Hughes From: Hang Alexandra Do Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 9:22 AM To: terryrayner@comcast.net Cc: Chelsie Hughes Subject: Lee v. Nissan North America, et al - 20CIV00364 Attachments: Stip to Set Aside Default - Lee (NNA) (HAD) (03108911xB6C3C).docx Importance: High Mr. Rayner, My firm is representing Nissan North America in this case. I believe you spoke to Amir Nassihi from Shook Hardy regarding the stipulation to vacate the default. I have attached the stipulation for your review and for your signature. Please let me know if you have any edits, if not, please affix your signature to the document and I can have it filed today. In addition, can you please provide the VIN for Plaintiff’s vehicle (Nissan Sentra)? Best, Hang Hang Alexandra Do | Attorney WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP 402 West Broadway | Suite 1600 | San Diego, California 92101 P: 619‐236‐9600 | F: 619‐236‐9669 hdo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com www.wilsonturnerkosmo.com Due to state and local government directives regarding efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, I will be working remotely until further notice. I should be able to respond to calls and emails in close to real time. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. This electronic transmission contains information from the law firm of Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, which may be confidential or protected by the attorney‐client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this message is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e‐mail and delete the original message. 1 EXHIBIT 2 1 WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP ROBERT A. SHIELDS (206042) 2 HANG ALEXANDRA DO (305839) 402 West Broadway, Suite 1600 3 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 236-9600 4 Facsimile: (619) 236-9669 Email: rshields@wilsonturnerkosmo.com 5 Email: hdo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com Email: warrantyeservice@wilsonturnerkosmo.com 6 7 Attorneys for Defendant NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. (erroneously 8 sued herein as Nissan North America, Inc. d/b/a Nissan USA and Nissan Security Plus) 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 13 ROGER LEE, Case No. 20CIV00364 14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO 15 v. PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 STEVEN NG; WEI YING; NISSAN SECURITY PLUS; BBVA COMPASS; LTD Complaint Filed: January 17, 2020 17 FINANCIAL SERVICES; DOES 1 to X, Dept.: 23 18 Defendants. Judge: Hon. Raymond Swope Trial Date: Not set 19 20 Defendant, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. (“Defendant”), answers the unverified 21 Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) on file herein as follows: 22 Defendant answers the unverified Complaint on file herein pursuant to California Code of 23 Civil Procedure section 431.30 by denying, generally and specifically, each, and every and all of the 24 allegations contained in the Complaint and each and every part thereof, including each and every 25 cause of action purportedly contained therein, and denies that Plaintiff has or will sustain damages in 26 the sum or sums referred to therein, or in any other sum or sums, or at all. 27 Defendant further answers the unverified Complaint on file herein and each and every 28 purported cause of action contained therein by denying that Plaintiff has sustained, or will sustain, 1 DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 any damage in any sum at all by reason of the carelessness, negligence or other fault, act or omission 2 on the part of the answering Defendant, its agents, servants or employees. 3 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO THE COMPLAINT AND EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREOF 4 5 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Failure to State a Claim) 7 The Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, fails to state facts 8 sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Defendant. 9 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (No Opportunity to Cure) 11 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff is barred from obtaining 12 the relief sought in the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed and refused to allow 13 Defendant a reasonable opportunity to cure any alleged breach by Defendant. 14 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Failure to Mitigate Damages) 16 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if 17 any, are the result in whole or in part, of Plaintiff’s failure to exercise reasonable care to reduce or 18 mitigate damages. 19 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Equitable Defenses) 21 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff is barred in whole or in 22 part by his negligence, unclean hands, fault, assumption of the risk or otherwise from any and/or all 23 legal or equitable relief against Defendant, as requested in the Complaint or otherwise. 24 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Statute of Limitations) 26 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Complaint, and each cause of 27 action thereof, is barred by application of the statutes and limitation set forth in California Code of 28 2 DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Civil Procedure Sections 337(a), 337(b), 337(c), 338.1, 339(1), 343, and Commercial Code section 2 2725(1), and/or any other statute of limitation applicable to the present action. 3 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 (Intervening/Superseding Cause) 5 Any and all damages, if any, sustained or suffered by Plaintiff were proximately caused and 6 contributed to by the superseding, intervening acts or omission of persons other than Defendant in 7 that said persons, and each of them, were careless and negligent concerning the matters alleged in 8 the Complaint, and such negligence and carelessness proximately contributed to the loss, damage or 9 detriment alleged in the Complaint with the result that the damages, if any, recoverable by Plaintiff 10 herein must be diminished in proportion to the fault attributable to such other persons. 11 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Misuse/Improper Use) 13 Any and all damages, if any, sustained or suffered by Plaintiff were directly and proximately 14 caused and contributed to by the misuse of and the unreasonable and improper use of Defendant’s 15 product. Further, the misuse or failure to properly use Defendant’s product contributed to the loss, 16 damages or detriment, if any, alleged in the Complaint and the damages, if any, recoverable by 17 Plaintiff herein must be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to such misuse 18 or unreasonable or improper use. 19 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Unintended Use) 21 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any and all damages, if any, 22 sustained or suffered by Plaintiff, was proximately caused and contributed to by Plaintiff’s use of the 23 vehicle which is the subject of this lawsuit, for a purpose to which said product was not intended to 24 be so used. Plaintiff knew, or should have known, that the use to which Plaintiff put the vehicle was 25 not the use for which the vehicle was manufactured or intended and that such unintended use could 26 cause damage to Plaintiff. 27 /// 28 /// 3 DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (No Proximate Cause) 3 No act or omission of Defendant was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of the damages, 4 if any, sustained by the Plaintiff. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any 5 breach of warranty of fitness or merchantability, if any, and any other breach of warranty, if any, and 6 any breach of contractual undertakings of Defendant, if any, were neither the cause in fact nor the 7 proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages. Rather, any said breaches, if any, were only secondary, 8 inconsequential, indirect and in no way contributed to or caused the alleged damages of Plaintiff. 9 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Response, Laches, and Estoppel) 11 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by 12 the statute of repose and/or the equitable doctrines of laches and estoppel. 13 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Waiver) 15 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff has waived his rights, if 16 any, to obtain the relief sought in the Complaint. 17 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Defendant Fulfilled Duties) 19 Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that to the extent Defendant owed 20 Plaintiff any duties of any kind, Defendant performed and fully discharged any and all obligations 21 and legal duties to Plaintiff pertinent to the matters alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint on file herein 22 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (In Pari Delicto) 24 The Complaint and each of its causes of action are barred because Plaintiff is equally 25 responsible for the alleged violations for which they now seek redress. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 4 DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Injury Caused By Third Party) 3 If any loss, injury, damage, or detriment occurred as alleged in the Complaint, the loss, 4 injury, damage, or detriment was caused and contributed to by the actions of Plaintiffs or by other 5 factors outside of Plaintiff’s relationship with Defendant. 6 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Plaintiff’s Negligence) 8 Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that any and all damages, if any, 9 sustained or suffered by Plaintiff may have been proximately caused and contributed to by Plaintiff’s 10 own negligence. Plaintiff’s recovery in this action must be reduced by an amount equivalent to such 11 percentage of negligence up to and including 100%. 12 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (Contributory Negligence) 14 Plaintiff and/or other parties and/or third persons not parties to this action may have been 15 careless and negligent in the matters alleged, thereby causing and contributing to any damage or loss 16 to Plaintiff. 17 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Apportionment) 19 If Plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss, injury or damage, either as alleged in the 20 Complaint or at all, Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such loss, injury or 21 damage may have been directly and proximately caused by persons or entities other than Defendant. 22 The liability of Defendant and responsible parties, named or unnamed, must be apportioned 23 according to their relative degrees of fault or causation, and the liability of Defendant must be 24 reduced accordingly. 25 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (Comparative Fault of Others) 27 Defendant alleges that other parties, or third persons not parties to this action, may have been 28 negligent, legally responsible, or otherwise at fault for Plaintiff’s alleged damage or loss. Defendant 5 DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 therefore requests that, in the event of a finding of any liability in favor of Plaintiff or a judgment 2 against Defendant is entered, an apportionment of fault be made among all parties and third persons 3 as permitted under Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal. 3d 804 (1975) and American Motorcycle Assn. v. 4 Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 578 (1978). Defendant further requests a judgment and declaration of 5 partial indemnification and contribution against other parties or third persons in accordance with the 6 apportionment of fault. 7 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (Assumption of Risk) 9 The risks and dangers in Plaintiff’s conduct were known to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff 10 nevertheless conducted himself in such a manner so as to expose himself and remain exposed to said 11 risks and damages and by doing so assumed all the risks attendant thereto. At said time, date and 12 place of the incidents described in the Complaint, Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risks of the 13 activities in which he was then and there engaged and under the circumstances and conditions then 14 and there existing, and the resultant damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff were proximately caused 15 by Plaintiff’s own voluntary assumption of risk. 16 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Accord and Satisfaction) 18 Plaintiff’s claims are extinguished by accord and satisfaction. 19 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Good Faith) 21 Defendant alleges that at all times relevant to this action, Defendant acted in good faith and 22 believes its actions to have been legal. In addition, all acts of Defendant were motivated by 23 legitimate, lawful reasons, and/or as a result of business necessity. 24 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Improper Venue) 26 Defendant hereby raises, asserts, and preserves its defense of improper venue. 27 /// 28 /// 6 DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Inconvenient Forum) 3 Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or part because they have been filed in an inconvenient 4 forum or forum non conveniens. 5 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (No Breach) 7 Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any breach, if any, and any 8 breach of contractual undertakings of defendant, if any, were neither the cause in fact nor the 9 proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages. Rather, any said breaches, if any, were only secondary, 10 inconsequential, indirect and in no way contributed to or caused the alleged damages of the Plaintiff. 11 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Failure of Conditions Precedent) 13 Plaintiff failed to perform conditions precedent to the alleged contract or obligation. 14 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Offset) 16 Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant is entitled to an 17 offset for any monies received by Plaintiff from any source in compensation for their alleged 18 economic damages and non-economic damages under the common law doctrine of offset and under 19 the doctrine prohibiting double recovery set forth under Witt v. Jackson, 57 Cal.2d 57 (1961) and its 20 progeny. 21 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Non-Economic Damages) 23 Defendant is not liable for the events and occurrences, tortious or otherwise, described in the 24 Complaint. While denying the allegations of the Complaint, Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff 25 recovers, then, pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1431.1, et. seq., Defendant is not liable for 26 any non-economic damage that is not directly proportional to Defendant’s percentage of fault. 27 /// 28 /// 7 DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Recovery Limitations) 3 Plaintiff’s claims for damages are barred in whole or in part by the limitations imposed by 4 law as to the recovery of such damages. 5 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Limited Damages) 7 Defendant, in response to the Complaint and each of its cause of action, states that Plaintiff’s 8 claims for certain damages are specifically barred by the terms of the warranty in question and 9 applicable law. 10 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Adequate Remedy at Law) 12 Injunctive relief is not appropriate because Plaintiff has an adequate legal remedy. 13 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Punitive Damages – Failure to State a Claim) 15 Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to warrant the imposition of punitive or exemplary 16 damages or attorneys’ fees or costs. 17 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Punitive Damages – Constitutionality) 19 Plaintiff’s purported claim for punitive damages cannot be sustained because an award of 20 punitive damages against Defendant based on the allegations of the Complaint, and without proper 21 guidelines to the jury setting an appropriate limit and bifurcation of the trial, would violate 22 Defendant's constitutional rights under the United States and California Constitutions. 23 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Punitive Damages – No Punitive Damages) 25 Defendant did not engage in any act or omission which was oppressive, fraudulent, or 26 malicious under California Civil Code Section 3294, or otherwise. Accordingly, any claim for 27 punitive or exemplary damages is barred. Any claim for punitive or exemplary damages is also 28 barred under California Civil Code Section 3294(b). 8 DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Punitive Damages – Excessive Fines) 3 Defendant is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff’s claim for punitive 4 damages violates the Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution 5 and Article 1, Section 7(a) of the Constitution of the State of California; the 8th Amendment to the 6 United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of California 7 barring the imposition of excessive fines; and Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution 8 and Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution of the State of California barring the impairment of 9 contracts and other law. 10 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (No Punitive Damages) 12 Punitive damages are not available to Plaintiff under the facts of this matter and the 13 applicable law. 14 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Barred by Arbitration Agreement) 16 The Complaint and each of its causes of action are barred by a valid and enforceable 17 agreement to arbitrate. 18 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel) 20 Defendant alleges, on information and belief, that Plaintiff’s claim(s) against this answering 21 Defendant are barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel, issue preclusion and/or res judicata. 22 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Other Defenses) 24 Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief 25 as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, affirmative defenses available. Defendant 26 reserves herein the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates that 27 they would be appropriate. 28 /// 9 DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays: 2 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by the Complaint; 3 2. For costs of suit; 4 3. For such attorney’s fees as may be allowed by law; and 5 4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. 6 7 Dated: January 21, 2022 WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP 8 9 10 By: Robert A. Shields 11 Hang Alexandra Do Attorneys for Defendant 12 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. (erroneously sued herein as Nissan North 13 America, Inc. d/b/a Nissan USA and Nissan Security Plus) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Roger Lee v. Steven Ng, et al. 3 Case No.: 20CIV00364 4 I, the undersigned, declare as follows: 5 I am employed with the law firm of WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP, whose address is 402 6 West Broadway, Suite 1600, San Diego, California 92101. I am readily familiar with the business practices of this office for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United 7 States Postal Service; I am over the age of eighteen and I am not a party to this action. 8 On January 21, 2022, I served the following document(s), bearing the title(s): 9 1. DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 by placing the original a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed 11 as follows: 12 Terence Rayner, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff, P.O. Box 85, 300 Arroyo Roger Lee 13 Lagunitas, CA 94938 Tel: (415) 298-9116 14 Email: terryrayner@comcast.net 15 Parisa Jassim Attorney for Defendant, Akerman LLP BBVA USA f/k/a Compass Bank 16 601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 688-9500 17 Fax: (213) 627-6342 Email: parisa.jassim@akerman.com 18 Barbara H. Olsen Attorney for Defendant, 19 Carbone, Smith & Koyama Stephen Ng and Wei Ying Ng Attorneys at Law 20 1735 Technology Drive, Suite 500 Tel: (408) 392-8652 San Jose, CA 95110 Email: barbara.olsen@csaa.com 21 Timothy P. Johnson Attorney for Defendant, 22 Barron & Newburger, P.C. LTD Financial Services 1970 Old Tustin Avenue, Second Floor 23 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Tel: (714) 832-1170 Fax: (714) 832-1179 24 Email: tjohnson@bn-lawyers.com 25 (By MAIL SERVICE) I placed such envelope for collection, deposit and mailing with the 26 United States Postal Service following ordinary business practices at my place of business. I am readily familiar with the business practice of my place of business for collection and 27 processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. 28 /// 11 DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 (By E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail, I caused the documents to be sent to the 2 persons as listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 3 (By OVERNIGHT CARRIER – NEXT DAY DELIVERY) I enclosed the documents in 4 an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed it to the person listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at 5 an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. 6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 7 Executed on January 21, 2022 at San Diego, California. 8 9 10 11 Chelsie Hughes 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 DEFENDANT NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT