Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP County of Santa Cruz
SHAWNA. TOLIVER, SB#148349 5/4/2020 4:09 PM
E-Mail: Shawn.Toliver@lewisbrisbois.com Alex Calvo, Clerk
JULIE M. AZEVEDO, SB#151618
E-Mail: Julie Azevedo@lewisbrisbois.com
2185 North Califomia Boulevard, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, Califomia 94596
Telephone: 925.357.3456/ Facsimile: 925.478.3260
Atto for Defendant
JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
10
DAPHNE BELETSIS, individually, and CASE NO. 19CV03287
11 as Administrator
of the ESTATE OF
ALEXANDER BELETSIS, and DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI
YVONNE RAINEY, surviving parent of TAKAYAMA’S ANSWER
ALEXANDER BELETSIS, deceased, PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs,
4 Action Filed: October 31, 2019
Vv. FAC: February 5, 2020
Trial Date: None Set
THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC., a New
16 York corporation, individually, as a member of
and t/a the Theta Iota Chapter, Universit of
17 Califomia, Santa Cruz, as a member of
fratemal order known as Theta Chi Fratemity,
and as an alter-ego and successor
entity of the
Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fratemity;
THETA IOTA CHAPTER OF THETA CHI
FRATERNITY, individually, and as an agent
and alter. of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc.;
CHRISTOPHER GUEVARA, individually,
andas an ‘member of Theta Chi
Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota Chapter of
Theta Chi Fratemity; BRAD VISACKI,
individually, and/or as an agent/member of
Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota
Chapter of Theta Chi Fratemity; JORDAN
KEIICHI TAKAYAMA, individually, and as
an ‘member of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc.
and Theta Iota CI of Theta Chi
Fratemity; ZACHARY NASH DAVIS,
individually, and as an ‘memberof Theta
Chi Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota Chapter
of
Theta Chi Fratemity; NAJPREET SINGH
KAHLON, individually, and as an
agent/member of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc.
LEWIS 4820-5667-1930.1
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA’S
& SMITH UP ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATIORNEYSAT LAW
and Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi
Fratemity; STEFAN MATIAS LEON,
individually, and as an ‘memberof Theta
Chi Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota Chapter
of
Theta Chi Fratemity; MOISES FRANCISCO
TENORIO GARCIA, individually, and as an
‘member of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc.
and Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi
Fratemity; RAFAEL GARCIA, individually,
andas an ‘member of Theta Chi
Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota Chapter of
Theta Chi Fratemity; EMMANUEL
THOMAS, individually, and as an
‘member of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc.
and Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi
Fratemity; BOBBY KARKI, individually, and
10
inFratemity;
aneThThetaDEREK
‘member of Theta Chi Fratemity,
Iota Chapter of Theta Chi
KING, individually, and
11 inFratemity;
aneThTheta
‘member of Theta Chi Fratemity,
Iota Chapter of Theta Chi
JOHN DY LAN LEITCH,
individually, and as an ‘memberof Theta
Chi Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota Chapterof
Theta Chi Fratemity; QUINN
MCLAUGHLIN, individually and as Trustee
4 of the QUINN M. MCLAUGHLIN LIVING
TRUST, 117 Pasture Rd., Santa Cruz, CA
95060; and JOHN DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, individually, and as ‘members
16 of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc. Theta Iota
Chapter of Theta Chi Fratemity,
17
Defendants.
Defendant JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA (“Defendant”) hereby answers Plaintiffs
DAPHNE BELETSIS, individually, and as Administrator
of the ESTATE OF ALEXANDER
BELETSIS, and YVONNE RAINEY, surviving parent of ALEXANDER BELETSIS, deceased
(‘Plaintiffs’) First Amended Complaint as follows:
GENERAL DENIAL
Defendant JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA answering Plaintiffs DAPHNE BELETSIS,
individually, and as Administrator of the ESTATE OF ALEXANDER BELETSIS, and YVONNE
RAINEY, surviving parent of ALEXANDER BELETSIS, deceased, denies generally and
specifically, each and every, all and singular, the allegations of said First Amended Complaint,
LEWIS 4820-5667-1930.1
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA’S
& SMITH UP ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATIORNEYSAT LAW
and each cause of action thereof, and further denies that Plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum
orsums or at all.
WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
Under the provisions Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendant denies each,
every, and all of the allegations of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and the whole thereof, and
denies
that Plaintiffs have sustained damages in the sums alleged, in any other sum, or at all.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
This answering Defendant also alleges the following separate and affirmative defenses as
follows:
10 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 1 Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs failed to state a
Claim against Defendant upon which relief may be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 2. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs have failed to
state facts sufficient
to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.
16 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 3, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent they are beyond the statute of limitations
set forth in, but not limited
to, Code
of Civil Procedure section 335.1.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. The purported claims and causes of action contained in the First Amended
Complaint require for their full, final and complete resolution and adjudication the presence of
additional, necessary and/or indispensable parties that are not participating in this action. Due to
Plaintiffs’ failure to name indispensable parties, Plaintiffs have violated the rule against splitting
causes of action and/or prejudiced Defendant, thus barring Plaintiffs’ recovery herein.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs failed to
exercise reasonable diligence to mitigate damages.
LEWIS Ml
BRISBOIS 4820-5667-1930.1
BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA’S
& SMITH UP ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATIORNEYSAT LAW
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. Defendant alleges if the alleged damages complained of by Plaintiffs, if any, which
are expressly denied by Defendant, were proximately caused
by Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s own
negligence and conduct, Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery from Defendant.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7, Defendant alleges if the alleged damages complained of by Plaintiffs, if any, which
are expressly denied
by Defendant, were proximately
caused by the negligence and/or other fault
or acts of other persons or entities, Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery from Defendant.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 8. Defendant alleges the damages complained of by Plaintiffs, if any, which are
11 expressly denied by Defendant, were proximately caused by the negligence and/or other fault or
acts of other persons or entities, and such acts, negligence and/or fault comparatively reduces the
percentage of any negligence, fault or liability attributable to Defendant, if it should be found that
4 Defendant was negligent or otherwise at fault, which Defendant expressly denies.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 9, Defendant alleges that if it is found liable to Plaintiffs, which Defendant denies,
17 and Plaintiffs and/or any other person
or entity are also liable, that, as a result, the damages
sustained by Plaintiffs, if any, must be apportioned between Plaintiffs and Defendant and/or any
other person or entity based on the principles of comparative negligence pursuant to Califomia
Civil Code section 1431 et seq., and all other applicable law.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10. Defendant alleges it is entitled to indemnification by apportionment against all
parties and persons whose negligence
or other acts contributed to the occurrence of the claimed
incident or alleged damages.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11. Defendant alleges it is entitled to contribution from any person or entity whose
negligence or other acts contributed
to the occurrence of the alleged incident or damages.
LEWIS Ml
BRISBOIS 4820-5667-1930.1
BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA’S
& SMITH UP ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATIORNEYSAT LAW
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. Defendant alleges that because independent, intervening and/or superseding
causes proximately caused or contributed
to Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any, Plaintiffs’ claims
are barred against Defendant.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13. The alleged damages sustained
by Plaintiffs, if any, were the result
of acts or
omissions of others which acts or omissions were not and could not be foreseen by Defendant.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ Decedent knowingly assumed the risk of the
10 injuries, damages, or conduct alleged in the First Amended Complaint, and Plaintiffs’ claims are
11 therefore barred in their entirety.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15. Plaintiffs lack capacity to bring this action against Defendant.
4 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. Defendant alleges that he did not owe a legal duty to the Decedent, and therefore,
16 can not be held liable to Plaintiffs for any claims asserted or damages sought.
17 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17. Defendant specifically reserves its right to assert further and additional affirmative
defenses based upon information which may be provided in discovery or other investigation in the
course of this litigation.
WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays for judgment as follows:
1 That Plaintiffs takes nothing by reason of the First Amended Complaint on file
herein;
2. For costs of suit incurred
herein; and
3, For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
//1
//1
LEWIS //1
BRISBOIS 4820-5667-1930.1
BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA’S
& SMITH UP ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATIORNEYSAT LAW
A
1|| DATED: April 30, 2020 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
2
3
By:
4 Julie M. Azevedo
Attomeys for Defendant JORDAN KEIICHI
TAKAYAMA
10
11
4
16
17
LEWIS 4820-5667-1930.1
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA’S
& SMITH UP ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATIORNEYSAT LAW
CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE
Beletsis, et al. v Theta Chi, et al. - Santa Cruz Superior Court - Case No. 19CV03287
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA.
At the time of service, I was over 18 years
of
business address is 2185 North Califomia Boulevard, Si andite 300,not aWalnut
UL
. party to the action.
Creek, CA 94596.
On Apmil 30, 2020, I served the following document(s): DEFENDANT JORDAN
KEIICHI TAKAYAMA’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax
numbers
and e-mail addresses, if applicable):
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
The documents were served by the following means:
10
(BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY) Only by e-mailing the s) to the
11 persons at the e-mail address(es) listed above based on notice provided on April 30, 2020
that, ing the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and Pursuant to Judicial Council
Emergency Rule 12,this office will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as
usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other
indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time
after the transmission.
4
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia
that the
foregoing is true and correct.
16 Executed on April 30, 2020, at Walnut Creek, Califomia.
17
Kaisten Garcia
LEWIS 4820-5667-1930.1
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA’S
& SMITH UP ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATIORNEYSAT LAW
SERVICE LIST
Beletsis, et al. v Theta Chi, et al. - Santa Cruz Superior Court
Case No. 19CV03287
Douglas E. Fierberg, Esq. Tel: (202) 351-0510
Jonathon N. Fazzola, Esq. Fax: (231) 252-8100
Lisa N. Cloutier, Esq. Email: dfierberg@tfnlgroup.com
The Fierberg National Law Group, PLLC jfazzola@tfnlgroup.com
161 East Front Street, Suite 200 Icloutier@ifnlgroup.com
Traverse City, MI 49684
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DAPHNE BELETSIS
YVONNE RAINEY
Ivo Labar, Esq. Tel: (415) 262-3820
10 SAWYER & LABAR LLP Email: labar@sawyerlabar.com
201 Mission Street, Suite 2240
11 San Francisco, CA 94105 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DAPHNE BELETSIS
12 YVONNE RAINEY
13
Michael C. Osborne, Esq.
14 Philip J. Downs, Jr. Tel: 650-291-1446
15
Cokinos / Young
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 390
Ema paowmsizCokinosLaw.com
fewnsi Croton
Samra@cokinoslaw.com
San Francisco, CA 94111
16 Attorneys for Defendant
THET. ‘HI FRATERNITY, INC.
17
18 Andrew M. Lauderdale, Esq. Tel: 831-251-1964
Stratman, Pedersen & Lauderdale Email:
19 1 Almaden Blvd Ste 400 Andrew. lauderdale@farmersinsurance.com
San Jose, CA 95113
20 AttorNNN for Defendant
OUD (CLA GHLIN
21
22
Mary Childs, Esq. Tel: 213 427 2300
23 YOKA & SMITH, LLP Fax: 213 427 2330
445 South Figueroa Street, 38th Floor Email: mchilds@yokasmith.com
24 Los Angeles, CA 90071
coer -caenictone
25 Attorneys For Defendants
BOBBY KARKI, EMMANUEL THOMAS, AND
26 JOHN DYLAN LEITCH
27
28
L
BRISBOIS 4820-5667-1930.1
BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA’S,
& ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATOR AT LAW
Chris A. Tarkington Tel: (707) 576-1380
Tarkington O’Neill Barrack & Chong Fax: (707) 544-3144
100 Stony Point Road, #270 Email: ctark@to2law.com
Santa Rosa, CA 95401 therrington@to2law.com
Attorneys for Defendant
NAJPREET KAHLON
Derek Lim, Esq. Tel: 415.949-1900
Shannon Mallory, Esq. Fax: 415.354.8380
Demler Armstrong & Rowland, LLP Email: lim@darlaw.com
1350 Treat Blvd, Suite 400 mal@darlaw.com
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Attorneys for Defendant
CHRIS GUEVARA AND BRADLEY VISACKI
Matthew Jaime, Esq. Tel: (916) 978-3434
Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime LLP Fax: (916) 978-3430
10 3638 American River Drive Email: mjaime@mathenysears.com
Sacramento, CA 95864
11 Attorneys for Defendant
CHRIS GUEVARA
12
Tel: (213)381-2861
13 Robert T. Mackey, Esq. Fax: (213)383-6370
Ryne W. Osborne, Esq. Email: rmackey@veatchfirm.com
14 Veach Carlson, LLP ‘osborne@veatchfirm.com
1055 Wilshire Blvd, 11th Floor
15 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Attorneys for Defendant
STEFAN LEON
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
L
BRISBOIS 4820-5667-1930.1
BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA’S,
& ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATOR AT LAW
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP County of Santa Cruz SHAWNA. TOLIVER, SB#148349 5/4/2020 4:09 PM E-Mail: Shawn.Toliver@lewisbrisbois.com Alex Calvo, Clerk JULIE M. AZEVEDO, SB#151618 E-Mail: Julie Azevedo@lewisbrisbois.com 2185 North Califomia Boulevard, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, Califomia 94596 Telephone: 925.357.3456/ Facsimile: 925.478.3260 Atto for Defendant JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 10 DAPHNE BELETSIS, individually, and CASE NO. 19CV03287 11 as Administrator of the ESTATE OF ALEXANDER BELETSIS, and DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI YVONNE RAINEY, surviving parent of TAKAYAMA’S ANSWER ALEXANDER BELETSIS, deceased, PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, 4 Action Filed: October 31, 2019 Vv. FAC: February 5, 2020 Trial Date: None Set THETA CHI FRATERNITY, INC., a New 16 York corporation, individually, as a member of and t/a the Theta Iota Chapter, Universit of 17 Califomia, Santa Cruz, as a member of fratemal order known as Theta Chi Fratemity, and as an alter-ego and successor entity of the Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fratemity; THETA IOTA CHAPTER OF THETA CHI FRATERNITY, individually, and as an agent and alter. of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc.; CHRISTOPHER GUEVARA, individually, andas an ‘member of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fratemity; BRAD VISACKI, individually, and/or as an agent/member of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fratemity; JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA, individually, and as an ‘member of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota CI of Theta Chi Fratemity; ZACHARY NASH DAVIS, individually, and as an ‘memberof Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fratemity; NAJPREET SINGH KAHLON, individually, and as an agent/member of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc. LEWIS 4820-5667-1930.1 BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA’S & SMITH UP ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ATIORNEYSAT LAW and Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fratemity; STEFAN MATIAS LEON, individually, and as an ‘memberof Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fratemity; MOISES FRANCISCO TENORIO GARCIA, individually, and as an ‘member of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fratemity; RAFAEL GARCIA, individually, andas an ‘member of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fratemity; EMMANUEL THOMAS, individually, and as an ‘member of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fratemity; BOBBY KARKI, individually, and 10 inFratemity; aneThThetaDEREK ‘member of Theta Chi Fratemity, Iota Chapter of Theta Chi KING, individually, and 11 inFratemity; aneThTheta ‘member of Theta Chi Fratemity, Iota Chapter of Theta Chi JOHN DY LAN LEITCH, individually, and as an ‘memberof Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc. and Theta Iota Chapterof Theta Chi Fratemity; QUINN MCLAUGHLIN, individually and as Trustee 4 of the QUINN M. MCLAUGHLIN LIVING TRUST, 117 Pasture Rd., Santa Cruz, CA 95060; and JOHN DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, individually, and as ‘members 16 of Theta Chi Fratemity, Inc. Theta Iota Chapter of Theta Chi Fratemity, 17 Defendants. Defendant JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA (“Defendant”) hereby answers Plaintiffs DAPHNE BELETSIS, individually, and as Administrator of the ESTATE OF ALEXANDER BELETSIS, and YVONNE RAINEY, surviving parent of ALEXANDER BELETSIS, deceased (‘Plaintiffs’) First Amended Complaint as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Defendant JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA answering Plaintiffs DAPHNE BELETSIS, individually, and as Administrator of the ESTATE OF ALEXANDER BELETSIS, and YVONNE RAINEY, surviving parent of ALEXANDER BELETSIS, deceased, denies generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, the allegations of said First Amended Complaint, LEWIS 4820-5667-1930.1 BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA’S & SMITH UP ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ATIORNEYSAT LAW and each cause of action thereof, and further denies that Plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum orsums or at all. WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth. Under the provisions Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendant denies each, every, and all of the allegations of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and the whole thereof, and denies that Plaintiffs have sustained damages in the sums alleged, in any other sum, or at all. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES This answering Defendant also alleges the following separate and affirmative defenses as follows: 10 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 1 Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs failed to state a Claim against Defendant upon which relief may be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 2. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. 16 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 3, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent they are beyond the statute of limitations set forth in, but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. The purported claims and causes of action contained in the First Amended Complaint require for their full, final and complete resolution and adjudication the presence of additional, necessary and/or indispensable parties that are not participating in this action. Due to Plaintiffs’ failure to name indispensable parties, Plaintiffs have violated the rule against splitting causes of action and/or prejudiced Defendant, thus barring Plaintiffs’ recovery herein. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to mitigate damages. LEWIS Ml BRISBOIS 4820-5667-1930.1 BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA’S & SMITH UP ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ATIORNEYSAT LAW SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. Defendant alleges if the alleged damages complained of by Plaintiffs, if any, which are expressly denied by Defendant, were proximately caused by Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s own negligence and conduct, Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery from Defendant. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7, Defendant alleges if the alleged damages complained of by Plaintiffs, if any, which are expressly denied by Defendant, were proximately caused by the negligence and/or other fault or acts of other persons or entities, Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery from Defendant. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 8. Defendant alleges the damages complained of by Plaintiffs, if any, which are 11 expressly denied by Defendant, were proximately caused by the negligence and/or other fault or acts of other persons or entities, and such acts, negligence and/or fault comparatively reduces the percentage of any negligence, fault or liability attributable to Defendant, if it should be found that 4 Defendant was negligent or otherwise at fault, which Defendant expressly denies. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 9, Defendant alleges that if it is found liable to Plaintiffs, which Defendant denies, 17 and Plaintiffs and/or any other person or entity are also liable, that, as a result, the damages sustained by Plaintiffs, if any, must be apportioned between Plaintiffs and Defendant and/or any other person or entity based on the principles of comparative negligence pursuant to Califomia Civil Code section 1431 et seq., and all other applicable law. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. Defendant alleges it is entitled to indemnification by apportionment against all parties and persons whose negligence or other acts contributed to the occurrence of the claimed incident or alleged damages. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11. Defendant alleges it is entitled to contribution from any person or entity whose negligence or other acts contributed to the occurrence of the alleged incident or damages. LEWIS Ml BRISBOIS 4820-5667-1930.1 BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA’S & SMITH UP ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ATIORNEYSAT LAW TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. Defendant alleges that because independent, intervening and/or superseding causes proximately caused or contributed to Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred against Defendant. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. The alleged damages sustained by Plaintiffs, if any, were the result of acts or omissions of others which acts or omissions were not and could not be foreseen by Defendant. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ Decedent knowingly assumed the risk of the 10 injuries, damages, or conduct alleged in the First Amended Complaint, and Plaintiffs’ claims are 11 therefore barred in their entirety. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. Plaintiffs lack capacity to bring this action against Defendant. 4 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. Defendant alleges that he did not owe a legal duty to the Decedent, and therefore, 16 can not be held liable to Plaintiffs for any claims asserted or damages sought. 17 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. Defendant specifically reserves its right to assert further and additional affirmative defenses based upon information which may be provided in discovery or other investigation in the course of this litigation. WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 1 That Plaintiffs takes nothing by reason of the First Amended Complaint on file herein; 2. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 3, For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. //1 //1 LEWIS //1 BRISBOIS 4820-5667-1930.1 BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA’S & SMITH UP ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ATIORNEYSAT LAW A 1|| DATED: April 30, 2020 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 2 3 By: 4 Julie M. Azevedo Attomeys for Defendant JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA 10 11 4 16 17 LEWIS 4820-5667-1930.1 BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA’S & SMITH UP ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ATIORNEYSAT LAW CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE Beletsis, et al. v Theta Chi, et al. - Santa Cruz Superior Court - Case No. 19CV03287 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA. At the time of service, I was over 18 years of business address is 2185 North Califomia Boulevard, Si andite 300,not aWalnut UL . party to the action. Creek, CA 94596. On Apmil 30, 2020, I served the following document(s): DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable): SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST The documents were served by the following means: 10 (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY) Only by e-mailing the s) to the 11 persons at the e-mail address(es) listed above based on notice provided on April 30, 2020 that, ing the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and Pursuant to Judicial Council Emergency Rule 12,this office will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. 4 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct. 16 Executed on April 30, 2020, at Walnut Creek, Califomia. 17 Kaisten Garcia LEWIS 4820-5667-1930.1 BRISBOIS BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAY AMA’S & SMITH UP ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ATIORNEYSAT LAW SERVICE LIST Beletsis, et al. v Theta Chi, et al. - Santa Cruz Superior Court Case No. 19CV03287 Douglas E. Fierberg, Esq. Tel: (202) 351-0510 Jonathon N. Fazzola, Esq. Fax: (231) 252-8100 Lisa N. Cloutier, Esq. Email: dfierberg@tfnlgroup.com The Fierberg National Law Group, PLLC jfazzola@tfnlgroup.com 161 East Front Street, Suite 200 Icloutier@ifnlgroup.com Traverse City, MI 49684 Attorneys for Plaintiffs DAPHNE BELETSIS YVONNE RAINEY Ivo Labar, Esq. Tel: (415) 262-3820 10 SAWYER & LABAR LLP Email: labar@sawyerlabar.com 201 Mission Street, Suite 2240 11 San Francisco, CA 94105 Attorneys for Plaintiffs DAPHNE BELETSIS 12 YVONNE RAINEY 13 Michael C. Osborne, Esq. 14 Philip J. Downs, Jr. Tel: 650-291-1446 15 Cokinos / Young One Embarcadero Center, Suite 390 Ema paowmsizCokinosLaw.com fewnsi Croton Samra@cokinoslaw.com San Francisco, CA 94111 16 Attorneys for Defendant THET. ‘HI FRATERNITY, INC. 17 18 Andrew M. Lauderdale, Esq. Tel: 831-251-1964 Stratman, Pedersen & Lauderdale Email: 19 1 Almaden Blvd Ste 400 Andrew. lauderdale@farmersinsurance.com San Jose, CA 95113 20 AttorNNN for Defendant OUD (CLA GHLIN 21 22 Mary Childs, Esq. Tel: 213 427 2300 23 YOKA & SMITH, LLP Fax: 213 427 2330 445 South Figueroa Street, 38th Floor Email: mchilds@yokasmith.com 24 Los Angeles, CA 90071 coer -caenictone 25 Attorneys For Defendants BOBBY KARKI, EMMANUEL THOMAS, AND 26 JOHN DYLAN LEITCH 27 28 L BRISBOIS 4820-5667-1930.1 BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA’S, & ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ATOR AT LAW Chris A. Tarkington Tel: (707) 576-1380 Tarkington O’Neill Barrack & Chong Fax: (707) 544-3144 100 Stony Point Road, #270 Email: ctark@to2law.com Santa Rosa, CA 95401 therrington@to2law.com Attorneys for Defendant NAJPREET KAHLON Derek Lim, Esq. Tel: 415.949-1900 Shannon Mallory, Esq. Fax: 415.354.8380 Demler Armstrong & Rowland, LLP Email: lim@darlaw.com 1350 Treat Blvd, Suite 400 mal@darlaw.com Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Attorneys for Defendant CHRIS GUEVARA AND BRADLEY VISACKI Matthew Jaime, Esq. Tel: (916) 978-3434 Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime LLP Fax: (916) 978-3430 10 3638 American River Drive Email: mjaime@mathenysears.com Sacramento, CA 95864 11 Attorneys for Defendant CHRIS GUEVARA 12 Tel: (213)381-2861 13 Robert T. Mackey, Esq. Fax: (213)383-6370 Ryne W. Osborne, Esq. Email: rmackey@veatchfirm.com 14 Veach Carlson, LLP ‘osborne@veatchfirm.com 1055 Wilshire Blvd, 11th Floor 15 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Attorneys for Defendant STEFAN LEON 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L BRISBOIS 4820-5667-1930.1 BISGAARD DEFENDANT JORDAN KEIICHI TAKAYAMA’S, & ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ATOR AT LAW