Preview
ANDERS MORRISON, ESQ. (State Bar No.: 223921)
BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE
P.O. Box 10790,
Santa Ana, CA 92711-0790
Physical Address:
104 Woodmere Road
Folsom, California 95630
(916) 294-3560
E-Service A ddress: CALegal@ MercuryInsurance.com
Attorney for: Defendants, LINNEA BUTLER AND SUSANNE MARTINSSON
Our File No.: 22-120698-165
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
EVELYN RYAN AND COLMAN RYAN, CASE NO: 22-CIV-02683
Plaintiffs,
ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED
vs. COMPLAINT
LINNEA THERESA BUTLER; SUSANNE
MARTINSSON; AND DOES 1 TO 50,
INCLUSIVE,
Defendants.
COME NOW, the Defendants, LINNEA BUTLER AND SUSANNE MARTINSSON, and
answering the Complaint on file herein for themselves alone admit, deny and allege as follows:
Under the provisions of Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, these
answering defendants deny generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in the
complaint and that plaintiffs have suffered damages in the sum or sums alleged or in any other sum or
sums or at all.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That at the time and place alleged in the Complaint the Plaintiffs, EVELYN RYAN AND
COLMAN RYAN, carelessly, recklessly and negligently drove, operated, managed and controlled
their automobile, under the facts and circumstances then and there prevailing, and such carelessness
and negligence was the sole, or participating, direct and proximate cause of the happening of the
1
ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTalleged accident and the injuries and losses and damages, if any sustained by the plaintiffs and that, as
a result thereof, plaintiffs are barred from either, all or part of any recovery herein.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That the alleged causes of actions as stated in plaintiffs' Complaint fail to state sufficient facts
to constitute a cause of action as to these answering defendants.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That each and every cause of action that is stated in the plaintiffs' Complaint is barred in its
entirety by virtue of the provisions of Section 335.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of
California.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That any injuries, damages or loss, if any, which was sustained by plaintiffs herein were
proximately caused by the contributory negligence of the plaintiffs in that plaintiffs failed to exercise
any degree of care for their own safety and as a result proximately caused their own injuries.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That with regard to any and all events and happenings in connection with the allegations
contained in plaintiffs' Complaint, these answering defendants allege that all co-defendants, and each
of them, conducted themselves so carelessly, recklessly, and negligently so as to cause and contribute,
solely or to some degree, to the damages and injuries, if any alleged to have been sustained by
plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiffs' recovery herein as to any damages suffered by them, if any, must be
levied solely against co-defendants, and each of them, or must be apportioned between all defendants,
on the basis of comparative fault so as to reflect, as a percentage, that amount of plaintiffs' damages, if
any, for which each defendant is responsible.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs at said time and place and with full knowledge of the probabilities and possibilities of
danger, acted in such a manner as to invite injury and assumed any and all risks.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That any injury, damage or loss sustained by the plaintiffs was proximately caused and
contributed by their own negligence in that they did not exercise ordinary care in failing to wear an
2
ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTavailable seatbelt.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Under and pursuant to the terms of Civil Code sections 1431.2 and 1431.5, plaintiffs are barred
and precluded from recovery against these answering defendants for any non-economic damages
except those allocated to these defendants in direct proportion to their percentage of fault.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Under and pursuant to the terms of Proposition 213, the "Personal Responsibility Act of 1996,"
and California Civil Code Section 3333.3 and Section 3333.4(a) through (c), plaintiffs are barred from
recovery of any non-economic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical
impairment, disfigurement and other non-pecuniary damages.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any, in connection with the matters referred
to in the Complaint; the failure to mitigate damages bars and/or diminishes the recovery, if any,
against these answering defendants.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IMMINENT PERIL
These answering defendants are informed and believe and upon such information and belief
allege that prior to the incident alleged in plaintiffs' Complaint, defendants were confronted with an
unexpected and sudden peril arising from either the actual presence of, or the appearance of, imminent
danger to defendants, or to others; that defendants undertook to avoid the unexpected and sudden peril;
that the proximate cause of the incident and the proximate cause of the injuries and damages, if any,
alleged by plaintiffs, was not defendants’ negligence or carelessness but the negligence or carelessness
of the persons or entities responsible for creating or allowing to exist the conditions, circumstances,
and imminent peril in which defendants were placed prior to the incident.
WHEREFORE, these answering defendants pray as follows:
(1) That Plaintiffs take nothing by the Complaint on file herein;
(2) That Defendants have judgment for their costs of suit incurred herein; and
Il
3
ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT(3) For such other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: September 27, 2022
BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE
BY
ANDERS MORRISON, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants,
LINNEA BUTLER AND
SUSANNE MARTINSSON
4
ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTPROOF OF SERVICE
(1013A, 2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss. RYAN V. BUTLER
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO )
I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California, I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 104 Woodmere Road Folsom,
California 95630. I am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for collection
and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so
collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in ordinary
course of business.
On September 28, 2022, I served the forgoing ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT on
the interested parties in this action, by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope,
addressed as follows:
SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST
() (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid at my place of business to
be placed in the United States mail at Santa Ana, California.
(_) (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the office of the
addressee(s).
(_) (BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION) I also served by facsimile transmission, a true and correct
copy of the above designated documents, on the office(s) of the addressee at the following facsimile
number:
(XX) (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused said document(s) to be transmitted to the e-mail(s) of
the addressee(s) designated (in compliance with California Rules of Court 2.251(g)).
(XX) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
(_) (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
whose direction the service was made.
Dated: September 28, 2022 ¥ L 41dMAILING LIST
RYAN V. BUTLER
Chantel Fitting, Esq.
GALINE, FRYE, FITTING & FRANGOS
411 Borel Avenue
Suite 500
San Mateo, CA 94402
Cfittin -law.com
Preview
ANDERS MORRISON, ESQ. (State Bar No.: 223921) BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE P.O. Box 10790, Santa Ana, CA 92711-0790 Physical Address: 104 Woodmere Road Folsom, California 95630 (916) 294-3560 E-Service A ddress: CALegal@ MercuryInsurance.com Attorney for: Defendants, LINNEA BUTLER AND SUSANNE MARTINSSON Our File No.: 22-120698-165 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO EVELYN RYAN AND COLMAN RYAN, CASE NO: 22-CIV-02683 Plaintiffs, ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED vs. COMPLAINT LINNEA THERESA BUTLER; SUSANNE MARTINSSON; AND DOES 1 TO 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. COME NOW, the Defendants, LINNEA BUTLER AND SUSANNE MARTINSSON, and answering the Complaint on file herein for themselves alone admit, deny and allege as follows: Under the provisions of Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, these answering defendants deny generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in the complaint and that plaintiffs have suffered damages in the sum or sums alleged or in any other sum or sums or at all. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That at the time and place alleged in the Complaint the Plaintiffs, EVELYN RYAN AND COLMAN RYAN, carelessly, recklessly and negligently drove, operated, managed and controlled their automobile, under the facts and circumstances then and there prevailing, and such carelessness and negligence was the sole, or participating, direct and proximate cause of the happening of the 1 ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTalleged accident and the injuries and losses and damages, if any sustained by the plaintiffs and that, as a result thereof, plaintiffs are barred from either, all or part of any recovery herein. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That the alleged causes of actions as stated in plaintiffs' Complaint fail to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action as to these answering defendants. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That each and every cause of action that is stated in the plaintiffs' Complaint is barred in its entirety by virtue of the provisions of Section 335.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That any injuries, damages or loss, if any, which was sustained by plaintiffs herein were proximately caused by the contributory negligence of the plaintiffs in that plaintiffs failed to exercise any degree of care for their own safety and as a result proximately caused their own injuries. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That with regard to any and all events and happenings in connection with the allegations contained in plaintiffs' Complaint, these answering defendants allege that all co-defendants, and each of them, conducted themselves so carelessly, recklessly, and negligently so as to cause and contribute, solely or to some degree, to the damages and injuries, if any alleged to have been sustained by plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiffs' recovery herein as to any damages suffered by them, if any, must be levied solely against co-defendants, and each of them, or must be apportioned between all defendants, on the basis of comparative fault so as to reflect, as a percentage, that amount of plaintiffs' damages, if any, for which each defendant is responsible. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs at said time and place and with full knowledge of the probabilities and possibilities of danger, acted in such a manner as to invite injury and assumed any and all risks. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That any injury, damage or loss sustained by the plaintiffs was proximately caused and contributed by their own negligence in that they did not exercise ordinary care in failing to wear an 2 ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTavailable seatbelt. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Under and pursuant to the terms of Civil Code sections 1431.2 and 1431.5, plaintiffs are barred and precluded from recovery against these answering defendants for any non-economic damages except those allocated to these defendants in direct proportion to their percentage of fault. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Under and pursuant to the terms of Proposition 213, the "Personal Responsibility Act of 1996," and California Civil Code Section 3333.3 and Section 3333.4(a) through (c), plaintiffs are barred from recovery of any non-economic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement and other non-pecuniary damages. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any, in connection with the matters referred to in the Complaint; the failure to mitigate damages bars and/or diminishes the recovery, if any, against these answering defendants. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IMMINENT PERIL These answering defendants are informed and believe and upon such information and belief allege that prior to the incident alleged in plaintiffs' Complaint, defendants were confronted with an unexpected and sudden peril arising from either the actual presence of, or the appearance of, imminent danger to defendants, or to others; that defendants undertook to avoid the unexpected and sudden peril; that the proximate cause of the incident and the proximate cause of the injuries and damages, if any, alleged by plaintiffs, was not defendants’ negligence or carelessness but the negligence or carelessness of the persons or entities responsible for creating or allowing to exist the conditions, circumstances, and imminent peril in which defendants were placed prior to the incident. WHEREFORE, these answering defendants pray as follows: (1) That Plaintiffs take nothing by the Complaint on file herein; (2) That Defendants have judgment for their costs of suit incurred herein; and Il 3 ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT(3) For such other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: September 27, 2022 BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE BY ANDERS MORRISON, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants, LINNEA BUTLER AND SUSANNE MARTINSSON 4 ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTPROOF OF SERVICE (1013A, 2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. RYAN V. BUTLER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California, I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 104 Woodmere Road Folsom, California 95630. I am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in ordinary course of business. On September 28, 2022, I served the forgoing ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action, by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST () (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid at my place of business to be placed in the United States mail at Santa Ana, California. (_) (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the office of the addressee(s). (_) (BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION) I also served by facsimile transmission, a true and correct copy of the above designated documents, on the office(s) of the addressee at the following facsimile number: (XX) (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused said document(s) to be transmitted to the e-mail(s) of the addressee(s) designated (in compliance with California Rules of Court 2.251(g)). (XX) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (_) (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Dated: September 28, 2022 ¥ L 41dMAILING LIST RYAN V. BUTLER Chantel Fitting, Esq. GALINE, FRYE, FITTING & FRANGOS 411 Borel Avenue Suite 500 San Mateo, CA 94402 Cfittin -law.com