Answer: OSCAR VALLADARES VS. SCOTT MATTHEW CACURAK et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                MOUNT

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
May-01-2012 10:44 am

Case Number: CGC-11-516050
Filing Date: May-01-2012 10:44
Filed by: WESLEY G. RAMIREZ
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03596740
ANSWER

OSCAR VALLADARES VS. SCOTT MATTHEW CACURAK et al

001C03596740

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.04/27/2012 14:48 FAX 408 293 9056

.

Knox Services KSJ 1009012
1 |/LAW OFFICES OF CATHERINE A. WALSH F.. County ED.
ROY WOO, (SBN 275254)
2 11800 Sutter Street, Ste. 260 Hay 01 2012
Concord, CA 94520 .
3 |} 995-825-9500; Fax 925-825-9716 - CLERK OE THE SOURT
4 » Bapaly

Attomeys for Defendant
SCOTT MATTHEW CACURAK

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

9 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
19 |}OSCAR VALLADARES, CASE NO. CGC11516050
a Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Vv.

SCOTT MATTHEW CACURAK, AIMEE
PETERSEN CACURAK, HYATT REGENCY
SAN FRANCISCO, HYATT HOTELS
CORPORATION AND DOES ONE
THROUGH ONE HUNDRED, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.
/ (Wate Complaint Filed: November 21, 2011)

Defendant SCOTT MATTHEW CACURAK answering the Complaint on file herein
alleges as follows:

Pursuant to the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure, this answering
defendant generally denies every allegation of each cause of action alleged therein, and further
denies that plaintiff suffered injury or damage in the amount alleged, or in any other amount.
FOR A FIRST SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE
OF ACTION, IT IS ALLEGED:

The Complaint and each causc of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action against this answering defendant.

"ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA™———_|-

FILED BY FAX04/27/2012 14:48 FAX 408 293 9056 Knox Services KSJ @o10/012

1 || FOR A SECOND SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH

2 ll CAUSE OF ACTION, IT IS ALLEGED:

3 The Complaint and each cause of action therein is barred by the applicable statutes of

4 |\timitation, including but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure, §§339.1, 337(1-3),
5 |l337.1@-8, 337.15(2-g), 3381-7), 339€1-10, 340(1-5), 340.5 and 364(e-f).

AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE | _

7 || OF ACTION, IT 1S ALLEGED:
8 Civil Code §§1431.1, et. seq,, limits general damages and abate joint and several liability.
9 || -phis defendant requests that the Court apportion the damages, if any, and require this answering
10 |! defendant to pay only his fair and legal percentage of liability as determined by the trier of fact
and/or law.
12 |\FOR A FOURTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO BACH
13 || CAUSE OF ACTION, IT IS ALLEGED:
14 Any and all events, injuries, 1os5, damages and expenditures referred to in the Complaint
15 |\ were directly and proximately caused and contributed to by the carelessness and negligence of
16 || plaintiff, and the extent of damages sustained by the plaintiff, if any, should be reduced in
proportion to the amount of negligence of the plaintiff.
18 ||FOR A FIETH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO BACH CAUSE
12 || OF ACTION, IT IS ALLEGED:
20 ‘The accident, injury, and damages alleged in the Complaint were either wholly or in part
21 |) proximately caused by the negligence and fault of persons, corporations or entities other than
22 |\ answering defendant, and the negligence of such other persons, corporations, and/or entities
23 || comparatively reduces the percentage of negligence, if any, attributed to this answering
24 || defendant.

25 ||FOR A SIXTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH CAUSE
26 ||OF ACTION, IT IS ALLEGED:U4/27/2U1Z 14:48 FAX 408 293 9056
Knox Services KSJ
(011/012

That by the cxercise of ‘reasonable effort, plaintiff could have mitigated the amount of
damages he suffered; but plaintiff failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to exercise

a reasonable effort to mitigate the damnages.
¥OR A SEVENTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH

plaintiff's implied agreement to voluntatily assume the risk of a known danger. The tisk

encountered by plaintiff was one inherent in the activity in question, and was therefore a
reasonable risk. ‘Thus, plaintiff's reasonable implied assumption of the risk acts as a complete
bar to his recovery.

FOR A EIGHTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH
CAUSE OF ACTION, IT IS ALLEGED:

That the plaintiff is barred froni recovering any and all non-economic damages, pursuant
to the provisions of California Civil Code Section 3333.4 [second enacted).
WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays:

1. ‘That plaintiff take nothing by reason of the Complaint;
2. ‘That defendant has judginent for attomeys’ fees and costs of

suit herein incurred; and .

19 3, For such other and farther relief as to the Court seems just and proper.
20 .
21
DATED: April 27, 2012
22
23
24
ROY WOO
25 Attorney for Defendant
26 SCOTT MATTHEW CACURAK
21
28
3

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT04/30/2012 13:23 FAX 408 293 9056 Knox Services KSJ (001/001

x

PROOF OF SERVICE — BY MAIL
(C.C.P. §1013(a) G3)

alladares v. Cacw et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Unlimited

CASE NO.: CGC11516050}

The undersigned declares:
Jam a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County of Contra

Costa, State of California, 1 am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. 1
am employed by the Law Offices of Catherine A. Walsh, and my business address is 1800 Sutter
Street, Ste. 260, Concord, CA 94520.

On April 30, 2012, I served the attached ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the parties to
said action by depositing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fally
prepaid, in the United States mail in Concord, California, addressed as follows:

For Plaintiff OSCAR VALLADARES

Salvador Liccardo

Liccardo Law Firm LLP

800 South Pacific Coast Hwy, #8-445

Redondo Beach, CA 90277

(800) 810-3711

For Defendant HYATT CORPORA ONEOUSLY. AS HYA’
REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO AND HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION)
Helen Lee Greenberg, Esq.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP’

One Sansome Street, Suite 1400

San Francisco, CA 94104

415-362-2580

Executed on April 30, 2012. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the State of California that the foregoing is