On April 29, 2019 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Kristen Ryan,
Ryan, Kristen,
and
Carlos Ferreira,
Ferreira, Carlos,
Gibson, Steven,
Kurt Rhodes,
Rhodes, Kurt,
Steven Gibson,
for Other PI/PD/WD Tort
in the District Court of Alameda County.
Preview
a_
(22791580
Cascenes
). 266382
-ABREGO
FILED
ALAMEDA COUNTY
AUG 2 6 2019
CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
By
{D KURT RHODES
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JNTY OF ALAMEDA
Case No.: RG19016925
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
ASSIGNED TO FOR ALL PURPOSES
THE HONORABLE ROBERT MCGUINESS
DEPT: 22
RT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
| GIBSON, CARLOS FERREIRA, AND KURT
ymplaint of Plaintiff on file herein admit, deny and
I
f the California Code of Civil Procedure, these
if the allegations of said Complaint, and the whole
[TO COMPLAINT - 1
3 in any sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum or at
Il
yn file herein, and the whole thereof, these answering
ny injury, damages or loss, if any, by reason of any act
rir agents or employees.
FFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ative Fault of Plaintiff)
t, the Plaintiffs conduct and actions were so careless,
:in some degree to the alleged incident and to the
1 sustained by said Plaintiff and therefore said
e alternative, it reduces the rights of recovery by that
int as set forth under the doctrine of comparative
FFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
‘ence of Third Parties)
herein as to these answering Defendants in that any
1ed by the Plaintiff herein would be the direct and
nd/or unlawful conduct of independent third parties, or
ission on the part of answering Defendants or their
(MATIVE DEFENSE
ate Cause of Action)
[O COMPLAINT -2
‘d causes of action fails to state facts sufficient to
ng Defendants.
RMATIVE DEFENSE
Mitigate Damages)
2 care and diligence to mitigate any damages sustained |
, any damages awarded to Plaintiff shall be limited to
laintiff mitigated her Senne.
MATIVE DEFENSE
of Limitations)
1 stated in the complaint is barred by the provisions of
e of Civil Procedure.
MATIVE DEFENSE
‘Setoff)
tled to a setoff for any monies paid to Plaintiff as an
[RMATIVE DEFENSE
tption of Risk)
int, the Plaintiff, knowing the probable consequences
nger, freely and voluntarily participated in all the
the risks attendant thereto.
RMATIVE DEFENSE
‘laintiff's complaint, Plaintiff was aware of and
il as she did, and despite this knowledge, Plaintiff
and assumed all risks, including that of being bitten.
"OCOMPLAINT -3
‘MATIVE DEFENSE
fPs complaint, Plaintiff was not lawfully on the
very under Civil Code §3342. Plaintiff was neither
lations, nor was she on the property by invitation of the
(MATIVE DEFENSE
ey ever, own the dog mentioned/described in Plaintiffs
y
IRMATIVE DEFENSE
1 Plaintiff's complaint, Defendants did not know, and
molest, or bother people, or that it had a mischievous,
IRMATIVE DEFENSE
ed Defenses)
-esently have insufficient knowledge or information
ay have additional, as yet unstated, affirmative
ie right to answer additional affirmative defenses in the
| AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
affirmative defense to the complaint on file herein, it is
it the time of the accident described in the complaint,
nployment with these answering defendants. Therefore,
and the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board have
‘OCOMPLAINT -4
iff's claims and as a result the complaint is barred with
intiff takes nothing by reason of her Complaint and that
dsts.
lOTICE
answer, neither these Defendants nor their counsel
dmissibility of the following statement (or the existence}
requests that this statement be redacted as may be
ring Defendants.
rtsuyker, Stratman & Williams-Abrego are employees
> Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, and not a
IARTSUYKER, STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-
ABREGO
A OO. CHK
WALTER J. MCMATH III, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendants,
STEPHEN GIBSON, CARLOS FERREIRA, AND
Document Filed Date
August 26, 2019
Case Filing Date
April 29, 2019
Category
Other PI/PD/WD Tort
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.