Preview
JAMES T. HARRY, ESQ. — State Bar No. 244794 BEC } > Onis
HARTSUYKER, STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-ABREGO ° |
Mailing Address sf ae!
P.O. Box 258829 Filed —. aaUERG CLERK
Oklahoma City, OK. 73125-8829 ROSA JU
Physical Address
10877 White Rock Road, Suite 350 By
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Phone: (916) 503-2777
Fax: (916) 503-2769
Attorney for Defendant, ‘|
NEVIN SLEDGE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
PREET KAMAL, SABREEN KAUR, KANWAR | Case No.: STK-CV-UAT-2019-0004733
SINGH WALIA, AND SATVIR KAUR ATWAL, | UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
Plaintiffs,
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ‘
vs.
NEVIN SLEDGE AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25,
INCLUSIVE ,
Defendants.
COME NOW the Defendants, NEVIN SLEDGE, above named, and in answer to the Complaint
of Plaintiffs on file herein admit, deny and allege as follows:
I
Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, these
answering Defendants deny each, every and all of the allegations of said Complaint, and the whole
thereof, and deny Plaintiffs have sustained damages in any sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum or
at all.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 1Il
Further answering Plaintiffs’ Complaint on file herein, and the whole thereof, these answering
Defendants deny that the Plaintiffs have sustained any injury, damages or loss, if any, by reason of any
act or omission of these answering Defendants or their agents or employees.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That all times mentioned in the Complaint, the Plaintiffs so carelessly, recklessly and negligently
conducted and maintained themselves so as to cause and contribute in some degree to the alleged
incident and to the damages and injuries, if any, alleged to have been sustained by said Plaintiffs and
therefore said negligence completely bars any recovery or in the alternative, it reduces the right of
recovery by that amount said negligence contributed to this incident as set forth under the doctiine of
comparative negligence.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That at all times mentioned in the Complaint, the Plaintiffs knowing the probable consequences
thereof, placed themselves in a position of danger and freely and voluntarily participated in all the
activities alleged herein, and thereby assumed all the risks attendant thereto.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That the Complaint and each of the alleged causes of action fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action against these answering Defendants.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE . |
That Plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to mitigate any damages sustained
by reason of Defendants’ alleged acts. Therefore, any damages awarded to Plaintiffs shall be limited to
the damages Plaintiffs would have sustained had Plaintiffs mitigated their damages.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE |
That Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery as to these answering Defendants, in that any
damage proven to have been sustained by Plaintiffs was the direct and proximate result of the
independent and superseding action of Plaintiffs and other persons or parties, and not due to any act or
omission on the part of these Defendants. i
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -2SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE |
That each of the alleged causes of action stated in the complaint is barred by the applicable
statute of limitations including, but not limited to, provisions of Subdivision 3, Section 340, and/or
Section 335.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs’ claim for damages is or may be barred by the Provision of Civil Code Sections 3333.3
and/or 3333.4.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If Plaintiffs suffered-any losses, damages, injuries, and/or harm, such losses, harm, damages
and/or injuries were proximately caused, contributed to and/or initiated by persons and/or entities other
than the answering Defendants, and the liability of all Defendants named or unnamed, should be
apportioned according to their relative degrees of fault, and the liability, if any, of the answering
Defendants should be reduced accordingly.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Under and pursuant to the terms of Civil Code Sections 1431.1 through 1431.5, Plaintiffs are
barred and precluded from recovery against the answering Defendants for any non-economic damages
except those allocated in direct proportion to the percentage of fault allocated to answering Defendants,
if any. :
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
In the event that a judgment is rendered against the answering Defendants in favor of the
Plaintiff(s), the extent of the answering Defendants’ liability is limited by the terms of California
Vehicle Code section 17151.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE |
As and for a further, separate and distinct affirmative defense to the complaint on file herein, it is|
hereby alleged upon information and belief that at the time of the accident/incident described in the
complaint, plaintiffs were in the course and scope of their employment with these answering defendants.
Therefore, the worker’s compensation laws and the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board have
{|
exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims and the complaint is barred as a result.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -327
28
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of their Complaint and
that these Defendants be dismissed hence with their costs. / |
NOTICE
By placing the following statement in the answer, neither these Defendants nor their counsel
waives any privilege or objection regarding the admissibility of the following statement (or the existence
of insurance coverage for these Defendants), and requests that this statement be redacted as may be
necessary and appropriate to protect these answering Defendants.
All attorneys and staff of the Hartsuyker, Stratman & Williams-Abrego are employees of
Farmers Insurance Exchange, a Member of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, and not a
partnership.
|
HARTSUYKER, STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-
DATED: December 9, 2019 ABREGO
BY:
JAMES. HARRY, ESQ”
Attorney for Defendant,
NEVIN SLEDGE
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 4Case Number: STK-CV-UAT-2019-0004733
Re: Kamal, et al. v. Sledge. et al.
|
PROOF OF SERVICE |
Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1013a, 2015.5 |
lam a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the
within action. My business address is 10877 White Rock Road, Suite 350, Rancho Cordova, ¢ CA
95670. On December | , 2019, I served the following document(s):
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT :
By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope, addressed as set forth
below, and placing the envelope for collection and mailing in the place designated for
such in our offices, following ordinary business practices.
By transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set !
____ forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. '
1
\
|
By causing a true copy thereof to be personally delivered to the person(s) at the
address(es) set forth below.
i
By electronically serving the document(s) described above via a Court approved File
& Serve vendor on those recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on
the vendor’s Website.
By electronically serving the document(s) to the electronic mail address set forth
below on this date before 5:00 p.m. pursuant to the signed stipulation of the parties
and consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(2).
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST |
Jam readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for
mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with! U.S.
Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I
am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation|date or
postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. |
: : |
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
and correct, |
Executed on December l é , 2019, at Rancho Cordova, California.
|
Liked nung
BETH L. GOERING
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -5Re: Kamal, et al. v. Sledge, et al.
Case Number: STK-CV-UAT-2019-0004733
SERVICE LIST -
Amar Shergill
Shergill Law Firm .
1104 Corporate Way, Suite 101 : -
Sacramento, CA 95831
Attorney for Plaintiffs, Preet Kamal, Sabreen ‘Kaur, Kanwar Singh Walia, and Satvir Kaur Ava
Phone: (916) 564- 5781 1
Fax: (916) 564-2764 : :
amar@shergilllawfirm.com
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -6
Preview
JAMES T. HARRY, ESQ. — State Bar No. 244794 BEC } > Onis HARTSUYKER, STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-ABREGO ° | Mailing Address sf ae! P.O. Box 258829 Filed —. aaUERG CLERK Oklahoma City, OK. 73125-8829 ROSA JU Physical Address 10877 White Rock Road, Suite 350 By Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Phone: (916) 503-2777 Fax: (916) 503-2769 Attorney for Defendant, ‘| NEVIN SLEDGE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN PREET KAMAL, SABREEN KAUR, KANWAR | Case No.: STK-CV-UAT-2019-0004733 SINGH WALIA, AND SATVIR KAUR ATWAL, | UNLIMITED JURISDICTION Plaintiffs, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ‘ vs. NEVIN SLEDGE AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE , Defendants. COME NOW the Defendants, NEVIN SLEDGE, above named, and in answer to the Complaint of Plaintiffs on file herein admit, deny and allege as follows: I Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, these answering Defendants deny each, every and all of the allegations of said Complaint, and the whole thereof, and deny Plaintiffs have sustained damages in any sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum or at all. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 1Il Further answering Plaintiffs’ Complaint on file herein, and the whole thereof, these answering Defendants deny that the Plaintiffs have sustained any injury, damages or loss, if any, by reason of any act or omission of these answering Defendants or their agents or employees. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That all times mentioned in the Complaint, the Plaintiffs so carelessly, recklessly and negligently conducted and maintained themselves so as to cause and contribute in some degree to the alleged incident and to the damages and injuries, if any, alleged to have been sustained by said Plaintiffs and therefore said negligence completely bars any recovery or in the alternative, it reduces the right of recovery by that amount said negligence contributed to this incident as set forth under the doctiine of comparative negligence. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That at all times mentioned in the Complaint, the Plaintiffs knowing the probable consequences thereof, placed themselves in a position of danger and freely and voluntarily participated in all the activities alleged herein, and thereby assumed all the risks attendant thereto. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That the Complaint and each of the alleged causes of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering Defendants. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE . | That Plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to mitigate any damages sustained by reason of Defendants’ alleged acts. Therefore, any damages awarded to Plaintiffs shall be limited to the damages Plaintiffs would have sustained had Plaintiffs mitigated their damages. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE | That Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery as to these answering Defendants, in that any damage proven to have been sustained by Plaintiffs was the direct and proximate result of the independent and superseding action of Plaintiffs and other persons or parties, and not due to any act or omission on the part of these Defendants. i ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -2SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE | That each of the alleged causes of action stated in the complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations including, but not limited to, provisions of Subdivision 3, Section 340, and/or Section 335.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ claim for damages is or may be barred by the Provision of Civil Code Sections 3333.3 and/or 3333.4. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Plaintiffs suffered-any losses, damages, injuries, and/or harm, such losses, harm, damages and/or injuries were proximately caused, contributed to and/or initiated by persons and/or entities other than the answering Defendants, and the liability of all Defendants named or unnamed, should be apportioned according to their relative degrees of fault, and the liability, if any, of the answering Defendants should be reduced accordingly. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Under and pursuant to the terms of Civil Code Sections 1431.1 through 1431.5, Plaintiffs are barred and precluded from recovery against the answering Defendants for any non-economic damages except those allocated in direct proportion to the percentage of fault allocated to answering Defendants, if any. : TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE In the event that a judgment is rendered against the answering Defendants in favor of the Plaintiff(s), the extent of the answering Defendants’ liability is limited by the terms of California Vehicle Code section 17151. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE | As and for a further, separate and distinct affirmative defense to the complaint on file herein, it is| hereby alleged upon information and belief that at the time of the accident/incident described in the complaint, plaintiffs were in the course and scope of their employment with these answering defendants. Therefore, the worker’s compensation laws and the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board have {| exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims and the complaint is barred as a result. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -327 28 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of their Complaint and that these Defendants be dismissed hence with their costs. / | NOTICE By placing the following statement in the answer, neither these Defendants nor their counsel waives any privilege or objection regarding the admissibility of the following statement (or the existence of insurance coverage for these Defendants), and requests that this statement be redacted as may be necessary and appropriate to protect these answering Defendants. All attorneys and staff of the Hartsuyker, Stratman & Williams-Abrego are employees of Farmers Insurance Exchange, a Member of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, and not a partnership. | HARTSUYKER, STRATMAN & WILLIAMS- DATED: December 9, 2019 ABREGO BY: JAMES. HARRY, ESQ” Attorney for Defendant, NEVIN SLEDGE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 4Case Number: STK-CV-UAT-2019-0004733 Re: Kamal, et al. v. Sledge. et al. | PROOF OF SERVICE | Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1013a, 2015.5 | lam a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 10877 White Rock Road, Suite 350, Rancho Cordova, ¢ CA 95670. On December | , 2019, I served the following document(s): ANSWER TO COMPLAINT : By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope, addressed as set forth below, and placing the envelope for collection and mailing in the place designated for such in our offices, following ordinary business practices. By transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set ! ____ forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. ' 1 \ | By causing a true copy thereof to be personally delivered to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. i By electronically serving the document(s) described above via a Court approved File & Serve vendor on those recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the vendor’s Website. By electronically serving the document(s) to the electronic mail address set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. pursuant to the signed stipulation of the parties and consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(2). SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST | Jam readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with! U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation|date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. | : : | I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct, | Executed on December l é , 2019, at Rancho Cordova, California. | Liked nung BETH L. GOERING ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -5Re: Kamal, et al. v. Sledge, et al. Case Number: STK-CV-UAT-2019-0004733 SERVICE LIST - Amar Shergill Shergill Law Firm . 1104 Corporate Way, Suite 101 : - Sacramento, CA 95831 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Preet Kamal, Sabreen ‘Kaur, Kanwar Singh Walia, and Satvir Kaur Ava Phone: (916) 564- 5781 1 Fax: (916) 564-2764 : : amar@shergilllawfirm.com ANSWER TO COMPLAINT -6