This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 07:43:17 (UTC).

Ignacio Ortega vs KM 546 Partners, LP/COMPLEX

Case Summary

On 12/11/2012 Ignacio Ortega filed a Property - Construction Defect lawsuit against KM 546 Partners, LP/COMPLEX. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Ikeda, Dale, Black, Donald, McGuire, Rosemary, Simpson, Alan and Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3888

  • Filing Date:

    12/11/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Property - Construction Defect

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Ikeda, Dale

Black, Donald

McGuire, Rosemary

Simpson, Alan

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Ortega, Ignacio

Altamirano, Mark

Arevalo, Fermin

Armack, Robert Lee

Diaz, Stacy

Ceja, Jose Luis

Chatman, Leorn

Daza, Serafin

Huesca, Leticia

Garibay, Jorge

Garibay, Margarita

Gomez, Susana

Gonzalez, Vanessa L

Henriquez, Arnoldo

Henriquez, Ana Gladys

Hinojosa, Frank

Hinojosa, Judy

Martinez, Jaime

Martinez, Silvia

Miramontes, David

115 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Guthrie, Lori J

1810 State Street

San Diego, CA 92101-2514

Other Attorneys

Van Woerkom, Jon

Jones, Todd A

Rose, Jason R

Lifter, Jill J.

Freedman, Karren L.

Mittelman, Mark R

Mickle, Brandon J.

Correll, Deborah A.

Drolshagen, John A.

Fischer, Todd A.

Bassett, Robert D.

Hammons, Wallace W

Yuen, Steven W.

Aguilera, A Eric

Parker, James C.

Young, David E.

Moore, Penny S.

Forni, Jacqueline V,

Kracht, Matthew J.

 

Court Documents

Judgment

Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Ashjian Lighting Company (Terran Ashjian, Inc.); Comment: Without Prejudice Plaintiffs in Intervention, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Complaint in Intervention FIled on Febuary 22, 2016 as to defendant: Ashjian Lightin Company (terran Ashjian Enterprises, Inc.) Only

Order Received for Signature

Pre-Trial Order NO.8; Comment: Signed and returned to clerk's office Pre-Trial Order NO.8 Forwarded to Department 502

Letter Received

Letter Received; Comment: Letter to Presiding Judge

Notice of Motion

MASAAK KIMURA AMENDED NOT OF MOT FOR GFS.pdf; Comment: MASAAK KIMURA dba THE LANDSCAPE EXPRESS AMENDED NOTIFE OF MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

MPA in Support of Mtn for GFS.pdf; Comment: in Support of Motion for Judicial Determination of Good Faith Settlement.

Order Granted

Order Granted; Judicial Officer: Black, Donald; Comment: good faith settlement

Declaration Filed

Declaration Filed; Comment: of Service by Mail

Application Filed

Civil Document; Comment: for determination of good fatih settlement

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: Entry of Order

Stipulation and Order filed

Stipulation and Order filed; Judicial Officer: McGuire, Rosemary; Comment: Stipulation to Stay Five Year Mandatory Dismissal

Notice of Motion

BAKER CUSTOM CAB AMEND NOT OF MOT FOR GFS.pdf; Comment: BAKER CUSTOM CABINETS, INC. AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DETEERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Motion filed

Notice of Motion for Good Faith Settlement.pdf; Comment: Motion

Notice of Motion

Notice of Motion for Good Faith Settlement.pdf; Comment: and Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.

Proof of Service

Proof of Service; Comment: Madera Roofing, Inc.

Proof of Service

Proof of Service; Comment: Atmos Corporation

Notice of Change of Address Filed

Notice of Change of Address Filed

Objection filed

Objection filed; Comment: Apache Erectors, Inc.'s objections to evidence in support of opposition to St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company's motion to intervene

Answer Filed

Civil Document; Comment: special answer to the complaint

226 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/10/2019
  • Disposition: Judgment- Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Judgment Type: Dismissal Order - Entire Action; Party Names: Ortega, Ignacio; Altamirano, Mark; Arevalo, Fermin; Armack, Robert Lee; Diaz, Stacy; Ceja, Jose Luis; Chatman, Leorn; Daza, Serafin; Huesca, Leticia; Garibay, Jorge; Garibay, Margarita; Gomez, Susana; Gonzalez, Vanessa L; Henriquez, Arnoldo; Henriquez, Ana Gladys; Hinojosa, Frank; Hinojosa, Judy; Martinez, Jaime; Martinez, Silvia; Miramontes, David; Miramontes, Sharon; Ortega, Manuel; Ortega, Elvia; Ponce, Rafael; Ponce, Eva; Rakkar, Kabal S; Kaur, Mohinder; Rangel, Cergio; Rangel, Yolanda; Reyes, Elias; Reyes, Malena T; KM 546 Partners, L.P.; Covington, Robert Mitchell; 105 Howard St., Inc.; Valley Vanguard Properties, Inc.; Arambula, Jose; Batres, Manuel; Batres, Eva; Martinez, Alfredo; Martinez, Araceli G.; Mendez, Martin; Mendoza, Flor; Milian, Lizett; Milian, Francisco; Rowland, Michael; Singh, Rajinder; Kaur, Pritpal; 105 Howard St Inc; Valley Vanguard Properties Inc; Apache Erectors Inc dba Jordan Construction; Atmos Corp dba Merzon Industries; BF Glass Inc dba Fresno Shower Door & Mirror; Baker Custom Cabinets Inc; Central Valley Landscape & Maintenance; Erik Mott Painting Inc; Golden State Woodworking Inc.; Hector Sahagun Construction; JR Construction; Rocha, Jim; Jiminez Electric; Masaak Kimura, Dba Landscape Express; Madera Custom Tile Inc; Madera Masonry; Madera Roofing Inc; McClure Door Inc; Pacific Door & Cabinet Company; Penninsula Floors Inc dba The Design Center; Purl's Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Inc; Gonzales, Ray M; Staggs, Richard; Robert's Drywall; Spence, Robert; Sacramento Building Products; Solis Construction; Sparky Electric; Tri-Valley Plastering Inc; Watkins & Sons Construction Inc; Western States Plumbing Inc dba Walt's Plumbing; Diebert, William; Terran Ashjian Enterprises Inc; Atmos Corporation, Dba Merzon Industries; 105 Howard St.. Inc.; Valley Vanguard Properties, Inc.; Corona, Javier; Glass Tech, Inc.; B - F Glass, Inc.; Moes 1 - 20; Maravilla, Adolfo & Rosana; Ortiz, Jose & Modesta; Villanueva, Pablo & Maria; Zamora, Saul & Rita; C.V.L. & M., LTD; Madera Custom Tile Inc; La Tierra Verde Landscape Inc; AIG Specialty Insurance Company; Glass Tech, Inc.; Glass Tech, Inc.; Apache Erectors, Inc.; St Paul Mercury Insurance Company; Glass Tech, Inc.; Sacramento Insulation Contractors, Inc.; Ashjian Lighting Company (Terran Ashjian, Inc.); Atmos Corporation; Erik Mott Painting, Inc.; Madera Masonry; Madera Roofing, Inc.; Pacific Door & Cabinet, Inc.; Peninsula Floors, Inc.; Purl's Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning, Inc.; Roberts Drywall; Spence, Robert; Sacramento Building Products; Solis Construction; Sparky Electric; Tri-Valley Plastering, Inc.; Western States Plumbing, Inc.; Madera Custom Tile & Granite, Inc.; Glass Tech, Inc.; Glass Tech, Inc.; Pacific Door & Cabinet Company

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Disposition: Judgment- Judgment Type: Dismissal - Other filed; Party Names: St Paul Mercury Insurance Company; Ashjian Lighting Company (Terran Ashjian, Inc.); Atmos Corporation; Erik Mott Painting, Inc.; Madera Masonry; Madera Roofing, Inc.; Pacific Door & Cabinet, Inc.; Peninsula Floors, Inc.; Purl's Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning, Inc.; Roberts Drywall; Spence, Robert; Sacramento Building Products; Solis Construction; Sparky Electric; Tri-Valley Plastering, Inc.; Western States Plumbing, Inc.; Comment: with prejudice.; Comment: (as to Complaint in Intervention filed by St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Sparky Electric; Comment: With Prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Purl's Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning, Inc.; Comment: with prejudice.; Comment: (as to Defendant in complaint in intervention)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Madera Custom Tile & Granite, Inc.; Comment: With Prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Atmos Corporation; Comment: With Prejudice; Comment: (As to Defendant in Intervention)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Sacramento Building Products; Comment: With Prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Names: AIG Specialty Insurance Company; Comment: without prejudice/Dismissal in exchange for mutual waiver of fees and costs

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal - Other filed; Party Names: 105 Howard St Inc; Valley Vanguard Properties Inc; Ashjian Lighting Company (Terran Ashjian, Inc.); Apache Erectors Inc dba Jordan Construction; Atmos Corp dba Merzon Industries; BF Glass Inc dba Fresno Shower Door & Mirror; Baker Custom Cabinets Inc; Central Valley Landscape & Maintenance; Erik Mott Painting Inc; Golden State Woodworking Inc.; Hector Sahagun Construction; JR Construction; Rocha, Jim; Jiminez Electric; Masaak Kimura, Dba Landscape Express; Madera Custom Tile Inc; Madera Masonry; Madera Roofing Inc; McClure Door Inc; Pacific Door & Cabinet Company; Penninsula Floors Inc dba The Design Center; Purl's Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Inc; Gonzales, Ray M; Staggs, Richard; Robert's Drywall; Spence, Robert; Sacramento Building Products; Solis Construction; Sparky Electric; Tri-Valley Plastering Inc; Watkins & Sons Construction Inc; Western States Plumbing Inc dba Walt's Plumbing; Diebert, William; Terran Ashjian Enterprises Inc; C.V.L. & M., LTD; La Tierra Verde Landscape Inc; Glass Tech, Inc.; Apache Erectors, Inc.; St Paul Mercury Insurance Company; Comment: As to first Cross Complaint With Prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal - Other filed; Judgment Type: Dismissal - Other filed; Party Names: KM 546 Partners, L.P.; Covington, Robert Mitchell; 105 Howard St., Inc.; Valley Vanguard Properties, Inc.; Madera Custom Tile Inc; Glass Tech, Inc.; Glass Tech, Inc.; Glass Tech, Inc.; Pacific Door & Cabinet Company; Comment: with prejudice (as to original complaint filed)

    Read MoreRead Less
663 More Docket Entries
  • 06/16/2016
  • Financial info for Ortega, Ignacio: Counter Payment Receipt # CIVIL-2016-00021888 Nationwide Legal LLC. $21.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2016
  • Financial info for Ortega, Ignacio: Transaction Assessment $21.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2016
  • Financial info for Ortega, Ignacio: Counter Payment Receipt # CIVIL-2016-00011923 1st Priority Attorney Service, INC. $1.50

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2016
  • Financial info for Ortega, Ignacio: Transaction Assessment $1.50

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2013
  • Financial info for Ortega, Ignacio: Counter Payment Receipt # 176099 Ortega, Ignacio $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2013
  • Financial info for Ortega, Ignacio: Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2012
  • Financial info for Ortega, Ignacio: Counter Payment Receipt # 172510 Ortega, Ignacio $1435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2012
  • Financial info for Ortega, Ignacio: Transaction Assessment $1000.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2012
  • Financial info for Ortega, Ignacio: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2012
  • Financial: Ortega, Ignacio; Total Financial Assessment $1,627.50; Total Payments and Credits $1,627.50

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

JON A. VAN WOERKOM, SBN 137631 E-FILED

LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY R. WAGNER 5/26/2016

1655 Grant Street, Ste 800-B 11:01 AM

Concord, CA 94520 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Facsimile: (866) 386-1186 S ’ jon.vanwoerkom@aig.com

Attorneys for Cross-Defendant, MADERA CUSTOM TILE & GRANITE, INC. (sued herein as DOE 1)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO

IGNACIO ORTEGA, et al., Case No.: 12 CE CG 03888 MADERA CUSTOM TILE & GRANITE, Plaintiffs, INC."S ANSWER TO ST. PAUL

MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY’S

V. DOE AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

IN INTERVENTION

KM 546 PARTNERS, L.P., et al,,

Cross-Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

COMES NOW Cross-Defendant MADERA CUSTOM TILE & GRANITE, INC.

(sued herein as DOE 1) (hereinafter “Cross-Defendant”) and, for itself alone and none

other, answers the Doe Amendment to Complaint in Intervention of ST. PAUL

MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter “Intervenor”). Specifically, Cross- Defendant here admits, denies and alleges as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil

Procedure; this Cross-Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every, and

all, of the allegations of the Complaint in Intervention, and further denies that Intervenor

has sustained damages in any sum or sums, or otherwise, or at all,= MADERA CUSTOM TILE & GRANITE, INC."S ANSWER TO ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE

has sustained damages in any sum or sums, or otherwise, or at all,= MADERA CUSTOM TILE & GRANITE, INC."S ANSWER TO ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE omission on the part of this Cross-Defendant, or any of its agents, servants, or employees.

omission on the part of this Cross-Defendant, or any of its agents, servants, or employees.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and alleges as follows: The Complaint in Intervention and each alleged cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Cross-Defendant.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint in Intervention, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by the statutes of limitation set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to, the following Sections: 337;1; 337.1(a)}(1)-(3)(f); 337.15(a)(1)-(g}4), 338(a),(b); 339:1; 340.8; 343; 896(e); 896(f); 896(g) 1), 896(g}3)Xa)-(d); 896(g)(6); 896(g)(7); 896(g)(8); 896(g)(9), 896(g)(10); 896(g)(12); 896(g)(14); 900; 941(a)-(e), and 2607(3)(a), and 2725(1), (2) of the California Commercial Code.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Intervenor has unreasonably delayed in bringing this action to the prejudice of this Cross-Defendant and is therefore barred from bringing this action by the doctrine of laches.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Intervenor was careless and negligent in and about the matters referred to in the Complaint in Intervention, and such fault on the part of Intervenor proximately caused and contributed to the damages complained of, if any there are. This Cross-Defendant further alleges that any fault not attributable to Intervenor was a result on the part of persons and/or entities other than this Cross-Defendant. Such fault bars and/or proportionately reduces any recovery by Intervenor against this Cross-Defendant.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Should Intervenor recover damages from this Cross-Defendant, this Cross- Defendant is entitled to indemnification, either in whole or in part, from all persons or

entities whose negligence and/or fault proximately contributed to Intervenor's damages, -2. MADERA CUSTOM TILE & GRANITE, INC."S ANSWER TO ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE

entities whose negligence and/or fault proximately contributed to Intervenor's damages, -2. MADERA CUSTOM TILE & GRANITE, INC."S ANSWER TO ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE if any there are.

if any there are.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Intervenor directed, ordered, approved, and/or ratified this Cross-Defendant's conduct and this Intervenor is therefore estopped from asserting any claim based thereon.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Intervenor has failed and neglected to use reasonable care to minimize and mitigate the losses, injuries and damages complained of, if any there are, and is precluded from recovering those damages which could reasonably been avoided by the exercise of due care on Intervenor’s part.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint in Intervention, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by Intervenor's conduct in causing the damages alleged by it under the doctrine of unclean hands.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Prior to commencement of this action, this Cross-Defendant duly performed, satisfied, and discharged all duties and obligations it may have owed to Intervenor arisingagreements, representations, or contracts made by it or on behalf of this Cross-Defendant.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Intervenor and others unrelated to this Cross-Defendant modified, altered, abused, and/or misused the materials, equipment and/or work provided by this Cross- Defendant, and such conduct caused and/or contributed to the damages which are alleged in this lawsuit.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

By the terms of its contract, this Cross-Defendant is not responsible for Intervenor’s failure to carry out the work in accordance with the contract documents.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint in Intervention, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by the following provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code: Sections 1201(25)(c), 2601, 2602(1), 2513(1) and (3), 2510(1)(a) and (b), 2606(1)(a) and (b), 2607, 2715(2)(a) and 2719(3).

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint in Intervention, and each alleged cause of action thereof, is barred

by the provisions of California Civil Code Section 2784 .5.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint in Intervention, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state a cause of action against Cross-Defendant for breach of warranty, expressed, implied or otherwise, because there is no privity between Intervenor and this Cross-Defendant.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint in Intervention, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state a cause of action against this Cross-Defendant because Intervenor failed to give timely and proper notice of any breach of warranty, implied, express or otherwise.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Intervenor acted with full knowledge of all of the facts and circumstances surrounding its alleged injuries and damages, and thus assumed the risks of its injuries and damages, if any there are.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint in Intervention, and each alleged cause of action thereof, fails to state facts, or to allege claims, which would impose joint and several liability for any of the damages claimed by any part against this Cross-Defendant. Any liability of this Cross-Defendant, which liability is expressly denied, would therefore be limited to those injuries, losses or damages, if any there was for which this Cross-Defendant's actionable conduct, if any, was a primary contributing factor.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Intervenor’'s Complaint, and each alleged cause of action thereof, is barred by the provisions of Civil Code Section 1473.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint in Intervention, and each alleged cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for indemnity or contribution based on strict liability.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint, and each alleged cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of implied warranty against this Cross-Defendant.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Intervenor has knowingly and voluntarily waived all claims of loss or damage against Cross-Defendant and is therefore estopped and barred from alleging the matters set forth in its Complaint in Intervention.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Violation of Civil Code §896 through §945.5) Cross-Defendant alleges that Intervenors have violated provisions set forth in Civil Code §896 through §945.5, which require non-adversarial procedures to resolve disputes, including providing Cross-Defendants with a detailed notice of claim, a notice of defects, if any, a reasonable opportunity to cure any alleged defects, mediation, and/or opportunity to otherwise reach a settlement with Intervenors prior to the filing of their Complaint in Intervention, as well as other particulars of those sections.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Civil Code §945.5(a)-Act Of God) Cross-Defendant alleges that it is excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss or liability alleged as same was caused by an unforeseen act of

nature including, but not limited to, a weather condition, earthquake, or manmade even

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Civil Code §945.5(b)-Homeowner Unreasonableness)

Cross-Defendant is excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss or liability alleged as same was caused by Intervenors’ unreasonable failure to minimize or prevent those damages in a timely manner, including the failure of the homeowner to allow reasonable and timely access for inspections and repairs in accordance with provisions as set forth in Civil Code §896 through §945.5, which includes failure to give timely notice to the Builder after discovery of a violation.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Civil Code §945.5(c)—Failure to Maintain)

Cross-Defendant is excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss or liability alleged as same was caused by Intervenorstheir agent, employee, general contractor, subcontractor, independent contractor, or consultant by virtue of their failure to follow the Builder's or manufacturer's recommendations, or commonly accepted homeowner maintenance obligations.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Civil Code §945.5(d)-Alterations/Misuse)

Cross-Defendant is excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss or liability alleged as same was caused by Intervenorstheir agent’s, or an independent third party’'s alterations, ordinary wear and tear, misuse, abuse, or neglect, or by the structure’s use for something other than its intended purpose.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Civil Code §945.5(e)-Statute Of Limitations)

Cross-Defendant is excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss or liability alleged to the extent that the time period for filing actions bars the claimed violation.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Civil Code §945.5(f)-Release)

Cross-Defendant is excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss or liability alleged as to a particular violation for which the Builder has obtained a valid release.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Civil Code §945.5(g)—Repair Successful)

Cross-Defendant is excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss or liability alleged to the extent that the Builder's repair was successful in correcting the particular violation of the applicable Standard.

WHEREFORE, this Cross-Defendant prays as follows:

1. That Intervenor takes nothing by way of its Complaint on file herein;

2. That this Cross-Defendant receive a judgment in its favor for its costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action; and

3. That this Cross-Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the

Court may deem just and proper. Dated: May 24, 2016 LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY R. WAGNER

By: AN i L’\"“’\é i — L JON'A. VAN. WOERKOM A eys for Cross-Defendant,

MADERA CUSTOM TILE & GRANITE, INC.