This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 08/08/2019 at 13:07:04 (UTC).

Jack Blehm vs. Lillian Popoff

Case Summary

On 10/27/2017 Jack Blehm filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against Lillian Popoff. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Snauffer, Mark, Black, Donald and Simpson, Alan. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8992

  • Filing Date:

    10/27/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Snauffer, Mark

Black, Donald

Simpson, Alan

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Blehm, Roger

Blehm, Jack

Defendants

Popoff, Lillian

Slaven, Shane

Matthews, Harold

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Krbechek, Randolf

Defendant Attorneys

Clark, Steven C.

Souza, James P

 

Court Documents

Judgment

Request for Dismissal filed; Judgment Type: Request for Dismissal filed; Party Names: Blehm, Jack; Popoff, Lillian; Blehm, Roger; Slaven, Shane; Matthews, Harold; Comment: With Prejudice

Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review

Request for Dismissal; Comment: Request for Dismissal

Judgment

Dismissal - Other filed; Judgment Type: Dismissal - Other filed; Party Names:; Comment: With Prejudice Cross Complaint Lillian Popoff

Dismissal Not Entered

Dismissal Not Entered; Comment: Request for dismissal filed. Dismissal not entered as requested for the following reason: There were two requests for dismissal efiled

Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review

Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review

Request for Dismissal; Comment: Request for Dismissal

Declaration Filed

Declaration of Service; Comment: of Service of Answer

Answer Filed

Answer/Response/Denial/Demurrer - No Fee; Comment: to 2nd Cross Complaint

Proof of Service

Proof of Service; Comment: Lillian Popoff

Case Management Statement Filed

Case Management Statement; Comment: Case Management Statement

Summons issued and filed

Summons; Summons issued and filed; Comment: To 2nd Cross-Complaint

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Demand for Jury Trial filed

Demand for Jury Trial

Answer Filed

Shane Slaven and Harold Matthews Answer to Plaintiffs Compla

Answer Filed

Answer/Response/Denial/Demurrer - First Appearance Fee

Proof of Service

Proof of Service; Comment: Proof of Service by Mail on Harold Matthews

Proof of Service

Proof of Service; Comment: Shane Slaven

Civil case cover sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet

26 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Request for Dismissal filed; Judgment Type: Request for Dismissal filed; Party Names: Blehm, Jack; Popoff, Lillian; Blehm, Roger; Slaven, Shane; Matthews, Harold; Comment: With Prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal - Other filed; Judgment Type: Dismissal - Other filed; Party Names:; Comment: With Prejudice Cross Complaint Lillian Popoff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Jury Trial- Judicial Officer: Simpson, Alan; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed; Comment: Requested by Defendant with estimated time of 4-6 days.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Trial Readiness- Judicial Officer: Black, Donald; Hearing Time: 9:30 AM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Mandatory Settlement Conference- Hearing Time: 1:30 PM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review- Request for Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Dismissal Not Entered- Dismissal Not Entered; Comment: Request for dismissal filed. Dismissal not entered as requested for the following reason: There were two requests for dismissal efiled

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review- Request for Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review- Request for Dismissal; Comment: Request for Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration Filed- Declaration of Service; Comment: of Service of Answer

    Read MoreRead Less
35 More Docket Entries
  • 10/27/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil case cover sheet- Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • Financial info for Slaven, Shane: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2018-14864 Slaven, Shane $740.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • Financial info for Slaven, Shane: Transaction Assessment $740.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • Financial: Slaven, Shane; Total Financial Assessment $740.00; Total Payments and Credits $740.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2017
  • Financial info for Popoff, Lillian: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2017-72660 Popoff, Lillian $520.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2017
  • Financial info for Popoff, Lillian: Transaction Assessment $520.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2017
  • Financial: Popoff, Lillian; Total Financial Assessment $520.00; Total Payments and Credits $520.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • Financial info for Blehm, Jack: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2017-62668 Blehm, Jack $370.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • Financial info for Blehm, Jack: Transaction Assessment $370.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • Financial: Blehm, Jack; Total Financial Assessment $370.00; Total Payments and Credits $370.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

JAMES P. SOUZA, ESQ. (SBN 179573) E-FILED

jsouza@kennedysouza.com 6/4/2018 5:10 PM E. VAL MENESES, ESQ. (SBN 159228) FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT vmeneses@kennedysouza.com By: C. York, Deputy KENNEDY & SOUZA, APC o '

7964 Arjons Drive, Suite I San Diego, California 92126 Telephone: (858) 267-4127 Facsimile: (858) 267-4128

Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-Complainants/Cross- Defendants SHANE SLAVEN AND HAROLD

MATTHEWS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO

JACK BLEHM and ROGER BLEHM, Case No.: 17CECL08992 Plaintiffs,

SHANE SLAVEN AND HAROLD

Vs, MATTHEWS’ ANSWER TO CROSS-

COMPLAINT OF LILLIAN POPOFF

LILLIAN POPOFF; SHANE SLAVEN; HAROLD MATTHEWS; and DOES 1

thorough 10, inclusive, Action Filed: 10/27/2017 Trial Date: None set. Defendants. LILLIAN POPOFF,

Cross-Complainant, V.

SHANE SLAVEN, HAROLD MATTHEWS, and MOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Cross-defendants. AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS.

TO THE ABOVE COURT, THE CLERK, AND ALL CONCERNED PARTIES: Cross-Defendants, SHANE SLAVEN and HAROLD MATTHEWS (hereinafter referred to

as "SSHM") answer the Cross-Complaint (hereinafter referred to as "Cross-Complaint") of Cross-

Complainant, LILLIAN POPOFF, (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Cross-Complainant") on

file herein as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

1. Pursuant to the provisions of section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, a denial is made in regard to each and every allegation in the Cross-Complaint, and a further denial is made that any damage, whether in the amount set forth in the Cross-Complaint,sums whatsoever, or at all, has been caused by reason of any act or omission on the part of SSHM or on the part of any of SSHMs’ predecessors, successors, agents, servants, employees or anyone who may be alleged to have the ability to create liability on the part of SSHM.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure To State A Cause Of Action)

2. As a first, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the Cross-Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against SSHM.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Contributory or Comparative Negligence)

3. As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that others were careless, negligent and at fault with respect to the matters alleged in the Cross-Complaint, and that such carelessness, negligence and fault proximately caused or contributed to the happening of the incident, injuries, loss or damages complained of, if any, and Cross-Complainant's contributory or comparative fault either bars or proportionately reduces any potential recovery.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statute Of Limitations)

4, As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause

of action alleged therein, it is alleged that each such cause of action is barred by the applicable

statute of limitations stated in Part II, Title II, of the California Code of Civil Procedure including,

statute of limitations stated in Part II, Title II, of the California Code of Civil Procedure including, but not limited to, those set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337, 337(a), 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340, 342 and 343.

but not limited to, those set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337, 337(a), 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340, 342 and 343.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Unclean Hands)

5. As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that other individuals, other entities and/or Cross-Complainant comes to court with unclean hands.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Waiver)

6. As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that other individuals, other entities and/or Cross-Complainant has, by acts or omissions to act, waived any potential right to pursue any action against SSHM.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Estoppel)

7. As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that other individuals, other entities and/or Cross-Complainant is estopped to assert any cause of action by their acts, or failures to act, upon which SSHM have relied to their prejudice.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure To Mitigate Damages)

8. As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that other individuals, other entities and/or Cross-Complainant, by their conduct, actions or failure to act, have failed to mitigate their claimed damages.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Laches)

0. As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause

of action alleged therein, it is alleged that other individuals, other entities and/or Cross-Complainant

of action alleged therein, it is alleged that other individuals, other entities and/or Cross-Complainant has unreasonably delayed in bringing an action and/or in naming SSHM and has thereby prejudiced rights; therefore, this action is barred by the doctrine of laches.

has unreasonably delayed in bringing an action and/or in naming SSHM and has thereby prejudiced rights; therefore, this action is barred by the doctrine of laches.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Comparative Indemnification)

10. Asafurther separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that while denying any and all liability on the part of SSHM, SSHM are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that other individuals, other entities and/or Cross-Complainant, whether or not parties to this action, carelessly, negligently, or intentionally proximately caused or contributed to the happening of the injury, loss or damages complained of, if any, and any damages awarded must be apportioned among such persons or entities, whether or not they are parties, in proportion to any amount attributable to such other persons or entities.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Ripeness)

11. As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that it is premature and that it does not present this Court with a justiciable case or controversy.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Standing)

12. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause

of action alleged therein, it is alleged that there is a lack of standing to bring suit.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Cooperate)

13. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the conduct of others regarding the duty to cooperate, constituted a breach of said duty resulting in prejudice to SSHM, and such failure to cooperate either bars or proportionately reduces any potential recovery by Cross-Complainant, and/or entitles SSHM, to recover any damages they have incurred as a result of Cross-Complainant's breach.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Capacity)

14. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause

of action alleged therein, it is alleged that others lack the legal capacity to bring suit in this action.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Collusion)

15. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the conduct, actions, or failures to act of individuals, or entities in combination with other persons or entities, whether or not parties to this action, constituted collusion and such collusion either bars or proportionally reduces any recovery by Cross- Complainant in this action, and/or entitles SSHM to recover any damages they have incurred as a result of such conduct, actions or failures to act.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statute of Frauds)

16. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that each such cause of action is barred, in whole or in part, as a result of the application of the Statute of Frauds.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Parole Evidence Rule)

17. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that each such cause of action 1s barred, in whole or in part, as a result of the application of the Parole Evidence Rule.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Merger and/or Bar)

18. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that each such cause of action is barred, in whole or in part, as a result of the application of the doctrines of merger and/or bar.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Conditions Precedent)

19. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that any obligation of SSHM pursuant to the terms of any agreements is excused since conditions precedent to performance have not been met.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Negligence)

20. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent others were negligent in performing work.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Fraud)

21. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that others committed fraud in relation to the matters sued upon.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

- (Illegality)

22. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause

of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in

part, to the extent that the Contract sued upon, either itself or as applied, constituted an unlawful

contract.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Set-Off) 23. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause

of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the claims, and each of them, should be either barred, or proportionately reduced, to the extent that SSHM are entitled to a set-off in relation to the claims

asserted by Cross-Complainant.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Necessary Parties)

24. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, as a result of the failure to name and serve necessary parties.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Indispensable Parties)

25. As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, as a result of the failure to name and serve indispensable parties.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Exclusive Remedy Against Corporation)

26. As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause

of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the exclusive remedy is against a corporate entity.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Implied Consent)

27. As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that others expressly or impliedly consented to the conduct complained of; therefore, the Cross-Complaint is barred in whole or in part.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Independent Contractors)

28. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the dealings upon which the claims are based were with independent contractors; therefore, Cross-Complainant's exclusive remedy is against those individuals or entities.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure of Performance)

29. As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, as a result of Crbss-—Complainant's own failure to perform.

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Cure)

30. As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, as a result of Cross-Complainant's own failure to cure when provided notice and an opportunity to cure.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Not Intended Beneficiary)

31. As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that Cross-Complainant was not an intended beneficiary of any agreement to which SSHM were a party.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Consideration)

32. As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole dr in part, as a result of the absence of valuable consideration for any promise that Cross-Complainant seeks to enforce against SSHM.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Other Individuals, Other Entities’ Negligence)

33, As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that other individuals and/or other entities were negligent.

FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Res Judicata)

44, As a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, as a result of the doctrine of res judicata.

FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Collateral Estoppel)

45. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, as a result of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Contractual Time Limitations)

46. Asafurther, separate and affirmative defense to the Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the claims, and each of them, are barred in whole or in part, to the extent that there was a lack of compliance with contractual time limitations regarding the filing of suit, notice and/or warranty claims.

FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Resultant Damages)

47. SSHM are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that as to each alleged cause of action set forth in Cross-Complainant's Cross-Complaint, the conditions and defects set forth therein, and the damages related thereto, did not arise out of work performed by SSHM nor any act or omission related thereto and thus recovery is precluded based on the lack of resultant damages.

FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Work Performed in Accordance with Plans and Specifications) 48. SSHM are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that if materials and/or services

were supplied and/or constructed by SSHM, they were so supplied and/or constructed in accordance