This case was last updated from San Francisco County Superior Courts on 08/10/2020 at 17:24:09 (UTC).

EMILIO PEREZ et al VS. MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XIV, LP, CATHOLIC CHARITY et al

Case Summary

On 05/25/2012 EMILIO PEREZ filed an Other lawsuit against MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XIV, LP, CATHOLIC CHARITY. This case was filed in San Francisco County Superior Courts, Civic Center Courthouse located in San Francisco, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RICHARD A. KRAMER, KATHERINE FEINSTEIN, CYNTHIA M. LEE, TERI L. JACKSON, ERNEST H. GOLDSMITH, HAROLD E. KAHN, RICHARD B. ULMER, GAIL DEKREON, JOHN K. STEWART and MARLA J. MILLER. The case status is Not Classified By Court.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1134

  • Filing Date:

    05/25/2012

  • Case Status:

    Not Classified By Court

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    San Francisco County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Civic Center Courthouse

  • County, State:

    San Francisco, California

Judge Details

Judges

RICHARD A. KRAMER

KATHERINE FEINSTEIN

CYNTHIA M. LEE

TERI L. JACKSON

ERNEST H. GOLDSMITH

HAROLD E. KAHN

RICHARD B. ULMER

GAIL DEKREON

JOHN K. STEWART

MARLA J. MILLER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

DUARTE, YAZMIN AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM

PEREZ, EMILIO A MINOR

Defendants, Cross Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

DOES 1 TO 10

MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XIV, LP, CATHOLIC CHARITY

KMD ARCHITECTS

DOES 5 TO 100, INCLUSIVE

VAN-MULDER SHEET METAL, INC.

GOLDEN STATE STEEL & STAIR, INC.

DOES 4 TO 100, INCLUSIVE

MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XIV, LP.

KODAMA DISENO ARCHITECTS (SUED AS HEREIN AS KODAMA DISENO LP)

COLUMBIA CASCADE COMPANY

DOES 1 TO 100, INCLUSIVE

GOLDEN GATE STEEL AND STAIR, INC

CAHILL CONTRACTORS, INC.

SUSAN LEE & COMPANY PLAYGROUND CONSULTANTS LLC

KAPLAN MCLAUGHLIN DIAZ

CAHILL CONSTRUCTORS, INC.

SUSAN LEE & COMPANY PLAYGROUND CONSULTANTS, LLC

ROES 1-100, INCLUSIVE

13 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

CHRISP, JESSE B

Attorney at LAW OFFICES OF J. CRISP

15322 Lakeshore Dr. 3Rd Fl

Clearlake, CA 95422

Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

CASTLES, JAMES PATRICK

Attorney at LAW OFFICES OF ROBLES & CASTLES

492 Ninth Street, Ste 200

Oakland, CA 94607

NALBANDIAN, ROBERTA ELAINE

Attorney at LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS J. BURNS

525 Market Street, Suite 2850

San Francisco, CA 94105

BONNEY, BRIAN TRAVERS

Attorney at LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. BURNS

525 Market Street, Suite 2850

San Francisco, CA 94105

THOMAS, GREGORY B

Attorney at BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

555 12Th Street, Suite 1800

Oakland, CA 94607

DAVIS, TIMOTHY CHARLES

Attorney at DAVIS WANG

625 Market Street, 12Th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

MORIARTY, DENNIS F

Attorney at CESARI, WERNER & MORIARTY

75 Southgate Avenue

Daly City, CA 94015

CESARI, PAUL NORMANLY

Attorney at CESARI WERNER AND MORIARTY, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

75 Southgate Ave

Daly City, CA 94015

PANDELL, JANE CURRAN

Attorney at PANDELL LAW FIRM, INC.

1990 N. California Blvd, #1010

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

EICHHORN, DONALD PAUL

Attorney at WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP

525 Market St., 17 Flr.

San Francisco, CA 941052725

DESCALSO, MICHAEL GEORGE

Attorney at LAW OFFICES OF BEVERLY E. NARAYAN

525 Market Street, Suite 2850

San Francisco, CA 94105

YEN, THOMAS

Attorney at LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. BURNS

525 Market Street, Suite 2850

San Francisco, CA 94105

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

THOMAS, GREGORY B

Attorney at BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

555 12Th Street, Suite 1800

Oakland, CA 94607

DAVIS, TIMOTHY CHARLES

Attorney at DAVIS WANG

625 Market Street, 12Th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

MORIARTY, DENNIS F

Attorney at CESARI, WERNER & MORIARTY

75 Southgate Avenue

Daly City, CA 94015

CESARI, PAUL NORMANLY

Attorney at CESARI WERNER AND MORIARTY, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

75 Southgate Ave

Daly City, CA 94015

Other Attorneys

COMINOS, DION NICHOLAS

Attorney at GORDON & REES LLPEMBARCADERO CENTER WEST

275 Battery Street, Ste 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT

OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS, COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF PEREZ, EMILIO A MINOR DUARTE, YAZMIN AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM AS TO DEFENDANT MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XIV, LP. DOES 1 TO 10 CATHOLIC CHARITIES CYO OF THE ARCHDIOCES OF SAN FRANCISCO NO SUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR OCT-24-2012 PROOF OF SERVICE DUE ON JUL-24-2012 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT DUE ON OCT-09-2012 (Fee:IFP)

PETITION OF APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

PETITION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM (YAZMIN DUARTE APPOINTED AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR EMILIO PEREZ) FILED BY PLAINTIFF DUARTE, YAZMIN AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM

ORDER

ORDER AND STIPULATION REGARDING THE FILING OF MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XIV,LP AND CATHOLIC CHARITIES CROSS-COMPLAINTS FOR CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY, EQUITABLE INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION, IMPLIED INDEMNITY, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (TRANSACTION ID # 15124104) FILED BY PLAINTIFF PEREZ, EMILIO A MINOR JURY DEMANDED, ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 5.0 DAYS

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (TRANSACTION ID # 15132060) FILED BY DEFENDANT MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XIV, LP. JURY DEMANDED, ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 7.0 DAYS

Case Management Statement

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (TRANSACTION ID # 57753149) FILED BY DEFENDANT COLUMBIA CASCADE COMPANY ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 10.0 DAYS

Case Management Statement

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (TRANSACTION ID # 58190828) FILED BY DEFENDANT MERRILL MORRIS PARTNERS JURY DEMANDED, ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 7.0 DAYS

Dismissal - KMD

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 58284909) AS TO DEFENDANT KMD ARCHITECTS

Defendant Mercy Housing California XIV, LPs Answer to Plaintiffs Fourt

ANSWER TO 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 58679823) FILED BY DEFENDANT MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XIV, LP.

Case Ordered Off Calendar

CRC 3.1385 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OF MAR-13-2018 IS OFF CALENDAR. DISMISSAL ON FILE. NOTICE SENT BY COURT.

Continued Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (CRC 3.1385)

CRC 3.1385 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OF NOV-28-2017 CONTINUED TO JAN-30-2018 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 610. NOTICE SENT BY COURT.

Defendants Case Management Statement

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (TRANSACTION ID # 100026170) FILED BY DEFENDANT MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XIV, LP.

Order to Show Cause

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL (TRANSACTION ID # 100018464) FILED BY PLAINTIFF PEREZ, EMILIO A MINOR

PROOF OF SERVICE

PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT (TRANSACTION ID # 60118185) FILED BY CROSS COMPLAINANT MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XIV, LP.

MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XIV, LPs [P AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR CONTR

1ST AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 59491408) FILED PER ORDER BY CROSS COMPLAINANT MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XIV, LP. AS TO CROSS DEFENDANT CATHOLIC CHARITIES CYO OF THE ARCHDIOCES OF SAN FRANCISCO ROES 1-100, INCLUSIVE

CROSS-DEFENDANT CAHILL CONTRACTORS, INC. ANSWER TO CATHOLIC CHARITIES

ANSWER TO CROSS COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 59406645) FILED BY CROSS DEFENDANT CAHILL CONTRACTORS, INC.

ORDER

ORDER : APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT BY DEFENDANT KODAMA DISENO ARCHITECTS

DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT THEREOF APPLICATION FOR GOOD FAITH S

DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT THEREOF APPLICATION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT DETERMINATION (TRANSACTION ID # 58893561) FILED BY DEFENDANT KODAMA DISENO ARCHITECTS (SUED AS HEREIN AS KODAMA DISENO LP)

210 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/13/2018
  • HearingMatter(s): CRC 3.1385 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Off Calendar Mar-07-2018 Off Calendar; Location: CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE ROOM 610; Judge Name: TERI L. JACKSON

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCRC 3.1385 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OF MAR-13-2018 IS OFF CALENDAR. DISMISSAL ON FILE. NOTICE SENT BY COURT.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCRC 3.1385 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OF JAN-30-2018 CONTINUED TO MAR-13-2018 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 610. NOTICE SENT BY COURT.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • DocketMINI MINUTES FOR JAN-30-2018 10:30 AM FOR DEPT 610

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF 1ST AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT FILED BY MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XIV, LP. (TRANSACTION ID # 100030834)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF CROSS COMPLAINT FILED BY CATHOLIC CHARITIES CYO OF THE ARCHDIOCES (TRANSACTION ID # 100030829)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • HearingMatter(s): CRC 3.1385 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Off Calendar Jan-30-2018 Continued To Mar-13-18 At 10:30 A.M. In Dept 610 MINI MINUTES: Appearance by Sean Moriarty, Esq. for Plaintiff. The Order to Show Cause is re-set Mar-13-2018 at 10:30 AM in Dept. 610. JUDGE TERI L. JACKSON; Clerk JLee. Proceedings not reported. (610); Location: CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE ROOM 610; Judge Name: TERI L. JACKSON

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 100030073)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • HearingMatter(s): Progress Report On The Status Of The Purchase Of The Structured Settlement Annuity Off Calendar Jan-09-2018 Off Calendar; Location: CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE ROOM 514; Judge Name: GAIL DEKREON

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2018
  • DocketUNCONTESTED CALENDAR OF JAN-11-2018 PROGRESS REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE PURCHASE OF THE STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT ANNUITY - OFF CALENDAR. RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ORDER FOR DEPOSIT OF MONEY INTO A SETTLEMENT ANNUITY POLICY FILED DECEMBER 21, 2017. NO APPEARANCE. NOT REPORTED. (D514).

    Read MoreRead Less
354 More Docket Entries
  • 06/27/2012
  • DocketFILING FEE FOR EX PARTE APP FOR GUARDIAN AD LITEM FILED BY PLAINTIFF PEREZ, EMILIO A MINOR DUARTE, YAZMIN AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM (Fee:$40.00)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2012
  • FinancialPayment : CIVIL COMPLAINT/PETITION/OTHER FIRST PAPER; Amount : $410; Payment Type : CHECK ; Receipt Number : W2212627F031

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2012
  • Docket1ST APPEARANCE FEES FILED BY PLAINTIFF DUARTE, YAZMIN AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM (Fee:$410.00)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2012
  • DocketMASTER CALENDAR MOTION ON JUN-20-2012 IN DEPT. 206, HEARING ON APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF YAZMIN DUARTE'S WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS. COUNSEL JESSE CHRISP PRESENT FOR APPLICANT. COUNSEL AGREED TO ADVANCE FEES AND COSTS AND IS NOT PROVIDING LEGAL-AID TYPE SERVICES BASED ON LOW INCOME. THE COURT DENIED THE APPLICATION IN WHOLE. ORDER SIGNED, AND ENDORSED-FILED COPY MAILED TO APPLICANT. JUDGE: MARLA J. MILLER; CLERK: E. BURA; MATTER NOT REPORTED. (206)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketORDER DENYING WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO G.C. 68634 (E), CRC 3.52 AS TO PLAINTIFF DUARTE, YAZMIN AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2012
  • HearingMatter(s): APPLICATION PENDING FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO G.C. 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818 Off Calendar Jun-20-2012 Denied; Location: CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE ROOM 206; Judge Name: KATHERINE FEINSTEIN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2012
  • DocketAPPLICATION PENDING FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO G.C. 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818 (CONFIDENTIAL) FILED BY PLAINTIFF DUARTE, YAZMIN AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM HEARING SET FOR JUN-20-2012 AT 09:00 AM IN DEPT 206

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2012
  • FinancialPayment : CIVIL COMPLAINT/PETITION/OTHER FIRST PAPER; Payment Type : IFP ; Receipt Number : W3612525F007

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS, COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF PEREZ, EMILIO A MINOR DUARTE, YAZMIN AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM AS TO DEFENDANT MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA XIV, LP. DOES 1 TO 10 CATHOLIC CHARITIES CYO OF THE ARCHDIOCES OF SAN FRANCISCO NO SUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR OCT-24-2012 PROOF OF SERVICE DUE ON JUL-24-2012 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT DUE ON OCT-09-2012 (Fee:IFP)

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

denies and alleges as follows:

2 This answering Defendant CYO denies each and every, all and singular, generally 3 ||and specifically, all of the allegations therein contained, and further denies that cross- 4 | complainant has been damaged in any sum whatsoever, or at all.

5 | This answering Defendant CYO further denies that by reason of any act or acts, 6 | :' omission or omissions, fault, carelessness or negligence upon its part, cross-complainant 7 | sustained injuries, loss or damages of any kind or character in any part thereof,whatsoever, or at all.

9 | AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 10 | | AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

11 ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff herein failed to state a 12 | cause of action for which relief may be granted.

P Gutd

AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

|| ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that should plaintiff recover damages against any defendants, said defendants are entitled to have the amount abated, reduced or eliminated to the extent plaintiff’s negligence caused or contributed to his injuries and || damages, if any.

| AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that the injuries and damages of which plaintiff complains were proximately caused by the negligence and fault of other defendants | herein and without any fault or want of care on the part of this answering defendant or on the | part of any person or persons for whose acts this answering defendant was or is legally responsible.

| AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

|ON FILE HEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that the plaintiff is barred by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 335.1, in that more than two years :z has elapsed from the date of the alleged injury and the date of filing of the complaint herein.

' AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND I?zl_sTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

| AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

| ON FILE HEREIN, Cross-defendant alleges that the Cross-complaint and every cause of action therein does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Cross- defendant.

| " AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

| ON FILE HEREIN, Cross-defendant alleges that Cross-complainant and their agents were

careless and negligent with respect to the matters alleged in the Cross-complaint and that

WMEO@0 =3 e W e W

10 such carelessness and negligence proximately contributed to the happenings of the matters 11 complained of and to the alleged injuries, loss or damages, if any there were. Cross- 12 | complainant was at fault in or about the matters referred to in the Cross-complaint and such

fault on the part of Cross-complainant proximately caused or contributed to the damages | complained of, if any there were, and that any fault not attributable to said Cross-complainant ' was a result of fault on the part of persons and/or entities other that Cross-defendant. Such fault bars and/or proportionately reduces any recovery by Cross-complainant against Cross- | defendant.

| AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

| ON FILE HEREIN, Cross-defendant alleges that individuals or entities other that Cross- defendant were careless and negligent with respect to the matters alleged in the Cross- complaim and that such carelessness and negligence proximately contributed to the | happenings of the matters complained of and to the alleged injuries, loss and damages, if any || there were, claimed by Cross-complainant.

AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

| ON FILE HEREIN, Cross-defendant alleges that Cross-complainant has failed and neglected to use reasonable care to protect themselves and to minimize the losses and damages | | complained of, if any there were.

AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND I?%?TINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

roetnds

ON FILE HEREIN, Cross-defendant allege that Cross-complainant, by reason of their | knowledge, statements, and conduct, have waived any right or is estopped from claiming any | right, which they may have had for the alleged wrongful acts or omissions, if any there were, |of answering cross-defendant. On information and belief, Cross-complainant directed, | ordered, approved, and ratified Cross-defendant’s conduct with respect to the allegations of | Cross-complainant, and Cross-complainant is therefore estopped from asserting claims based || thereon.

| AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

ON FILE HEREIN, Cross-defendant alleges that Cross-complainant failed to make

e -3 o L B W D

| reasonable efforts to mitigate their damages, if any there were.

AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

| ON FILE HEREIN, Cross-defendant alleges that each and every one of cross-complainant’s claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation. The Cross-complaint, and each cause of | action thereof, is barred by one or more of the statutes of limitation set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure, beginning with Section 335 and continuing through Section 349.4, including, but not limited to: 337(1), 337.1, 337.15, 338, 339, 340, and 343; and by Sections 13607(3)(@), 2725(1) and (2) of the Uniform Commercial Code of the State of California.

| AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

| ON FILE HEREIN, Cross-defendant alleges that Cross-complainant’s claims are barred by | the doctrine of Laches.

| AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

|ON FILE HEREIN, Cross-defendant asserts that Cross-complainant voluntarily and | knowingly assumed the risk of loss, if any, flowing from his retention of persons/entities to | renovate/remediate his property. Cross-complainant is therefore barred from any and all of | ' the relief sought in the Cross-complaint.

AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

ON FILE HEREIN, if it is determined that Cross-defendant did not perform one or more of

| the duties and obligations it may have owed o Cross-complainant arising out of any and all

AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT {ON FILE HERE

IN, if it is determined that Cross-defendant did not perform, satisfy, and | discharge all duties and obligations it may have owed to Cross-complainant arising out of

any and all agreements, representations, or contracts made by or on behalf of Cross-

EOe8 =3 h W B e b

defendant, then Cross-defendant alleges that the performance of each obligation was excused

10 due to impossibility or impracticability in each instance.

11 | AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

12 ON FILE HEREIN, each and every cause of action set forth in the Cross-complaint as 13 |l amended is barred because Cross-complainant failed to give Cross-defendant proper notice in 14 || a timely and reasonable manner of any alleged breach, nor was Cross-defendant afforded an

opportunity to fulfill his obligations in each instance.

| AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

| ON FILE HEREIN, on information and belief, Cross-complainant and others unrelated to Cross-defendant failed to follow, and/or modified, altered, abused, and/or misused the designs, plans, and specifications provided, and such conduct caused and contributed to the | damages which are alleged in this lawsuit.

AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

ON FILE HEREIN, cross-defendant is not responsible for the method or means of construction used by the owners, general contractors, or subcontractors; nor is Cross- | defendant responsible for the failure of the owners, general contractors, or subcontractors to | carry out the work in accordance with contract documents, nor is Cross-defendant responsible for alleged design deficiencies committed by others.

| AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

ON FILE HEREIN, no act or omission cf_ f?ross~defendan% was a substantial factor in

ON FILE HEREIN, no act or omission cf_ f?ross~defendan% was a substantial factor in faxand

faxand

AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

4| AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

5 ||ON FILE HEREIN, Cross-defendant alleges that Cross-complainant breached the alleged

6 contract with Cross-complainant by failing timely, fully, and adequately to perform the terms

7 |l and conditions therein, thereby preventing Cross-defendant’s performance, if any was due,

8 || and discharging any obligation on the part of this Cross-defendant.

91 AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

10 | ON FILE HEREIN, Cross-defendant alleges that before it had any obligation to perform its 11 obligations under the contract, if there be any, Cross-complainant indicated that it would not 12 | perform its obligations under the contract, thereby repudiating the alleged contract.

13 AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

14 ON FILE HEREIN, Cross-complainant is barred from relief because it failed to exercise

| ordinary care with regard to the matters referred to in the Cross-complaint and such failure : contributed directly and proximately to the happening of the events alleged therein and to the damages, if any, sustained by Cross-complainant. |

| AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT

| ON FILE HEREIN, Cross-defendant alleges that no act or omission of this Cross-defendant was a substantial factor in bringing about the alleged damages sustained by Cross- complainant,omission by them a contributing cause thereof. Any alleged | acts or omissions of Cross-defendant were superseded by the acts or omissions of other | persons, firms, or corporations which were the independent, intervening, and proximate cause of any loss allegedly suffered by Cross-complainant.

WHEREFORE, this answering cross-defendant prays that cross-complainant take nothing by way of the cross-complaint on file herein; that these answering cross-defendants | have judgment thereon, together with their costs of suit, and for such other and further relief

| as the court may deem proper. )

CATHOLIC CHARITIES CYO OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN FRANCISCO