This case was last updated from San Francisco County Superior Courts on 04/11/2016 at 14:50:46 (UTC).

RYAN ANONUEVO et al VS. NASIR PATEL et al

Case Summary

On 05/07/2012 RYAN ANONUEVO filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against NASIR PATEL. This case was filed in San Francisco County Superior Courts, Civic Center Courthouse located in San Francisco, California. The case status is Not Classified By Court.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0558

  • Filing Date:

    05/07/2012

  • Case Status:

    Not Classified By Court

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    San Francisco, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

ANONUEVO, RYAN

BLACKWELL, BRYAN

CATAPANO, MICHELLE

HOKE, JOHN

NICHOLS, TANITH

SEYOUME, SIRAK

SCALZI, MICHAEL

TAYLOR, ANTHONY

SALZI, MICHAEL

SPENCE, ROGER

Defendants and Cross Defendants

DOES 1 TO 100

PATEL, NASIR

PATEL, NASREEN

NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST

QUAN, VICTOR

GOLDEN GATE PARTNERS, LLC

PATEL, NASREEN , INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST

PATEL, NASIR INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST, BY DECLARATION OF TRUST

GOLDEN GATE PARTNERS LLC

PATEL, NASIR INDIVIDUALY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST

Cross Plaintiffs and Defendants

QUAN, VICTOR

GOLDEN GATE PARTNERS, LLC

3 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

DRISCOLL, JAMES C

Attorney at LAW OFFICES OF JAMES COY DRISCOLL

2740 Van Ness Avenue, Ste. 300

San Francisco, CA 94109

Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

RODZEWICH, EDWARD J

Attorney at STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER

P. O. Box 258829

Oklahoma City, OK 73125-8829

SMITH, KARA ANN

Attorney at VAN DE POEL, LEVY, ALLEN & ARNEAL, LLP

1600 S. Main Plaza, Suite 325

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

CHEN, DAVID W.

 

Court Documents

GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE)

PROOF OF PERSONAL DELIVERY ON JANUARY 14, 2014 OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND FOR AN ORDER FOR SANCTIONS; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION IN SUPPORT FILED BY DEFENDANT PATEL, NASREEN PATEL, NASIR

Request for Dismissal

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF RYAN ANONUEVO ONLY DISMISS HIS COMPLAINT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS. EACH PARTY TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS. (TRANSACTION ID # 57462097) AS TO DEFENDANT PATEL, NASIR INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST, ESTABLISHED BY DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED 9/16/03 PATEL, NASREEN INDIVIDUALY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST, ESTABLISHED BY DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED 9/16/03 DOES 1 TO 100 QUAN, VICTOR GOLDEN GATE PARTNERS, LLC PATEL, NASREEN , INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST GOLDEN GATE PARTNERS LLC PATEL, NASREEN NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST PATEL, NASIR

Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objections to Evidence Regarding the

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE REGARDING THE MOTION FOR A TERMINATING SANCTION DISMISSING THE ENTIRE PRESENT ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR EVIDENTIARY OR ISSUE SANCTIONS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS (TRANSACTION ID # 58639682) FILED BY DEFENDANT PATEL, NASREEN , INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST PATEL, NASIR

Continued Order to Show Cause

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SET FOR JAN-14-2014 CONTINUED TO FEB-25-2014 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 610 FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN AN ANSWER(S) FROM, OR ENTER DEFAULT(S) AGAINST, DEFENDANT(S) NASIR PATEL AS TRUSTEES OF THE NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST, ESTABLISHED BY DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED 9/16/03, AND NASREEN PATEL AS TRUSTEES OF THE NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST, ESTABLISHED BY DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED 9/16/03. THE JAN-14-2014 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IS OFF CALENDAR. NOTICE SENT BY COURT.

Notice of Time and Place of Trial

NOTICE OF TIME AND PLACE OF TRIAL, JURY TRIAL SET FOR MAR-21-2016 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPT. 206. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON SEP-02-2015 IS OFF CALENDAR. NOTICE SENT BY COURT.

ORDER

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO NOTICE AND HAVE HEARD A MOTION FOR A TERMINATING SANCTION, DISMISSING THE ENTIRE PRESENT ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR EVIDENTIARY OR ISSUE SANCTIONS, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS (HEARING DATE MARCH 4, 2016; OPPOSITION DUE BY FEBRUARY 24, 2016; REPLY DUE BY FEBRUARY 29, 2016)

Defendants Patels Case Management Statement

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (TRANSACTION ID # 57701787) FILED BY DEFENDANT GOLDEN GATE PARTNERS, LLC PATEL, NASREEN PATEL, NASIR JURY DEMANDED, ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 5.0 DAYS

Ex Parte Application Memorandum of Points and Authorities

EX PARTE APPLICATION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES (TRANSACTION ID # 58555361) FILED BY DEFENDANT PATEL, NASREEN , INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST PATEL, NASIR

Plaintiffs Opposition to defendants Nasir patel and nasreen patels mot

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS NASIR PATEL AND NASREEN PATEL'S MOTION FOR MONETARY, ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS (TRANSACTION ID # 100014658) FILED BY PLAINTIFF ANONUEVO, RYAN BLACKWELL, BRYAN

59 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/21/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • REMOVED FROM MASTER JURY CALENDAR SET FOR MAR-21-2016 - APPEARANCE BY JAMES COY DRISCOLL, ESQ., FOR PLAINTIFFS. ONLY PLAINTIFF MICHELLE CATAPANO IS PRESENT IN COURT AT TRIAL CALL. KARA ANN SMITH, ESQ. APPEARED FOR DEFENDANTS NASIR PATEL, NASREEN PATEL, NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST. EDWARD RODZWICH, ESQ. APPEARED FOR DEFENDANTS VICTOR QUAN, GOLDEN GATE PARTNERS, LLC. DEFENDANTS' ORAL MOTION TO DISMISS CASE OF THE NON-APPEARING PLAINTIFFS NAMELY, JOHN HOKE, SIRAK SEYOUME, ROGER SPENCE, ANTHONY TAYLOR, SARAH SHUBIN, FE PURGANAN, MICHAEL SCALZI, AND TANITH NICHOLS IS GRANTED. THE COURT DISMISSES THE CASE OF THESE NON-APPEARING PLAINTIFFS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. PLAINTIFF MICHELLE CATAPANO HAS REACHED A SETTLEMENT WITH ALL THE DEFENDANTS. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT READ INTO THE RECORD, AS REFLECTED ON THE COURT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT. THE COURT HAD VOIR DIRE PLAINTIFF MICHELLE CATAPANO WITH REGARDS TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND PLAINTIFF CATAPANO AGREED WITH THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AS READ. ASSIGNED TO DEPT. 610 ON MAY-17-2016 AT 10:30 AM FOR DISMISSAL PER CRC 3.1385. JUDGE: JOHN K. STEWART; CLERK: JIROQUE; COURT REPORTER: SIEW UNG, CSR #13994, TEL. NO. (415)260-2261. (206)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2016
  • DISCOVERY 302, DEFENDANTS NASREEN PATEL AND NASIR PATEL'S MOTION TERMINATING SANCTION, DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION, ETC. IS OFF CALENDAR BECAUSE THE MOVING PARTY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SAN FRANCISCO 2.7B. ON MARCH 4, 2016, THE COURT CONTINUED THE MOTION TO GIVE THE MOVING PARTY AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL RULE AND PROVIDE COURTESY COPIES OF THEIR FILINGS. THE MOVING PARTY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THAT ORDER. IN LIGHT OF THE CURRENT TRIAL DATE OF MARCH 21, 2016, THERE IS INSUFFICIENT TIME TO CONTINUE THIS MOTION AGAIN. JUDGE PRO-TEM: PETER CATALANOTTI; CLERK: YOLANDA MAZARIEGOS; NOT REPORTED. =302/JPT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2016
  • MINI MINUTES FOR MAR-16-2016 09:00 AM FOR DEPT 302

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2016
  • DISCOVERY 302, MOTION TERMINATING SANCTION, DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION, ETC. IS CONTINUED FROM MAR-04-2016 TO MAR-16-2016, AT 9:00 AM, IN DEPT. 302/DISCOVERY, OWN THE COURT'S OWN MOTION, TO GIVE DEFENDANTS NASIR PATEL AND NASREEN PATEL (COLLECTIVELY "PATEL") THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 2.6B. PATEL MUST DELIVER COURTESY COPIES OF THE MOVING AND REPLY PAPERS TO DEPARTMENT 302, WITH A COVER LETTER STATING THE NEW HEARING DATE, NO LATER THAN MARCH 4, 2016 AT 4:00 PM OR THE MOTION WILL BE DENIED. ANY EXHIBIT MUST BE SEPARATED BY AN EXHIBIT TAB PER CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 3.1110(F). THE COURT HAS COURTESY COPIES OF THE OPPOSITION PAPERS. (D302)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2016
  • MINI MINUTES FOR MAR-04-2016 09:00 AM FOR DEPT 302

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/29/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE REGARDING THE MOTION FOR A TERMINATING SANCTION DISMISSING THE ENTIRE PRESENT ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR EVIDENTIARY OR ISSUE SANCTIONS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS (TRANSACTION ID # 58639682) FILED BY DEFENDANT PATEL, NASREEN , INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST PATEL, NASIR

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/29/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR A TERMINATING SANCTION DISMISSING THE ENTIRE PRESENT ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR EVIDENTIARY OR ISSUE SANCTIONS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS (TRANSACTION ID # 58639682) FILED BY DEFENDANT PATEL, NASREEN , INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST PATEL, NASIR

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/29/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DECLARATION OF ERICK D. LEWIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR A TERMINATING SANCTION DISMISSING THE ENTIRE PRESENT ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR EVIDENTIARY OR ISSUE SANCTIONS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS (TRANSACTION ID # 58639682) FILED BY DEFENDANT PATEL, NASREEN , INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST PATEL, NASIR

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/29/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR A TERMINATING SANCTION DISMISSING THE ENTIRE PRESENT ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR EVIDENTIARY OR ISSUE SANCTIONS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS (TRANSACTION ID # 58639682) FILED BY DEFENDANT PATEL, NASREEN PATEL, NASIR

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE RE: DEFENDANTS NASIR PATEL AND NASREEN PATELS MOTION FOR MONETARY, ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS (TRANSACTION ID # 100014658) FILED BY PLAINTIFF ANONUEVO, RYAN BLACKWELL, BRYAN

    Read MoreRead Less
74 More Docket Entries
  • 02/25/2013
  • View Court Documents
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT PATEL, NASIR (Fee:450.00)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2013
  • View Court Documents
  • SUMMONS ISSUED AMENDED TO PLAINTIFF ANONUEVO, RYAN BLACKWELL, BRYAN CATAPANO, MICHELLE HOKE, JOHN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2013
  • View Court Documents
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SET FOR JAN-15-2013 CONTINUED TO MAR-19-2013 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 610 FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE ON DEFENDANT(S) AND OBTAIN ANSWER(S), OR ENTER DEFAULT(S). THE JAN-15-2013 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IS OFF CALENDAR. NOTICE SENT BY COURT.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2013
  • View Court Documents
  • RESPONSE TO OSC RE: SERVICE OF DEFTS FILED BY PLAINTIFF ANONUEVO, RYAN BLACKWELL, BRYAN CATAPANO, MICHELLE HOKE, JOHN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SET FOR JAN-15-2013 IN DEPARTMENT 610 AT 10:30 AM FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE ON DEFENDANT(S) AND OBTAIN ANSWER(S), OR ENTER DEFAULT(S). THE NOV-21-2012 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IS OFF CALENDAR. NOTICE SENT BY COURT.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY PLAINTIFF ANONUEVO, RYAN JURY DEMANDED, ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 3.0 DAYS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE OF OCT-10-2012 CONTINUED TO NOV-21-2012 AT 2:00 PM IN DEPARTMENT 610. NOTICE SENT BY COURT.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY PLAINTIFF ANONUEVO, RYAN BLACKWELL, BRYAN CATAPANO, MICHELLE HOKE, JOHN JURY DEMANDED, ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 3.0 DAYS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED, COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF ANONUEVO, RYAN BLACKWELL, BRYAN CATAPANO, MICHELLE HOKE, JOHN SALZI, MICHAEL SEYOUME, SIRAK SPENCE, ROGER TAYLOR, ANTHONY SHUBIN, SARAH PURGANAN, FE SCALZI, MICHAEL AS TO DEFENDANT PATEL, NASIR INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST, ESTABLISHED BY DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED 9/16/03 PATEL, NASREEN INDIVIDUALY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST, ESTABLISHED BY DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED 9/16/03 DOES 1 TO 100 QUAN, VICTOR GOLDEN GATE PARTNERS, LLC SUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR OCT-10-2012 PROOF OF SERVICE DUE ON JUL-06-2012 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT DUE ON SEP-25-2012 (Fee:410.00)

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

Kara Ann Smith, Esq. (SBN 112088)

Douglas R. L1v1ngston Esq. (SBN 143129) ELECTRONICALLY VAN DE POEL, LEVY, ALLEN & ARNEAL, LLP FILED 1600 S. Main Plaza, Suite 325 C L L LD Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Sgperf?r Cfogrf o;; California, Telephone: (925) 934-6102 ounty oF san Francisco Facsli)mile: (925) 934-6060 APR 17 2015 Clerk of the Court Attorneys for Defendants BY: MEREDITH GRIER NASIR PATEL and NASREEN PATEL, individually Deputy Cler

and as Trustees of the NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST and the NASIR & NASREEN

PATEL FAMILY TRUST IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

RYAN ANONUEVO, BRYAN BLACKWELL, CASE NO.: CGC-12-520558

MICHELLE CATAPANO, JOHN HOKE, MICHAEL SALZI, SIRAK SEYOUME,

SARAH SHUBIN, ROGER SPENCE, DEFENDANT NASIR & NASREEN ANTHONY TAYLOR, TANITH NICHOLS, PATEL FAMILY TRUST’S ANSWER and FE PURGANAN TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

| Plaintiffs,

Complaint Filed: May 7, 2012 VS.

NASIR PATEL and NASREEN PATEL, individually and as Trustees of the NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST, established by Declaration of Trust dated September 16, 2003; GOLDEN GATE PARTNERS, LLC VICTOR QUAN; and DOES 1 to 100

Defendants.

Defendant, NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST (hereinafter referred to as “DEFENDANT?”), hereby answers the Complaint of Plaintiffs, RYAN ANONUEVO, BRYAN BLACKWELL, MICHELLE CATAPANO, JOHN HOKE, MICHAEL SALZI, SIRAK SEYOUME, SARAH SHUBIN, ROGER SPENCE, ANTHONY TAYLOR, TANITH NICHOLS, and FE PURGANAN (hereinafter referred to as “PLAINTIFFS™), as follows:

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

3600 S, Main Plaza, Suite 325,

Wwainut Creek CA 94596 Telaphone: (925} 934-6102 Facsimile: (925)934.6060

GENERAL DENIAL

Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, DEFENDANT denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in each cause of action of the Complaint and further denies that the complaint and each and every purported cause of action thereof states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against any DEFENDANT, and further denies that PLAINTIFFS have sustained or will sustain any injury, damage, or loss in the sum or sums alleged in the complaint,all, or at all by reason of any act, omission or breach on the part of any DEFENDANT or agent.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1. The Complaint in its entirety and each and every cause of action therein, fails to state

facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering DEFENDANT.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this answering DEFENDANT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that any damage or injury allegedly suffered by PLAINTIFFS were proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence or fault of PLAINTIFFS’ agents, representatives and/or employees; and DEFENDANT is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said party was careless and negligent. Thus, if PLAINTIFFS are entitled to recover at all for any damages alleged, such recovery must be diminished to the extent that said damages is attributable to the negligence of PLAINTIFFS’ agents, representatives and/or employees.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

3. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this answering DEFENDANT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that any injury or damage suffered by PLAINTIFFS and/or any other party was caused or contributed to by the negligence or fault of persons or entities other than DEFENDANT, thereby entitling DEFENDANT to an appropriate apportionment of damages in accordance with the provisions of California law. 1 1/

{01271854. DOC; 1} 2

300NN P 0 AN 451AORrin, U it MASEB0' LM i 1) 6 | S IR ) N0 105)[ .

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this answering DEFENDANT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the alleged injuries and damages for which PLAINTIFFS seek recovery were caused by the independent acts or omissions of other Defendant(s), thereby eliminating or reducing DEFENDANT’s liability.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this answering DEFENDANT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that any injuries or damages suffered by PLAINTIFFS were caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, by the negligence or fault of PLAINTIFFS or others, which entitles DEFENDANT tfo contribution from said individuals and entities, and each of them.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this answering DEFENDANT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that PLAINTIFES failed to exercise reasonable care to protect themselves from known defects and facts which were within their diligent attention and observation.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this answering DEFENDANT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the negligence of PLAINTIFFS or other parties or entities constitutes an intervening and superseding cause of the injuries and damages, if any, thereby barring or reducing PLAINTIFFS’ recovery from DEFENDANT.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Compiaint, these answering DEFENDANT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the Complaint and each purported cause of action stated therein is barred as a result of the PLAINTIFFS’ failure to mitigate damages, if any were suffered, or by PLAINTIFF incurring unreasonable expenses that were not justified. /1 /!

6 PO0H TN RIS R PIREGS€. (00 Dl A0 LN BANTIRSWHAMILT IR ) O AR5 A P IOIRTVY I STAIIIMIVT N ©INDRI LAY SATCOMAGTASONONTIMNIIESSPCOTTIN,TSmO [OI00H W IR K00 SRRt0

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this answering DEFENDANT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, comparative negligence, in that PLAINTIFFS were negligent in and about the matters and activities alleged in the Complaint, that PLAINTIFFS’ negligence contributed to and was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries and damages, if any, and that any recovery by PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANT should be reduced in proportion to the fault attributable to PLAINTIFFS.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this answering DEFENDANT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that DEFENDANT is entitled to indemnification by apportionment against all other parties and persons whose negligence contributed to the alleged damages.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

11. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this answering DEFENDANT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the duties DEFENDANT and/or DEFENDANT’S agents or employees allegedly breached were actually executed with reasonable care and diligence.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this answering DEFENDANT 1is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that any and all mandatory duties imposed on this answering DEFENDANT and/or DEFENDANT’s agents or employees, the failure of which allegedly created the condition which is the subject of this Complaint, were performed with reasonable care and diligence.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this answering

DEFENDANT i1s informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the Complaint and each cause of

action therein is barred by a statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, for the San Francisco

{01271854.DOC;1} 4 ANHIANTIDIIANN T RVIIIOD SISO| RSO (N SN |£ 0000 € B D070€000(b,| i (i |PSSO 00 6 WG SR | 0 & P00 |30 5 &(S it At W

{01271854.DOC;1} 4 ANHIANTIDIIANN T RVIIIOD SISO| RSO (N SN |£ 0000 € B D070€000(b,| i (i |PSSO 00 6 WG SR | 0 & P00 |30 5 &(S it At W Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance and Civil Code Sections 1941.1, 1942 et seq., personal injury or property damage (C.C.P. §§ 335, 335.1, 337, 338, 339, 339.5, 340, et seq.).

Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance and Civil Code Sections 1941.1, 1942 et seq., personal injury or property damage (C.C.P. §§ 335, 335.1, 337, 338, 339, 339.5, 340, et seq.).

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this answering DEFENDANT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that DEFENDANTS has appropriately, completely and fully performed and discharged any and all obligations and legal duties arising out of or associated with the matters alleged in the Complaint.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

15. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this answering DEFENDANT is informed and believes, and therefore allege, that PLAINTIFFS or others failed to exercise the quality and quantity of care and caution which a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would have exercised for the protection of themselves and their property, and that failure and negligence proximately caused and contributed to the damages, if any, sustained by PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS’ recovery, if any, should therefore be reduced by an amount proportionate to the amount by which the negligence of PLAINTIFES or others contributed to the alleged incident, injury, damage and/or loss.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16. As a further and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, this answering DEFENDANT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that PLAINTIFFS owed DEFENDANT, Nasir Patel, overdue unpaid room rent at the time of the 5/4/11 fire and consequently, DEFENDANT is entitled to a set-off for any overdue rent owed, in an amount to be determined by proof.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17. Prior Release and Settlement Agreements executed by Plaintiffs Veronica Villar, Michael Scalzi and Fe Purganan may bar completely any and all claims for personal injury and property damage (executed by Plaintiffs BEFORE any Complaint was filed on their behalf. Farmers Insurance compensated these three Plaintiffs for any and all claims resulting from the 5/4/2011 fire at

the Park Hotel on Folsom Street in San Francisco.

.|(VT EANOS.AR, B

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18. Prior Releases were signed by some Tenants and Plaintiffs before any Complaint was filed on their behalf Defendants are entitled to a Credit and Set-Off for the value of all personal belongings and personal effects that some Tenants/Plaintiffs retrieved from the Park Hotel in the days, weeks and months after the 5/4/2011 fire at the Park Hotel on Folsom Street in San Francisco, California.

WHEREFORE, DEFENDANT prays as follows:

1. That PLAINTIFFS take nothing by reason of PLAINTIFFS’ Complaint;

2 A credit for any overdue unpaid rent owed by PLAINTIFFS according to proof. 3. For costs of suit incurred herein; 4

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: \ \\P \’é VANDE POEL LE ALLEN & ARY AL LLP

By " ‘

\/ KARA ANN X . Attorney for De cndants NASIR PATEL and NASREENPATEL, individually and as Trustees of the NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST and the

NASIR & NASREEN PATEL FAMILY TRUST

(/A AN ANAT A0 0N 1 1no0n 1 AT LRSS0% 752 M 330l 00 oA et |S, Db 3905, Kol 00,€Fasonse!

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer Kara Ann Smith

Latest cases represented by Lawyer RODZEWICH, EDWARD J

Latest cases represented by Lawyer CHEN, DAVID W