Page 1
AA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jan-10-2014 10:15 am
Case Number: CGC-13-533103 Filing Date: Jan-10-2014 10:14 am Filed by: WESLEY G. RAMIREZ Juke Box: 001 Image: 04336937
ANSWER
CLAIRE FAHRBACH VS. DJAMOL GAFUROV et al
001004336937
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
Page 2
TO tig SFBPY L&D.
TATE BAR No. at ae Francisco County Superior Cou 2/ CARBONE, SMOKE, SMITH, San BENT & LEONARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW 505 14TH STREET, SUITE 600 OAKLAND, CA 94612 ; (510) 267-7273 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ZIAD SLEIMAN SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION Claire Fahrbach, Case No. CGC 13533103 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT V.
Djamol Gafurov, Ziad Sleiman, SF Limo 14]| Car Service Corporation, Uber Technologies Inc., and Does 1-25, inclusive, Defendants.
COMES NOW defendant Ziad Sleiman and answers the complaint on file herein as 18] follows:
1. Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State 20] of California, this answering defendant generally denies each and every allegation of the 21] complaint, and the whole thereof, and further denies that plaintiff has been or is now or will be damaged to the extent alleged or to any other extent.
AS AND FOR FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE 24|| DEFENSES, ANSWERING DEFENDANT AVERS:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2. The incident or incidents complained of by plaintiff herein were caused, in whole 27] or in part, by the negligence of the plaintiff. Any recovery by plaintiff in this case must be 28] reduced by that percentage of the plaintiff's negligence which contributed to the incident or ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1253132.d
Page 3
1263132.d
Oo © SD HD A FP DH NO FY
Oo MO NO DN HO NY KN DD RO Rm Oe me eee ee ee hee OB eee Oo nN DN A FP WD NY §&§ DGD OO CF I DB HN BP WW PO & CO
incidents.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. Plaintiff failed to use reasonable care to mitigate, in whole or in part, the damages alleged in the complaint.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4, Damages complained of by plaintiff herein were caused, in whole or in part, by acts and omissions of persons other than this answering defendant, which other persons may or may not be named as defendants in this action. This answering defendant should only be required to pay that portion of the plaintiff's damages attributable to this answering defendant pursuant to Civil Code sections 1431.2 and/or 1432.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5. The complaint and/or causes of action therein are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, specifically including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1; 337; 338(a),(b),(c),(d) and (j); and 339.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at the time of the incident which is the subject of this action plaintiff was not insured as required by the state's financial responsibility laws, and/or that plaintiff was driving in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152 and/or 23153 for which violation(s) plaintiff was convicted. Therefore, plaintiff's recovery, if any, must be limited to economic damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3333.4.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7. The complaint and/or causes of action therein fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant.
WHEREFORE, defendant prays:
1. That plaintiff takes nothing;
2. For costs of suit herein; and
3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. -2-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Page 4
—
DATED: January 10, 2014 CARBONE, SMOKE, SMITH, BENT & LEONARD
TMs J. Feeney y
Attorneys for Defendant Ziad Sleiman
oC ee SND AD Fe WY NY
No NN NY YY NY NY PY DO me me ey ee ee Be ae a So AN HKNHn nN FF WD NY SF DBD COC Oe I DWH BR WH BB & OS
-3- ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1253132.d
Page 5
1253132.d So Oo SN HK WwW FP WY YO = NY NY NY NY NY NY VY NY we ey me em ee se De ee ee Ue eo ND MW FP YW NY KY§ DG OO I DWH KR WwW BH HY SS Fahrbach v. Gafurov San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC13533103 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I, Jeannie Scannell-Fraser, am employed by the office of Carbone, Smoke, Smith, Bent & Leonard in Alameda County at 505 14th Street, Suite 600, Oakland, CA 94612- 1911. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to this action. I am readily familiar with my employer's business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day it is placed for collection in the ordinary course of business. I served the accompanying ANSWER TO COMPLAINT by placing the document(s) for collection and mailing on the date below, following ordinary business practices at the above business address of my employer, in a sealed envelope or envelopes, with postage fully paid, and addressed to:
Brian R. McClellan, Esq. K. Douglas Atkinson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN MCCLELLAN ATKINSON & ASSOCIATES 505 14th Street, Suite 1210 710 Central Avenue Oakland, CA 94612 San Francisco, CA 94117 John C. Fish, Jr. Sara P. Peters, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY &
650 California Street, 20th Flr. SCHOENBERGER San Francisco, CA 94108 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 6 Dated: January 10, 2014 :
Jeannie Scannell-Fraser -4-
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Back to 
