Delmas A. Woods, Esq. SBN 203972
`RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C.
`9891 Irvine Center Dr., Suite 200
`Irvine, CA 92618
`Telephone: 714-709-4400
`Facsimile: 602-456-6256
`Email:
` dwoods@rlattorneys.com
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`03/26/2024
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: MARK UDAN
`Deputy Clerk
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Jon Holloway, Emily Holloway, and Amy Holloway
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`LOUIS MURILLO PAVON, an
`individual,
`
`Case No.: CGC-23-611132
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`DEFENDANTS JON HOLLOWAY, EMILY
`HOLLOWAY AND AMY HOLLOWAY’S
`ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS MURILLO
`PAVON’S COMPLAINT
`
`13
`
`v.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`EMILY HOLLOWAY, an individual;
`JON HOLLOWAY, an individual; AMY
`HOLLOWAY, an individual; and DOES
`1 through 20, inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Complaint Filed: December 18, 2023
`
`COMES NOW, Defendants, Jon Holloway, Emily Holloway, and Amy Holloway (hereinafter
`
`collectively referred to as “Defendants”), and respond to Plaintiff, Louis Murillo Pavon’s (“Plaintiff”)
`
`Complaint on file as follows:
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`Pursuant to the provisions of Section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each, every, and all of the allegations in said Complaint, and
`
`the whole thereof, including each and every purported cause of action contained therein. Defendants
`
`further deny that Plaintiff has or will sustain damages in their amount alleged or in any amount
`
`whatsoever. The answering Defendants deny that Plaintiff has sustained any injuries, damages or losses
`
`because of any act or omission of the answering Defendants. In addition, Defendants the following
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS MURILLO PAVON’S COMPLAINT
`1
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`affirmative defenses:
`
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Comparative Negligence of Plaintiff)
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, at all times and places set forth
`
`6
`
`in the Complaint, Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care on their own behalf, which negligence and
`
`7
`
`carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion, up to and including the whole thereof, of the injuries
`
`8
`
`and damages complained of in this action. Plaintiff’s recovery, therefore, against Defendants should be
`
`9
`
`barred or reduced according to principles of comparative negligence.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
` (Comparative Negligence of Others)
`
`12
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Defendants deny that they were negligent in any fashion with respect to the damages,
`
`13
`
`losses, injuries, and debts claimed by the Plaintiff. However, if Defendants are found to have been
`
`14
`
`negligent (which supposition is denied and merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative defense),
`
`15
`
`then Defendants provisionally allege that their negligence is not the sole and proximate cause of the
`
`16
`
`resultant damages, losses and injuries alleged by Plaintiff and that the damages awarded to Plaintiff, if
`
`17
`
`any, are to be apportioned according to the respective fault of the parties, persons, and entities, or their
`
`18
`
`agents, servants, and employees who contributed to and/or caused said resultant damages as alleged,
`
`19
`
`according to proof presented at the time of trial. To assess any greater percentage of fault and damages
`
`20
`
`against Defendants in excess of their percentage of fault would be a denial of equal protection and due
`
`21
`
`process which are guaranteed by the constitutions of the State of California and the United States,
`
`22
`
`respectively.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Comparison of Fault)
`
`25
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Defendants deny that they were negligent in any fashion with respect to the damages,
`
`26
`
`losses, injuries, and debts claimed by the Plaintiff on file herein. However, if Defendants are found to
`
`27
`
`have been negligent (which supposition is denied and merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative
`
`28
`
`defense), then Defendants provisionally allege that their negligence is not the sole and proximate cause of
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS MURILLO PAVON’S COMPLAINT
`2
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`the resultant damages, losses and injuries alleged by Plaintiff and that the damages awarded to Plaintiff,
`
`2
`
`if any, are to be apportioned according to the respective fault of the parties, persons, and entities, or their
`
`3
`
`agents, servants, and employees who contributed to and/or caused said resultant damages as alleged,
`
`4
`
`according to proof presented at the time of trial. To assess any greater percentage of fault and damages
`
`5
`
`against Defendants in excess of their percentage of fault would be a denial of equal protection and due
`
`6
`
`process which are guaranteed by the constitutions of the State of California and the United States,
`
`7
`
`respectively.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
` (Comparative Fault of Others)
`
`10
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege, at all times and places set forth
`
`11
`
`in the Complaint, other persons, other than Defendants, failed to exercise ordinary care on their own
`
`12
`
`behalf, which negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion, up to and including
`
`13
`
`the whole thereof, of the injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiff in this action. The fault, if any,
`
`14
`
`of Defendants should be compared with the fault of those other individuals, and damages, if any, should
`
`15
`
`be apportioned among the others in direct relation to each person’s comparative fault, such that
`
`16
`
`Defendants should be obliged to pay only such damages, if any, which are directly attributable to their
`
`17
`
`percentage of comparative fault. To require Defendants to pay any more than their percentage of
`
`18
`
`comparative fault violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution of the United
`
`19
`
`States and the California State Constitution.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
`
`22
`
`
`
`5.
`
`The Complaint and every purported cause of action therein fail to set forth facts
`
`23
`
`sufficient to state a cause of action.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
` (Offset)
`
`26
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Defendants allege that the claims, and each of them, are barred by offset.
`
`27
`
`///
`
`28
`
`///
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS MURILLO PAVON’S COMPLAINT
`3
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
` (Statute of Limitation - General)
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff’s actions are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Statutes of Limitation - Negligence)
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff’s actions are barred by the provisions of Section 335.1 of the California Code
`
`7
`
`of Civil Procedures.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Assumption of Risk)
`
`10
`
`
`
`9.
`
`The perils or dangers, if any, existing at the time of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, if any,
`
`11
`
`were open and obvious and known to Plaintiff, and each of them, who nevertheless conducted themselves
`
`12
`
`in such a manner so as to expose themselves to said perils and dangers, if any, and by so doing, assumed
`
`13
`
`all of the risk attendant thereto.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Failure to Mitigate)
`
`16
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to avoid loss and to minimize
`
`17
`
`damages and, therefore, Plaintiff may not recover for losses which could have been prevented by
`
`18
`
`reasonable efforts on their own part, or by expenditures that might reasonably have been made.
`
`19
`
`Therefore, Plaintiff’s recovery, if any, should be reduced by the failure of Plaintiff to mitigate their
`
`20
`
`damages.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Superseding Negligence)
`
`23
`
`
`
`11.
`
`The injuries and damages of which Plaintiff complains were proximately caused or
`
`24
`
`contributed to by the acts of other persons and/or entities. Said acts were an intervening, supervening and
`
`25
`
`superseding cause of the injuries and damages, if any, of which the Plaintiff complains, thus barring
`
`26
`
`Plaintiff from any recovery against Defendant.
`
`27
`
`///
`
`28
`
`///
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS MURILLO PAVON’S COMPLAINT
`4
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Estoppel)
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff engaged in conduct with respect to the activities and/or property which are the
`
`4
`
`subject of the Complaint, and by reason of said activities and conduct, are estopped from asserting any
`
`5
`
`claim for damages or seeking any other relief against Defendant.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Waiver)
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff engaged in conduct and activities sufficient to constitute a waiver of any
`
`9
`
`alleged negligence or any other conduct, if any, as set forth in the cross-complaint.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Laches)
`
`14.
`
`Due to their tardiness in asserting their purported right to recover, Plaintiff’s claims
`
`13
`
`should be barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Civil Code Section 1431.2)
`
`15.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff is able to prove any liability against Defendant, all or a portion of
`
`17
`
`Plaintiff’s damages are barred pursuant to Civil Code Section 1431.2.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
` (Unclean Hands)
`
`16.
`
`By virtue of Plaintiff’s unlawful, immoral, careless, negligent, and other wrongful
`
`21
`
`conduct, Plaintiff should be barred from recovering against Defendants by the equitable doctrine of
`
`22
`
`unclean hands.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Costs)
`
`17.
`
`Defendants are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times mentioned
`
`26
`
`herein, the Complaint was brought without reasonable cause and without a good faith belief that there
`
`27
`
`was a justifiable controversy under the facts or the laws which warranted the filing of this Complaint
`
`28
`
`against Defendants. Plaintiff should therefore be responsible for all of Defendants’ necessary and
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS MURILLO PAVON’S COMPLAINT
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`reasonable defense costs, as more particularly set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure, Section
`
`2
`
`1038.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Contribution)
`
`
`
`18.
`
`Defendants are informed and believe, and thereon allege that damages suffered by
`
`6
`
`Plaintiff, if any, were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of parties, persons, corporations
`
`7
`
`and/or entities other than Defendants, and that the liability of Defendants, if any, is limited in direct
`
`8
`
`proportion to the percentage of fault actually attributable to Defendants.
`
`9
`
`10
`
`NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Conduct was Justified)
`
`11
`
`
`
`19.
`
`The conduct of Defendants in regard to the matters alleged in the Complaint was
`
`12
`
`justified, and by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff is barred from any recovery against Defendants herein.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Lack of Equity)
`
`15
`
`
`
`20.
`
`As between Plaintiff and Defendants, the equities do not preponderate in favor of
`
`16
`
`Plaintiff so as to allow for equitable recovery.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Several Liability)
`
`19
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Defendants are informed and believe, and thereon allege that other Defendants and
`
`20
`
`Plaintiff are responsible for Plaintiff’s economic and non-economic damages, if any, pursuant to the
`
`21
`
`California Civil Code, Sections 1431, 1431.2, 1431.3, 1431.4, and 1431.5, and that Plaintiff’s recovery
`
`22
`
`against Defendants for any non-economic damages are barred except as to those non-economic damages
`
`23
`
`specifically apportioned to Defendants.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(No Causation)
`
`26
`
`
`
`22.
`
`Defendants are informed and believe, and thereon allege that to the extent Plaintiff
`
`27
`
`suffered injury or damage, if any, such injury or damage was not proximately caused by any conduct or
`
`28
`
`inaction of this responding Defendant, or was not foreseeable, or both.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS MURILLO PAVON’S COMPLAINT
`6
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Existing Prior Injury)
`
`23.
`
`Defendants are informed and believe, and thereon allege that to the extent Plaintiff
`
`4
`
`suffered injury or damage, if any, such injury or damage was sustained prior to the incident alleged by
`
`5
`
`Plaintiff in the Complaint on file herein.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Uncertainty)
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Defendants are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Plaintiff’s Complaint and
`
`9
`
`the allegations therein are uncertain, vague, and ambiguous.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Limitation on Damages)
`
`12
`
`
`
`25.
`
`Defendants are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks
`
`13
`
`an award of improper damages, including but not limited to, medical damages beyond those permitted by
`
`14
`
`law.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Howell v. Hamilton Meats)
`
`17
`
`
`
`26.
`
`Defendants are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Plaintiff’s recovery for past
`
`18
`
`medical expenses or other economic loss or benefit, if any, is limited to the lesser of the amount paid or
`
`19
`
`the reasonable value of those services or benefits rendered.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Consent)
`
`22
`
`
`
`27.
`
`Defendants are informed and believe, and thereon allege that each and every cause of
`
`23
`
`action or purported cause of action contained in the Complaint is barred due to the consent by Plaintiff to
`
`24
`
`all actions alleged therein.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Damages Uncertain)
`
`27
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Defendants are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Plaintiff’s damages, if any,
`
`28
`
`are speculative, uncertain, and not capable of being determined by a trier of fact.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS MURILLO PAVON’S COMPLAINT
`7
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`TWENTY-NINETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Reservation)
`
`29.
`
`Defendants presently have insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a
`
`4
`
`belief as to whether or not he may have additional, as yet unstated affirmative defenses available.
`
`5
`
`Defendants reserves their right to assert additional defenses in the event that discovery indicates
`
`6
`
`additional defenses would be appropriate.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`THEREFORE, the answering Defendants pray that Plaintiff takes nothing by way of their
`
`PRAYER
`
`9
`
`Complaint on file herein, that judgment be entered in the within action in favor of the answering
`
`10
`
`Defendants and against the Plaintiff upon the issues of the Complaint, together with an award to the
`
`11
`
`answering Defendants of attorneys’ fees and costs of suit herein incurred, and such other and further
`
`12
`
`relief as the court deems just.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE by Defendants for trial by jury in the above-entitled action.
`
`DATED: March 26, 2024
`
`RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C.
`
`Delmas A. Woods, Esq.
`Attorneys for Defendants Jon Holloway, Emily Holloway, and Amy Holloway
`
`By:
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS MURILLO PAVON’S COMPLAINT
`8
`
`

`

`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`I am employed in the County of Maricopa, State of Arizona. I am over the age of 18 and not a
`party to the within action. My business address is 8111 E. Indian Bend Road, Scottsdale, Arizona 85250.
`
`On March 26, 2024, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: DEFENDANTS JON
`HOLLOWAY, EMILY HOLLOWAY AND AMY HOLLOWAY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF
`LOUIS MURILLO PAVON’S COMPLAINT, on interested parties in this action by sending a true
`copy of the document to the following parties as follows:
`
` XX
`
`(ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Only by e-mailing the document(s) to
`the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed based on notice, that during the Coronavirus
`(Covid-19) pandemic, this office will be working remotely, not readily able to send
`physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail.
`
`Robert Marc Hindin, Esq.
`Snow Vuong, Esq.
`Kyle Jordan Hindin, Esq.
`Robert Hindin & Associates, APLC
`11400 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90064
`Robert@Roberthindinlaw.com
`snow@roberthindinlaw.com
`Kyle@Roberthindinlaw.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Luis Murillo
`Pavon
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
`true and correct.
`
`Executed this 26th day of March 2024, at Scottsdale, Arizona.
`
`By:
`
`Keile Jacquay
`Employee of Resnick & Louis, P.C.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS MURILLO PAVON’S COMPLAINT
`9
`
`