`
`Law Offices of Catherine A. Walsh
`BY: Francisco Chiquillo-- BAR NO 349010
`Attorneys At Law
`1800 Sutter Street, Suite 305
`Concord, California 94520
`
`Attorneys and; Support Staff are Employees of
`GEICO Staff Counsel Department
`
`Telephone:
`Service Emails:
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`EDUARDO I. SOLAECHEGOMEZ
`
`916-465-9965
`Franciscochiquillo@geico.com
`Egarnica@geico.com
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`08/21/2024
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: SHENEQUA GLADNEY
`Deputy Clerk
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
`
`
`
`CASE NO. CGC-24-615183
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`KHALID MOUNZIH,
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS,
`
`VS.
`
`
`
`
`EDUARDO I. SOLAECHEGOMEZ AND
`DOES 1-50,
`
`
`DEFENDANTS.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMES NOW defendant(s), Eduardo I. Solaechegomez, and answers the complaint of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`Khalid Mounzih, as follows:
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`2 6
`
`2 7
`
`2 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 431.30, this answering
`
`defendant(s) denies both generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained in
`
`each and every paragraph of said complaint; defendant(s) further denies that plaintiff has been
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`damaged in any sum or sums whatsoever, or at all, whether it is alleged in plaintiff’s
`
`complaint or otherwise.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`
`
`At the time and place of the accident referred to and alleged in plaintiff's Complaint,
`
`the plaintiff, Khalid Mounzih, did so negligently and carelessly entrust, manage, operate,
`
`control and drive said motor vehicle so as to proximately cause and contribute to the accident
`
`and resulting injuries and damages, if any.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`
`
`This answering defendant(s) alleges that the accident, and any or all injuries and/or
`
`damages caused therefrom, were due to the negligence of plaintiff and persons other than this
`
`1 3
`
`answering defendant(s).
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiff's complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state sufficient facts to
`
`constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant(s).
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`
`
`Plaintiff's complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by the Statute of
`
`Limitations since the events alleged causing personal injuries to the plaintiff, occurred more
`
`than two (2) year prior to the filing of said complaint, and said complaint was not filed within
`
`2 2
`
`two (2) year of the occurrence of said event as is required by Statute.
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`2 6
`
`2 7
`
`2 8
`
`
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`
`
`This answering defendant(s) alleges that if plaintiff was injured and/or damaged, as set
`
`forth in plaintiff's complaint, or in any other way, sum or manner, or at all, then said injuries
`
`and/or damages, and the whole thereof, proximately and concurrently resulted from and were
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`caused, in whole or in part, by plaintiff's failure to exercise ordinary care for the protection of
`
`his person and/or property at the time and place mentioned in plaintiff's complaint.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`
`
`The injuries alleged by plaintiff, if any, were proximately caused by the negligence
`
`and liability of other persons or entities, and this answering defendant(s) requests that an
`
`allocation of such negligence and liability be made among such other persons or entities, and
`
`that, if any liability is found on the part of this defendant(s), judgment against said
`
`defendant(s) be only in the amount which is proportionate to the extent and percentage by
`
`which this answering defendant's acts or omissions contributed to plaintiff's injuries or
`
`damages.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole, or in part, by the doctrine of Accord and
`
`1 5
`
`Satisfaction.
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`2 6
`
`2 7
`
`2 8
`
`
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole, or in part, because this answering party is
`
`entitled to an offset paid to, or for the benefit of plaintiffs for damages allegedly suffered as a
`
`result of the incident complained of herein.
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`This answering defendant(s) alleges that plaintiff was capable of and failed to mitigate
`
`damages. Therefore, any amount awarded to plaintiff for damages suffered should be reduced
`
`by that amount which plaintiff would have avoided by taking reasonable steps to do so.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for general damages are barred on the grounds that they, and each of
`
`them, failed to comply with the requirements of the state’s financial responsibility laws, as
`
`required in Civil Code §3333.4.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, this answering defendant(s) prays that plaintiff take nothing by way of
`
`their Complaint, judgment for costs of suit incurred herein and for such other and further
`
`relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`1 0
`
`Dated: August 21, 2024
`
`LAW OFFICES OF CATHERINE A. WALSH
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`2 6
`
`2 7
`
`2 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Francisco Chiquillo
`
`
`By:
`
`
`Francisco Chiquillo, Esq.
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`EDUARDO I. SOLAECHEGOMEZ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`KHALID MOUNZIH v. EDUARDO I. SOLAECHEGOMEZ
`CASE NO.: CGC-24-615183
`
`
`
`The undersigned declares:
`
`
`
`I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County of Kern, State of
`
`California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. I am employed
`
`by Law Offices of Catherine Walsh, and my business address is 1800 SUTTER ST, STE 260,
`
`CONCORD, California 94520-2560.
`
`
`
`On August 21, 2024, I served the attached ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the
`
`parties to said action to the addressed as follows:
`
`
`For Plaintiff
`Erik E. Child, Esq.
`Child & Jackson, APLC
`101 Parkshore Drive, #205
`Folsom, CA 95630
`echild@childjackson.com
`
`
`
`___X_____BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: E-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail
`address(es) listed based on notice previously provided that, during the Coronavirus (Covid-19)
`pandemic, this office will be primarily working remotely, unable to send physical mail as usual, and is
`therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission
`was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission.
`
`
`
`
`
`Executed on August 21, 2024. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
`
`the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Erika Garnica
`_______________________________
`Erika Garnica
`
`1
`
`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
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
