throbber
Richard L. Daniels (SBN 144042)
`rich@tenantlawgroupsf.com
`Ryan M. Herrera, Esq. (SNB 320865)
`ryan@tenantlawgroupsf.com
`TENANT LAW GROUP, PC
`100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
`San Francisco, CA 94111-5235
`Tel: (888) 510-7511
`Fax: (888) 376-1662
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendant
`KARINE BAHET and LUNA LA MANTIA
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`03/04/2025
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: SAHAR ENAYATI
`Deputy Clerk
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
`
`
`KARINE BAHET, an Individual; and LUNA LA
`MANTIA, an Individual;
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`DAVID PELLA, an Individual and as Successor
`Trustee of the Liana G. Pella Trust; VIVIAN
`PELLA SOUTHARD, an Individual and as
`Successor Trustee of the Liana G. Pella Trust; and
`DOES 1 through 25, inclusive;
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`DAVID PELLA, an Individual;
`
`
`Cross-Complainant,
`
`v.
`
`
`KARINE BAHET, an Individual; and ROES 1
`through 10;
`
`
`Cross-Defendants.
`
`Case No. CGC-24-616694
`
`PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-
`DEFENDANT KARINE BAHET’S
`ANSWER TO DEFENDANT AND
`CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S CROSS-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Karine Bahet (“PLAINTIFF”) answers the Cross-Complaint of
`
`Defendant David Pella (“DEFENDANT”) as follows:
`
`-1-
`PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT KARINE BAHET’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT AND CROSS-
`COMPLAINANT’S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), PLAINTIFF denies each and
`
`every allegation of DEFENDANT’s unverified Cross-Complaint.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`The Cross-Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to
`
`1.
`
`constitute a cause of action.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`The damages alleged in the Cross-Complaint, if any, were caused in whole or in part by the
`
`2.
`
`negligence, recklessness, or legal fault of persons or entities other than PLAINTIFF.
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`DEFENDANT’s claims are barred due to DEFENDANT’s own breach of contract.
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`DEFENDANT’s conduct bars or proportionately reduces any recovery by DEFENDANT
`
`against PLAINTIFF.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`5.
`
`DEFENDANT was negligent, reckless, and otherwise at fault regarding the matters
`
`referred to in the Cross-Complaint, and such conduct caused the damages complained of, if any.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`6.
`
`DEFENDANT acted unreasonably, in bad faith, and with unclean hands, and is therefore
`
`estopped from recovering any damages.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`DEFENDANT has expressly and impliedly released, discharged, and forever waived all
`
`7.
`
`the claims asserted in the Cross-Complaint.
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`8.
`
`By the exercise of reasonable effort, care, and diligence, DEFENDANT could have
`
`mitigated the amount of damages allegedly suffered. DEFENDANT is thus barred from recovery against
`
`PLAINTIFF, or such recovery is reduced, due to failure and refusal to reasonably mitigate the amount of
`
`damages claimed, if any exist.
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT KARINE BAHET’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT AND CROSS-
`COMPLAINANT’S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`DEFENDANT’s claims are barred or limited by California Civil Code section 1565 et seq.
`
`9.
`
`due to duress, fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, and/or mistake.
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`10.
`
`DEFENDANT’s claims are barred because DEFENDANT failed to give PLAINTIFF
`
`proper notice, in a timely and reasonable manner, of any such alleged breach, and PLAINTIFF was not
`
`afforded an opportunity to fulfill obligations in each instance.
`
`ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`DEFENDANT’s claims are barred or limited by California Civil Code sections 1698(b) et
`
`11.
`
`seq. due to a modification of the written contract by executed oral agreement.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT has failed to set out his claims with sufficient particularity to permit PLAINTIFF to
`
`raise all appropriate defenses, and therefore, PLAINTIFF reserves the right to add additional defenses as
`
`the factual bases therefor become known.
`
`WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays that DEFENDANT take nothing by his Cross-Complaint, for
`
`judgment in PLAINTIFF’s favor, for all relief sought in PLAINTIFF’s Complaint, and for such other relief
`
`as may be just and proper.
`
`
`
`DATED: March 3, 2025
`
`TENANT LAW GROUP, PC
`
`By________________________________________
`Ryan M. Herrera, Esq.
`Attorney for Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendant KARINE
`BAHET and LUNA LA MANTIA
`
`-3-
`PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT KARINE BAHET’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT AND CROSS-
`COMPLAINANT’S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket