DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TOPLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

MARIA SOTO

[address]

[tel no.]

[email]

Pro Se

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF TULARE

COMES NOW, Defendants MARIA A. SOTO and DAVID J. WEINBERGER (hereinafter “these answering Defendants”), and answering the Complaint on file herein for and on behalf of itself alone, answers Plaintiffs’ Complaint as follows:

Under and pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure, specifically, Section 431.30 thereof, these answering Defendants generally denies each and every allegation of said Complaint, and the whole thereof, and each and every allegation of each and every cause of action alleged therein, and further expressly deny that as a direct or proximate result of any acts or omissions on the part of these answering Defendants, Plaintiffs herein sustained or suffered injury or damage in the amount alleged in the Complaint, or in any amount at all, or that Plaintiffs have suffered injury or damage for any reason in the sums alleged in the Complaint, or in any other sum or sums, or at all.

1. In response to paragraph 1 of the Complaint, the Defendant admits the allegations contained therein.
2. In response to paragraph 2 of the Complaint, the Defendant admits the allegations contained therein.
3. In response to paragraph 1 of the Complaint, the Defendant denies the allegations contained therein. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs are being economic with facts as DAVID did not initiate or instigate any form of aggression toward AURELIA. Instead, AURELIA assaulted MARIA, who fled into DAVID’s motor vehicle. AURELIA attacked DAVID’s motor vehicle with intention of inflicting harm to MARIA and DAVID as well.
4. By way of further answer, capturing of video footage by DAVID commenced while locked in his own vehicle with MARIA.
5. In response to paragraph 4 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs are being economic with facts as ERNEST arrived at the scene with the intention of supporting ARELIA’s assault on DAVID and MARIA.
6. In response to paragraph 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Complaint, the Defendants admit the allegations contained therein. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs are being economic with facts as the history of proceedings between and against the parties in this suit is incomplete and pending further determination. Equally so, Plaintiffs fail to include a Request for Orders action filed by AURELIA against David (Case No. CVU284852), in which parties mutually agreed to a no-contact order.
7. By way of further answer, Aurelia filed a restraining order against her own husband, while this would probably be stated in error at the defense of Plaintiff’s, but it alludes to the carelessness of misinformation in the Complaint.
8. In response to paragraph 11 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
9. In response to paragraph 12 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
10. In response to paragraph 13 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
11. In response to paragraph 14of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
12. In response to paragraph 15 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
13. In response to paragraph 16 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
14. In response to paragraph 17 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
15. In response to paragraph 18 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
16. In response to paragraph 19 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
17. By way of further answer, DAVID did not initiate or instigate any form of aggression towards AURELIA and ERNERST. AURELIA initiated the aggression by attacking MARIA, and instigated further aggression by recruiting ERNEST to contribute to the aggression.
18. By way of further answer, DAVID was never evicted from the premises as he was not under any tenancy agreement with the owners of the property. DAVID willingly vacated the premises after witnessing numerous ongoing verbal assaults by and between the family.
19. In response to paragraph 20 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
20. In response to paragraph 21 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
21. In response to paragraph 22 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
22. In response to paragraph 23 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
23. In response to paragraph 24 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
24. By way of further answer, DAVID did not initiate or instigate any form of aggression towards AURELIA and ERNERST. AURELIA initiated the aggression by attacking MARIA, and instigated further aggression by recruiting ERNEST to contribute to the aggression.
25. By way of further answer, DAVID only drove to the premises to pick up MARIA for an engagement earlier planned by the two.
26. In response to paragraph 25 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
27. In response to paragraph 26 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
28. In response to paragraph 27 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
29. In response to paragraph 28 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
30. In response to paragraph 29 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
31. In response to paragraph 30 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
32. In response to paragraph 31 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
33. In response to paragraph 32 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
34. In response to paragraph 33 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.
35. In response to paragraph 34 of the Complaint, the Defendants deny all the allegations contained therein.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

• As a first, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, these answering Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s Complaint, in its entirety, nor any purported cause of action set forth therein, allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering Defendants.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

• As a second, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, the cause of action asserted by the Plaintiffs did not accrue within the applicable statute of limitations.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

• As a third, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, the Defendants affirmatively assert that the injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiffs were caused by the sole, concurring, and/or contributory negligence of the Plaintiffs

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

• As a fourth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, the Defendants affirmatively assert that the Plaintiffs assumed the risk of their injuries.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

• As a fifth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, assuming assault or other wrongdoing on the part of this Defendants, which this Defendants expressly deny, it was not the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, but the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries were a result of superseding and/or intervening causes.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

• As a sixth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, these answering Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs’ claim is barred by the doctrines of accord and satisfaction, estoppel, release, and/or res judicata.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

• As a seventh, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, these answering Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s actions constituted a full release by Plaintiff of any and all claims which he may have had against these answering Defendants.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

• As an eighth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, these answering Defendants allege that Plaintiff herein, and each and every cause of action contained in the Complaint, is barred because Plaintiff has engaged in acts and courses of conduct which render him in pari delicto.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

• As a ninth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, these answering Defendants allege that at all times material herein, Plaintiff failed and neglected to mitigate his damages so as to reduce and/or diminish his claim.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

• As a tenth, separate, and affirmative defense to the Complaint on file herein, these answering Defendants deny any and all allegations of assault or other wrongdoing as stated in the Complaint filed herein and will demand strict proof of all allegations in that regard.

WHEREFORE, these answering Defendants prays for judgment as follows:

1. That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of the Complaint herein, and that these answering Defendants be dismissed hence;
2. To the extent to which law, equity, or contract allows, for reasonable fees;
3. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated:  ____________________

Respectfully submitted,

By:__________________________

MARIA A SOTO,

Pro Se

Dated:  ____________________

Respectfully submitted,

By:__________________________

DAVID J. WEINBERGER,

Pro Se

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )