If this form is used to answer a cross-complaint, plaintiff means cross-complainant and defendant means cross-defendant. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. 4 Telephone: 213.620.1780 endstream endobj 22 0 obj <> endobj xref 5 515.) Tj 36 0 TD 0.0129 Tc 0.0471 Tw (Stating Your Defenses) Tj ET 108 653.04 180.48 0.96 re f BT 72 636.72 TD /F1 16.08 Tf -0.0518 Tc 0.1118 Tw (If you have defenses to the complaint, you ) Tj 276 0 TD -0.0189 Tc 0 Tw (must) Tj 31.2 0 TD -0.076 Tc 0.136 Tw ( state them in your) Tj ET 348 634.32 30.96 0.72 re f BT 72 618.24 TD -0.0698 Tc 0.1298 Tw (answer ) Tj 49.2 0 TD 0.0076 Tc 0 Tw (if) Tj 9.84 0 TD -0.0421 Tc 0.0754 Tw ( you want the court to consider them at trial.) endstream endobj being entered in the minutes of the court), to the keeping of the action or proceeding in the court or court location SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0000019033 00000 n When the complaint is verified, the answer shall be verified. They are currently arriving within 30 minutes of purchase. FindLaw Codes may not reflect the most recent version of the law in your jurisdiction. 3 Diego E. Garcia, SBN 333411 (See Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761; Green v. Rancho Santa Margarita Mortgage Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 686, 692-693; Rodriguez v. Cho (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 742, 751 (merely attaching a proposed answer reciting a kitchen sink full of affirmative defenses is not sufficient). Tj 36 0 TD -0.0402 Tc -0.0307 Tw (In the next box down, put the name and address of ) Tj 306.72 0 TD -0.056 Tc 0.036 Tw (the court. (State Farm Mut. You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. The sample answer on which this preview is based has been revised and updated in May 2018, is 16 . (SBN 187152) BT 72 74.64 TD 0 0 0 rg /F1 10.08 Tf -0.0013 Tc 0 Tw (SC__3/00) Tj ET q 303.6 72 5.04 11.52 re W n BT 303.6 74.64 TD 0 Tc (3) Tj ET Q BT 36 706.56 TD /F1 15.12 Tf 0.0334 Tc (a.) In the case of FPI Development, Inc vs. A1 Nakashima, (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384, a California Court of Appeal held that the affirmative defenses pled in an answer to a complaint must be pled in the same fashion, and with the same specificity, as a cause of action in a complaint. Tj 0 -45.12 TD /F1 19.92 Tf 0.09 Tc 0 Tw (7.) trailer (e) If the defendant has no information or belief upon the subject sufficient to enable
The Drawing Room Bramhall Menu, Articles V