Free Answer to to CounterClaim - District Court of California - California

ase 3:O7—cv-02987-WHA Document 33 Filed 10/O9/2007 Page 1 of 4
1 WADE R. DANN, Esq. (Pro I-lac Vice)
2 BRADLEY G. TAYLOR, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice)
PEEL BRIMLEY, LLP
3 2104 East Madison Street, Suite 100
Seattle, Washington 98122 l
4 Phone: (206) 770-3339
5 Fax: (206) 770-3490
Email: [email protected] i
6 I
DAVID ERICKSEN, Esq. (#153923) l
7 SEVERSON & WERSON
8 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
San Francisco, California 94111
9 Phone: (415) 398-3344 1
Fax: (415) 956-0439 i
Q 10 Aitorneysfor Plaim‘m"Pr·0jcc!
$1* Development Group, Inc. §
O cg, 11
3 i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
E Eg EQ 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I
(/J G ~./
>· tr C" =’ 13 l
E E g- g I4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., CASE NO.: CV 07-02987 WHA l
E g Q $3 15 a Pennsylvania corporation, (
Asa; __ .
EI Ul IL? Q 6 Plaintiff, i
E Ei g l PLA1NTIPP’S ANSWER AND i
$8 ll? I vs. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO "
"‘ ag 7 COUNTERCLAIMS
g SONOMA COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE
9* E8 DISTRICT, ofthe County of Sonoma, State
of California,
19 ,
20 Defendant.
2i COMES NOW plaintiff Project Development Group, Inc. (“PDG”), and answers i
22 defendant Sonoma County Junior College District (the "District") counterclaims as follows:
23 ANSWER
24 1. Answering paragraph 1, PDG admits the allegation.
25 2. Answering paragraph 2, PDG admits it entered into a contract with the District i
26 and alleges that the terms of the written contract are set forth in the agreement. PDG denies the
27 District’s remaining allegations.
28
l
PLAlNTEFF°S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COUNTERCLAIMS — 1 ;
2

ase 3:O7—cv-02987-WHA Document 33 Filed 10/O9/2007 Page 2 of 4 »
`
1 3. Answering paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, PDG alleges that the terms of the written
2 contract are set forth in the agreement and denies the District’s remaining allegations to the
3 extent the allegations differ fiom the written agreement.
4 4. Answering paragraph 6, PDG admits that the last day it performed the original
5 contract work and directed extra and force account work required by the District was on or
6 about January 17, 2007.
7 5. Answering paragraphs 7 and 8, PDG denies the allegations.
8 6. Answering paragraph 9, PDG alleges that the terms of the written contract are
9 set forth in the agreement and denies the District’s remaining allegations to the extent the
' {2 10 allegations differ from the written agreement.
3 Q 11 7. Answering paragraph 10, PDG alleges that it knew that Alten Construction
a ¤~ r
E Ei Q 12 entered into a contract with the District to remodel the Plover Library. PDG further alleges l
E 13 that it has no knowledge of the terms of the contract between the District and Alten |
§ g E [,5 14 Construction and therefore denies the District’s remaining allegations. E
3 eg ii § 15 8. Answering paragraph 11, PDG denies the allegations. l
E EE g 16 9. Answering paragraph 12, PDG admits that it received an Alten Construction
ig 17 claim from the District. PDG denies any remaining allegation by the District.
Pg 18 10. Answering paragraph 13, PDG alleges that the terms of the written contract are
19 set forth in the agreement and that the District is withholding PDG’s contract earnings which is l
20 the subject of PDG complaint in the above-captioned matter. PDG denies the District’s 1
21 remaining allegations.
22 11. Answering paragraph I4, PDG admits that World Enviromnent and Energy, Inc.
23 submitted a stop notice and alleges that the subject of the stop notice has been resolved. l
24 12. Answering paragraph 15, PDG alleges that California Civil Code §3186 speaks
25 for itself and denies the District’s allegations to the extent the allegations differ from the
26 statutory language,
27 l
28 l
PLArNTtFF’s ANSWER AND AFFIruv1A"r1vE DEFENSES TO COUNTERCLAIMS — 2

ase 3:O7—cv-02987-WHA Document 33 Filed 10/O9/2007 Page 3 of 4
l
1 13. Answering paragraph 16, 17 and 18, PDG alleges that the terms of the written
2 contract are set forth in the agreement and denies the District’s remaining allegations to the
3 extent the allegations differ from the written agreement.
4 l4. Answering paragraph 19, PDG admits its claims were submitted to the District
5 on or about February 3, 2007 and that the submittal speaks for itself. PDG denies the District’s
6 remaining allegations.
7 15. Answering paragraph 20, PDG denies the allegations.
8 16. Answering paragraph 2l, PDG admits that it asserts the original contract scope
9 of work was completed on or about November 7, 2006. PDG admits that NorBay Consulting I
Q 10 inspected the Plover Library. PDG admits that it believes a "sl 3 ii 11 existed under the acoustical ceiling texture. PDG admits that several tests were performed to

E ri gr 12 determine whether the substrate material contained asbestos and that reports were generated, {
E § 13 the content of which speak for themselves. PDG denies the District’s all remaining allegations,
E g 3 14 17. Answering paragraph 22, PDG alleges that the District does not set forth an
2 § g g 15 allegation that requires an answer. To the extent an answer is required, PDG denies the l
E E gi 16 allegations.
ig 17 18. Answering paragraph 23, PDG admits it received test reports from the District. 1
ET 18 PDG denies the District’s remaining allegations. W
19 l9. Answering paragraph 24 and 25, PDG admits submitting its written claims for
20 additional compensation to the District on or about February I3, 2007, which speak for l
21 themselves. PDG denies the District’s remaining allegations.
22 20. Answering paragraph 26, PDG denies the District’s allegations. l
23 AFFIRMATIVE DEF EN SES
24 1. The District fails to state a cause of action for which the Court can grant relief
25 2. The District failed to mitigate its damages.
26 3. The District has unclean hands.
27 4. The District’s claims are subject to setoff.
28
PLArNTrFF’S ANSWER AND AFPIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COUNTERCLMMS - 3
I
I

ase 3:O7—cv-02987-WHA Document 33 Filed 10/O9/2007 Page 4 of 4
l
1 5. The District’s own acts and omissions delayed PDG performance under the
2 contract.
3 6. The District’s damages, if any, were directly and proximately caused by the
4 District’s own acts and omissions.
5 7. The District’s breach of contract and contract warranties excuse PDG’s
6 p6I`fO1‘1`I`I£tI`IC€.
7 8. The District waived its affirmative defenses and/or counterclaims.
8 VVHEREFORE, plaintiff Project Development Group, Inc. prays for the following
9 relief:
EQ 10 l. Judgment and award of damages against the District as alleged in PDG’s
3 gi 11 complaint;
E E gg; 12 2. Dismissal of the District’s counterclaims with prejudice and without entry of I
S § 13 judgment based upon the Dist1·ict’s counterclaims; E
E Q; 3 14 3. Award of PDG’s attorney fees and costs incurred; and
E 5 vg g 15 4. Such other and further relief as the court deems just and equitable.
E E g 16 7%
$2 17 DATED this Q2 day of October, 2007.
ig
19 PEEL BRIMLEY LLP I
20
I
2* K Z4//7 1
22 wana R. DA , nso., Pr ac vice
23 BRADLEY G. TAYLOR, Q., Pro Hac Vice
2014 East Madison Street, Suite 100
24 Seattle, Washington QSI22
Phone: (206) 770-3339 Q
25 Attorneys for Plaintiff Project Development
26 Group, Inc.
27
28
PLAINTiFF’ s Answea AND Arriimarive Dersnsss ro Counrtsacmims - 4 r

Case 3:07-cv-02987-WHA

Document 33

Filed 10/09/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 3:07-cv-02987-WHA

Document 33

Filed 10/09/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 3:07-cv-02987-WHA

Document 33

Filed 10/09/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 3:07-cv-02987-WHA

Document 33

Filed 10/09/2007

Page 4 of 4