o

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - WESTERN DIVISION 9 RIVERSIDE BRANCH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Cros s-Complainants 21 v. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, a California non-profit religious corporation; and ROES 1 through 50, inclusive, Cro s s-de f endant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, a California Non-Profit Religious Corporation; and NEW HOPE FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER, a California Non Profit Religious Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. KENNETH M. PETERS, JR.; ALAN R SPITALNICK; etc.; et al. Defendants. KENNETH M. PETERS, JR; and ALAN R. SPITALNICK, ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT CASE NO. RIC 482762 Assigned for All Purposes To: Honorable Edward Webster Department 05 Complaint Filed: October 11, 2007 Michael J. Collins, Bar No. 65506 Julian B. Bellenghi, Bar No 129942 COLLINS & BELLENGHI, LLP 1201 Dove Street, Suite 570 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 851-9311 Facsimile: (949) 851-9333

F D LE P
DEG-^2007

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-defendant, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, a California Non-Profit Religious Corporation; and plaintiff, NEW HOPE FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER, a California Non-Profit Religious Corporation

ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

c
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 Cross-defendant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, a California non profit religious corporation [SCDC], answering for itself, and for no other cross-defendant, responds as follows to the verified first amended cross-complaint [cross-complaint] of KENNETH M. PETERS, JR. [PETERS] and ALAN SPITALNICK [SPITALNICK]. 1. 2. SCDC admits the allegations in 1 1 of the cross-complaint. In response to 1 2 of the cross complaint, SCDC admits that

PETERS and SPITALNICK are individuals residing in the County of Riverside, California. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each

and every remaining allegation in 1 2. 3. In response to 1 3 of the cross-complaint, SCDC denies,

generally and specifically that it is indebted to cross-complainants. SCDC admits the remaining allegations in % 3. 4. 5. SCDC admits the allegations in % 4 of the cross-complaint. SCDC is without sufficient information to form a belief as

to the veracity of the allegations in % 5 of the cross-complaint and based thereon, denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation in f 5. 6. SCDC is without sufficient information to form a belief as

to the veracity of the allegations in f 6 of the cross-complaint and based thereon, denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation in % 6. 7. 8. 9. SCDC admits the allegations in f 7 of the cross-complaint. SCDC admits the allegations in 1 8 of the cross-complaint. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in % 9 of the cross-complaint. 10. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every 2 ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

c
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 allegation in < 10 of the cross-complaint. f 11. 12.

3

SCDC admits the allegations in ^ 10 of the cross - complaint. | SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in ^ 12 of the cross-complaint. [ 13. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in % 13 of the cross-complaint. 14. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in ^ 14 of the cross-complaint. 15. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in f 15 of the cross-complaint. 16. SCDC incorporates by reference its responses to *h*h 1

through 15 of the cross-complaint as though fully set forth herein. 17. In response to % 17 of the cross-complaint, SCDC denies,

generally and specifically that cross-complainants are the duly elected and acting board of directors of NEW HOPE and that it has made false and misleading representations and claims. the remaining allegations in % 17. 18. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, the final sentence SCDC SCDC admits

of 1 18 of the cross-complaint, because it is unintelligible. 1 admits the remaining allegations in ^ 18. 19.

SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in f 19 of the cross-complaint. 20. SCDC incorporates by reference its responses to %% 1

through 15 of the cross-complaint as though fully set forth herein. 21. In response to 1 21, SCDC admits that NEW HOPE has been

record title holder of the Property in fee simple, since November 4, 1997 by virtue of a grant deed recorded that date as Instrument # 402488 of the Official Records of Riverside County. 3 SCDC denies,

ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

C
1 21. 22.

3

generally and specifically, each and every remaining allegation in

In response to K 22 of the cross-complaint, SCDC denies,

generally and specifically, that cross-complaints have any lawful claim to title to the Property. SCDC denies, generally and

specifically, each and every remaining allegation in 1 22. 23. In response to H 23 of the cross-complaint, SCDC lacks

sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to claims asserted by unnamed cross-defendants, and based thereon, denies, generally and specifically, said allegation. SCDC denies, generally and

specifically, each and every remaining allegation in K 23. 24. In response to K 24 of the cross-complaint, SCDC admits SDCD denies, generally

that cross-complainants seek a determination.

and specifically, each and every remaining allegation in H 24. 25. SCDC incorporates by reference its responses to \% 1

through 15 of the cross-complaint as though fully set forth herein. 26. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in % 26 of the cross-complaint. 27. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in % 27 of the cross-complaint. 28 SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in K 28 of the cross-complaint. 29. SCDC incorporates by reference its responses to UH 1

through 15 of the cross-complaint as though fully set forth herein 30. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in % 30 of the cross-complaint. 31. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in % 31 of the cross-complaint. 4 ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

3
32. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation in ^ 32 of the cross-complaint. 33. SCDC incorporates by reference its responses to tl i

through 15 of the cross-complaint as though fully set forth herein. 34. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in % 34 of the cross-complaint. 35. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in % 35 of the cross-complaint. 36. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in f 36 of the cross-complaint. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 37. The cross-complaint and each if its purported causes of

action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or to state a claim upon which relief of any kind can be granted against SCDC. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 38. The cross-complaint, and the whole thereof, is barred by

the doctrine of unclean hands. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 39. The cross-complaint, and the whole thereof, is barred by

the doctrine of laches. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 40. The cross-complaint, and the whole thereof, is barred by

the doctrine of waiver. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 41. The cross-complaint, and the whole thereof, is barred by

the doctrine of estoppel.
///

ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

O
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 49. 48. 47. 46. 45. 44. 43. 42. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The cross-complaint and each and every claim alleged

therein are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The cross-complaint, and the whole thereof, is barred by

the ecclesiastical doctrine. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Cross-complainants are not the real parties in

interest, and otherwise have no standing to assert those claims alleged in the cross-complaint. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Those persons who have brought and/or pursued

the cross-complaint have no authority to act on behalf of NEW HOPE FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The cross-complaint and each of its purported causes of

action fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to the damages alleged. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Cross-complainants have suffered no legally cognizable

damages as a result of the matters alleged in the cross-complaint. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any acts or omissions by SCDC were not the proximate

cause of any injuries suffered by the cross-complainants. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Cross-complainants' conduct concerning the matters alleged

in the cross-complaint constitutes carelessness, negligence, misconduct, and/or bad faith, or cross-complainants were otherwise at 6 ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

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

fault, and the resulting injuries, if any, sustained by crosscomplainants were proximately caused and contributed to, in whole or in part, by the conduct of cross-complainants and cross-complainants' recovery, if any, should thereby be reduced in proportion to their fault. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 50. Cross-complainants failed to mitigate their damages and

failed to exercise due diligence in an effort to mitigate their damages. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 51. None of the causes of action alleged in the cross-complaint

entitle cross-complainants to an award of attorney's fees. WHEREFORE SCDC prays: 1. That cross-complainants take nothing and judgment be entered in SCDC s favor; 2. 3. 4. For costs of suit herein; For its attorneys' fees; and For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: December 19 2007

& BE

MICHAEL J. COLLINS, ESQ. JULIAN B. BELLENGHI, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross-defendants SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD; and Plaintiff NEW HOPE FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER

ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

DEM8

-« ™ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ - ~ ~ - —
FAX N0

- 1 9A9 252 8435
U40

12/17/2087

09:31

9498519333

COLLINS BELLENGHI

°

P.

VERIFICATION 3TATE OF GAUFORHIA, COUHTY OF R i v e r s i d e . I have wad the foreflolns ftftawar t o y ^ f i - a d F i r s t ftmenflflti r , r n a i W B W a - P f t _ andknowftscontante, O C H E C K APPLICABLE PARAGRAPHS O lam a party to this action. The matters stated in the foreaomg document are true of my own kwwledQe except t* to thosa matters which are dated on Information and belief, and aa to those matters ibaftave thorn to be twa, L S t am S a n Officer CC1 a partner _ of Sr^tJ»Pffl CflUfornU M D « aHS^te We a ^ l S i a wf a S e ^ V r * a f f a l verification far and otitotahaif, and l make tda varifcatten tor thai reason. C3 I am informed and believe and on that Qfound atege that the mat»er» stated in theforegoingdocument are true, • T r » m a t t t r o atated in the f w e g o ^ swed on information and belief, and as to those matter* t believe them to be true. I. M, J I am one o( the attorney*tor. „ r, . • • ,———.»—•— ——-•——- — - «—• •—• -•>••-» «»• • - - ^ • * _ —a party to thia action. Such party la abaentfromthe county of aforeeatd where such attorney* have their office*, and \ wte this verification for and on behalf of that party fbf that reason, 1 am informed and beltave and on that around allege that tho <****•* stated in the foregoing document are true. Executedon pejoeajaa^ / 9 z p q ? .CaWomia. tet aarJM, 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that

I. Ray aashelg,typftOtPtlntNWM
PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CAUFORMIA, COUWTY OF i am employed h the county of _ „ am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business addresa to*. On, \ served theforegoingdocument described as State of CaMomte.

^ mthte action on i ~ l by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelope* addressed aa stated on fna attached mailing Hat • by placing C I the original C D a true copy thereof andoaed in sealed envelopes addressed aa follows;

O

BY MAIL
H

,, California. . deposited »uch envelope in the matt at The envelope was mailed with postage thereon hilly pwpwi, CZ3 As fOMowa: \ am "raadHy familiar* wKh the Arm's practice of collection and processing coms*$ondence for malting, Under that practice K would be deposited with U.S. poatal service on that same day wtth postage thereon fully prepaid at • -. • r -r--.- - -- -m r ..-_ . CaJIfo^iainlheordirwrycoufieofbusineaa. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service i* presumed invalid if postal cancellation data or postage mater date is more than one day after data of depot* for mailing in affidavit. ©wcutedon , ,. ,at _ _ w _ ^ w _ _ _ _ ^ ^ _ _ - - r _ _ « _ _ _ „ . aio na C lf r i , UJ **<BY PERSONALWRVICE) I delivered such emretopetyytrand to the office* of the »ddre*see. Executed on .^^ _ . .. _ _ . _ _ _ , at _ , _- . _ ._ __ _ „ . _ _ -_ .L r . , Cattfbmia. C 3 (State) I dedare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above le true and correct C 3 (Federal) I declare that l am employed in the office of a member of the bar of thta court at whose direction the service was made.
Type * Prim Nam* Stgnave

aew.?fl»

~)

1 2 3

RE:

SCDC and NEW HOPE FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER v, PETERS, SPITALNICK, e t Case No. CASE NO. RIC 482762 File No. AOG-8 PROOF OF SERVICE
CALIFORNIA SS.

al

STATE OF

4
COUNTY OF ORANGE

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 X I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Newport Beach, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. X (By U.S. Mail) I deposited such envelope to be delivered in the U.S. mail box at 1201 Dove Street, Newport Beach, California. Executed on December 19, 2007. (State) I declare under foregoing is true and o I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1201 Dove Street, Suite 570, Newport Beach, CA 92660. On December 19, 2007 I served the document(s) described as: ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT by placing a copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope and addressing it as follows: CHRISTOPHER M. CULLEN LANAK & HANNA, P.C. 400 N. Tustin Ave, Suite 120 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Attorney for defendants and cross-complainants, KENNETH M. PETERS, JR.and ALAN R. SPITALNICK

By:
23 24 25 26 27 28

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful