HomeMy WebLinkAbout20251229_Answer Filed- CPIF_City v Smith
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
DUANE MORRIS LLP Meagen E. Leary (SBN: 223103) Marcus O. Colabianchi (SBN: 208698) MELeary@duanemorris.com MColabianchi@duanemorris.com Spear Tower One Market Plaza, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-1127 Telephone: +1 415 957 3000 Facsimile: +1 415 957 3001
Attorneys for Defendants CPIF CALIFORNIA LLC and CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL, J. CHRISTINE DIETRICK, CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO; and THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a California municipal corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAUREL CREEK, LP, a California Limited Partnership; LAUREL CREEK, II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; 1160 LAUREL LANE, LLC, a California limited liability company; PATRICK N. SMITH a/k/a PATRICK SMITH, an individual; SMITH AND COMPANY, A REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation; PATRICK N. SMITH a/k/a PATRICK SMITH, AS TRUSTEE OF THE PATRICK N SMITH 2004 LIVING TRUST; CPIF CALIFORNIA LLC, a California limited liability company; CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; ALL WALL SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMERICAN RIVIERA BANK, a California corporation; ARNOLD BUILDERS, INC., a California corporation; B & B CONSTRUCTION CLEANUP INC., a California corporation
Case No. 25CV-0667
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. VIOLATION OF HEALTH & SAFETY CODE AND RECEIVERSHIP; 2. NUISANCE; 3. NUISANCE PER SE; 4. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
Judge: Hon. Tana L. Coates Dept: 4 Action Filed: October 16, 2025
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
12/29/2025 1:16 PM
- 2 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
BLUE STEEL CONCRETE, LLC, a California limited liability company; COAST ENGINEERING & DESIGN INC., a California corporation; CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., d/b/a CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL SUPPLY, a Delaware corporation; CULBERT PLUMBING INC., F/K/A CULBERT CONSTRUCTION AND PLUMBING, INC., a California stock corporation; EMPIRE ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation; FAMCON PIPE & SUPPLY, INC., a California corporation; G W SURFACES, a California corporation; HOMER T. HAYWARD LUMBER CO., a California corporation; KIRK CONSTRUCTION, a California corporation; LC LENDERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; LW CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation; MAHOGANY CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation; NOLAN CHURCH DOING BUSINESS AS COLORTRENDS PAINTING & DECORATING, a California sole ownership or proprietor business; THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) INC., a Delaware corporation; US AIR CONDITIONING DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and, DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.
- 3 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
Defendants CPIF California, LLC, a California limited liability company, and CPIF
LAUREL CREEK, LLC, a Washington limited liability company (together, “Answering
Defendants”) answer the Verified Complaint (“Complaint”) filed by THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL, J. CHRISTINE DIETRICK, CITY ATTORNEY OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO and THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a California municipal
corporation (together, “Plaintiffs”), paragraph by paragraph, as follows:
SUMMARY
1. Paragraph 1 consists of legal conclusions and Plaintiffs’ characterization of the
Complaint and causes of action as to which no response is required, and is therefore denied.
2. Paragraph 2 consists of legal conclusions and Plaintiffs’ characterization of the
Complaint and causes of action as to which no response is required, and is therefore denied.
PARTIES
3. Paragraph 3 consists of legal conclusions and a description of the Complaint and
relief sought as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Answering
Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 3, which pertain to one of the Plaintiffs, and on that basis deny those
allegations.
4. Paragraph 4 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 4, which pertain to one of the Plaintiffs,
and on that basis deny those allegations.
5. Paragraph 5 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants deny that paragraph 5 accurately describes
the documents which are attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1, and otherwise state that those
documents speak for themselves.
6. Paragraph 6 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
- 4 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 6, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
7. Paragraph 7 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 7, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
8. Paragraph 8 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 8, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
9. Paragraph 9 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 9, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
10. Paragraph 10 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 10, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
11. Paragraph 11 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 11, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
12. Paragraph 12 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants admit that: (i) CPIF California, LLC is a
California limited liability company; and (ii) CPIF California, LLC holds a recorded interest in the
Subject Property, as that term is defined in the Complaint. Further answering, Answering
Defendants deny that paragraph 12 accurately describes the documents identified therein, and
otherwise state that the documents pursuant to which CPIF California, LLC holds an interest in the
- 5 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
Subject Property speak for themselves. Except as expressly admitted, Answering Defendants deny
the allegations contained in paragraph 12.
13. Paragraph 13 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants admit that: (i) CPIF Laurel Creek, LLC is
a Washington limited liability company; and (ii) CPIF Laurel Creek, LLC holds a recorded interest
in the Subject Property, as that term is defined in the Complaint. Further answering, Answering
Defendants admit that paragraph 13 accurately describes the “UCC-3 Financing Statement
Amendment” identified therein, but Answering Defendants deny that paragraph 13 accurately
describes the other document identified therein, and Answering Defendants otherwise state that the
documents pursuant to which CPIF Laurel Creek, LLC holds an interest in the Subject Property
speak for themselves. Except as expressly admitted, Answering Defendants deny the allegations
contained in paragraph 13.
14. Paragraph 14 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 14, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
15. Paragraph 15 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 15, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
16. Paragraph 16 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 16, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
17. Paragraph 17 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 17, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
- 6 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
18. Paragraph 18 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 18, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
19. Paragraph 19 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 19, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
20. Paragraph 20 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 20, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
21. Paragraph 21 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 21, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
22. Paragraph 22 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 22, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
23. Paragraph 23 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 23, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
24. Paragraph 24 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 24, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
- 7 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
25. Paragraph 25 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 25, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
26. Paragraph 26 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 26, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
27. Paragraph 27 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 27, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
28. Paragraph 28 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 28, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
29. Paragraph 29 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 29, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
30. Paragraph 30 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 30, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
31. Paragraph 31 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 31, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
- 8 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
32. Paragraph 32 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 32, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
33. Paragraph 33 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 33, which pertain to another defendant
in this matter, and on that basis deny those allegations.
34. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 34, which pertain to other defendants in this matter, and
on that basis deny those allegations.
35. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 35, which pertain to other defendants in this matter, and
on that basis deny those allegations.
FACTS
36. Answering Defendants restate and incorporate the responses to paragraphs 1-35.
37. Answering Defendants admit that the Subject Property, as defined in the Complaint,
is located in San Luis Obispo County, California.
38. Answering Defendants admit that the Subject Property, as defined in the Complaint,
consists of multiple parcels and includes a development project. The remaining allegations in
paragraph 38 are Plaintiffs’ characterizations and legal conclusions concerning the Subject
Property, as defined in the Complaint, as to which no response is required. To the extent a response
is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 38, and on that basis deny those allegations.
39. Paragraph 39 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 39, and on that basis deny those
allegations.
- 9 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
40. Paragraph 40 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 40, and on that basis deny those
allegations.
41. Paragraph 41 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 41, and on that basis deny those
allegations.
42. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 42, and on that basis deny those allegations.
43. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 43, and on that basis deny those allegations.
44. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 44, and on that basis deny those allegations.
45. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 45, and on that basis deny those allegations.
46. Paragraph 46 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 46, and on that basis deny those
allegations.
47. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 47, and on that basis deny those allegations.
48. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 48, and on that basis deny those allegations.
49. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 49, and on that basis deny those allegations.
50. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 50, and on that basis deny those allegations.
- 10 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
51. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 51, and on that basis deny those allegations.
52. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 52, and on that basis deny those allegations.
53. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 53, and on that basis deny those allegations.
54. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 54, and on that basis deny those allegations.
55. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 55, and on that basis deny those allegations.
56. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 56, and on that basis deny those allegations.
57. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 57, and on that basis deny those allegations.
58. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 58, and on that basis deny those allegations.
59. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 59, and on that basis deny those allegations.
60. Paragraph 60 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 60, and on that basis deny those
allegations.
61. Answering Defendants admit that, upon information and belief, the N&O, as defined
in the Complaint, was mailed to each of the Answering Defendants. Answering Defendants lack
knowledge or information sufficient to form a basis as to the truth of the remaining allegations in
paragraph 61, and on that basis deny those allegations.
62. Paragraph 62 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
- 11 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 62, and on that basis deny those
allegations.
63. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 63, and on that basis deny those allegations.
64. Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 64, and on that basis deny those allegations.
65. Answering Defendants admit that, upon information and belief, the notice that is
attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 11 was mailed to each of the Answering Defendants.
Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the remaining allegations in paragraph 65, and on that basis deny those allegations.
66. Paragraph 66 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 66, and on that basis deny those
allegations.
67. Paragraph 67 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 67, and on that basis deny those
allegations.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of Health and Safety Code & Receivership —
Plaintiff City of San Luis Obispo Against All Defendants)
(Health and Safety Code § 17980.7(c))
68. Answering Defendants restate and incorporate the responses to paragraphs 1-67.
69. Paragraph 69 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
70. Paragraph 70 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
71. Paragraph 71 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
- 12 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
72. Denied.
73. Denied.
74. Denied.
75. Paragraph 75 consists of legal conclusions and Plaintiffs’ requested relief as to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, denied.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Public Nuisance—Plaintiff People of the State of California Against All Defendants)
(Civil Code sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494)
76. Answering Defendants restate and incorporate the responses to paragraphs 1-75.
77. Paragraph 77 consists of legal conclusions and Plaintiffs’ requested relief as to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, denied.
78. Paragraph 78 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
79. Denied.
80. Paragraph 80 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
81. Paragraph 81 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
82. Paragraph 82 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
83. Paragraph 83 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
84. Paragraph 84 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
85. Denied.
86. Denied.
87. Denied.
88. Denied.
- 13 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
89. Paragraph 89 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
90. Denied.
91. Paragraph 91 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
92. Denied.
93. Denied.
94. Denied.
95. Paragraph 95 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
96. Paragraph 96 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
97. Paragraph 97 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
98. Denied.
99. Paragraph 99 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
100. Denied.
101. Paragraph 101 consists of legal conclusions and Plaintiffs’ requested relief as to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, denied.
102. Denied.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Nuisance Per Se—Plaintiff City of San Luis Obispo Against All Defendants) (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code)
103. Answering Defendants restate and incorporate the responses to paragraphs 1-102.
104. Paragraph 104 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
105. Paragraph 105 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
- 14 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
106. Paragraph 106 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
107. Paragraph 107 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
108. Paragraph 108 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
109. Paragraph 109 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
110. Paragraph 110 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
111. Denied.
112. Denied.
113. Paragraph 113 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
114. Denied.
115. Denied.
116. Denied.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unlawful Business Practices —
Plaintiff People of the State of California Against All Defendants)
(Business and Professions Code section 17203)
117. Answering Defendants restate and incorporate the responses to paragraphs 1-116.
118. Paragraph 118 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
119. Paragraph 119 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
120. Paragraph 120 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
- 15 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
121. Paragraph 121 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
122. Paragraph 122 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
123. Denied.
124. Denied.
125. Denied.
126. Denied.
127. Denied.
128. Paragraph 128 consists of legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To
the extent a response is required, denied.
129. Denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
For separate and affirmative defenses, Answering Defendants allege as follows:
1. The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as to the
Answering Defendants.
2. Defendants other than Answering Defendants, third parties, and/or entities, whether
or not presently parties to this action, are legally responsible for the incident and/or damages
referred to in the Complaint, if any there were. Any damages to which Plaintiffs might be entitled
should be apportioned by the amount of fault attributable to such other defendants, third parties,
and/or entities.
4. The Complaint is barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.
5. The Complaint is barred by the equitable doctrine of waiver and/or estoppel.
6. The Complaint is barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.
7. The damages alleged in the Complaint, as well as the losses allegedly sustained by
Plaintiffs, were proximately caused by intervening and superseding causes and forces which were
beyond the control of Answering Defendants and which, in the exercise of reasonable prudence,
were not and could not be anticipated or foreseen by Answering Defendants.
- 16 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
8. No act or omission by any Answering Defendant was the cause in fact or the
proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any.
9. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages.
10. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.
11. The Complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
12. Plaintiffs are without standing, authority or capacity to assert the claims alleged in
the Complaint.
13. The Complaint is barred by Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust all available administrative
and procedural remedies.
14. Some or all of the claims in the Complaint are barred because those claims are
premature, are not ripe and no actual controversy exists.
15. The Court lacks jurisdiction to determine some or all of the claims in the Complaint,
which claims are therefore barred.
16. The Complaint, and each cause of action therein, is barred because it includes
allegations which are vague, ambiguous, uncertain and/or unintelligible.
17. Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law, and no basis exists for any equitable
relief.
18. The Complaint fails to name indispensable parties, in violation of Code of Civil
Procedure Section 389(a).
19. Answering Defendants did not cause, contribute, or otherwise exacerbate any
alleged nuisance, condition, or violation as alleged in the Complaint.
20. At all relevant times, neither of the Answering Defendants was the owner, possessor,
occupier, or controller of the Subject Property (as defined in the Complaint). Answering
Defendants’ interests, if any, were limited to that of a lender or beneficiary under a deed of trust,
which does not give rise to liability for the conditions alleged in the Complaint.
21. Answering Defendants owed no statutory, common-law, or other duty to Plaintiffs.
22. Answering Defendants lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged
conditions that gave rise to the alleged claims in the Complaint.
-17 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC
DM3\22205061.1
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
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Answering Defendants presently have insufficient knowledge or information on which to
form a belief as to whether they may have additional, as yet unstated, affirmative defenses available.
Answering Defendants therefore reserve herein the right to assert additional defenses in the event
that discovery indicates that they would be appropriate.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants pray: (i) for judgment against Plaintiffs and in favor
of Answering Defendants on all claims and causes of action asserted against Answering Defendants
in the Complaint; (ii) that Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of the Complaint; (iii) that the Court
dismiss all claims against Answering Defendants with prejudice; (iv) that Answering Defendants
recover their costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees incurred herein; and (v) for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: December 29, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
DUANE MORRIS LLP
By: Meagen E. Leary Marcus O. Colabianchi
Attorneys for Defendants CPIF California, LLC and CPIF Laurel Creek, LLC
VERIFICATION
1,Kevin Quinn,am a Portfolio Manager with Columbia Pacific Advisors,LLC.Columbia
Pacific Advisors,LLC is the manager of Columbia Pacific Income Fund II GP,LLC,which is the
manager of Columbia Pacific Income Fund II,LP.Columbia Pacific Income Fund II,LP is the
manager of defendants CPIF CALIFORNIA,LLC and CPIF LAUREL CREEK,LLC.
I am authorized to make this Verification on behalf of defendants CPIF CALIFORNIA,
LLC and CPIF LAUREL CREEK,LLC.I have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF
8 CALIFORNIA,LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK,LLC TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR:1.
VIOLATION OF HEALTH &SAFETY CODE AND RECEIVERSHIP;2.NUISANCE;3.
NUISANCE PER SE;4.UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES,and I know the contents thereof.The
same is true of my own knowledge,or I have gained such knowledge from a review of CPIF
12 CALIFORNIA,LLC's and CPIF LAUREL CREEK,LLC's books and records prepared and
maintained in the ordinary course of business,which I believe to be true and accurate.As to those
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
matters that are stated on information and belief,if any,I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Kevin Quinn
-18 -
VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA,LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK,LLC
DM3:22205061.1
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated:
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
DM3\22206597.1
PROOF OF SERVICE
People of the State of California v. Laurel Creek, L.P. et al.
Case No. 25CV-0667
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party interested in the cause. I am an employee of Duane Morris LLP and my business address is One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 2200, San Francisco, California 94105. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practices for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and for transmitting documents by FedEx, fax, email, messenger and other modes. On the date stated below, I served the following document:
• VERIFIED ANSWER OF CPIF CALIFORNIA, LLC AND CPIF LAUREL CREEK, LLC TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. VIOLATION OF HEALTH & SAFETY CODE AND RECEIVERSHIP; 2. NUISANCE; 3. NUISANCE PER SE; 4. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
X BY U.S. MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s) set forth below, and placed the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices, which are that on the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in San Francisco, California, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
SERVICE ADDRESS(ES)
Attorneys for Plaintiff Matthew R. Silver Sean E. Morrissey Nicholas Garces Civica Law Group APC 4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250, PMB #782 Irvine, CA 92604 Email: MSilver@CivicaLaw.com Email: SMorrissey@CivicaLaw.com Email: NGarces@CivicaLaw.com
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 29, 2025, at San Francisco, California.
Deanna Micros
Deanna Micros