HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260116_Answer Filed- Homer T Hayward Lumber_City v SmithN
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 1
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
Anne K. Secker (State Bar No. 96157) Heidi A. Quinn (State Bar No. 180880) NOLAND, HAMERLY, ETIENNE & HOSS A Professional Corporation 333 Salinas Street Post Office Box 2510 Salinas, California 93902-2510 Telephone: (831) 424-1414 Facsimile: (831) 424-1975 Email: ASecker@nheh.com, HQuinn@nheh.com Attorney for Homer T. Hayward Lumber Co., a California corporation
SUPERIOR COURT 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,
vs.
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
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF HEALTH & SAFETY CODE AND RECEIVERSHIP; NUISANCE; NUISANCE PER SE; AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
Dept.: 4 Judge: Tana L. Coates
Complaint filed: October 16, 2025 Trial date: Not yet assigned
ELECTRONICALLY FILED1/16/2026 2:37 PM
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 2
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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.
Defendant HOMER T. HAYWARD LUMBER CO., a California corporation (“Hayward
Lumber” or “Defendant”), severing itself from all other Defendants, answers the Verified
Complaint (“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiffs 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,
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) as follows.
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 3
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
SUMMARY
1. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each and
every allegation contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
2. In response to Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Defendant alleges that this allegation
states the relief Plaintiffs are seeking and, therefore, requires no admission or denial.
PARTIES
3. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each and
every allegation contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
4. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each and
every allegation contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5. Defendant admits that Defendant Laurel Creek LP has an ownership interest in the
property described in the Complaint but lacks sufficient information or belief as to remainder of
the subject matter contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies
generally and specifically each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 5 of the
Complaint.
6. Defendant admits Laurel Creek LP is, and at all relevant times was a California
limited partnership. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining subject
matter contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and
specifically each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
7. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each and
every allegation contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
8. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each and
every allegation contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 4
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
9. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each and
every allegation contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
10. Defendant Hayward Lumber admits Smith and Company (“Smith & Co.”) is a
Real Estate Investment Development Corporation and is a California corporation. Defendant
lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter of the other allegations contained in
Paragraph 10 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each and
every other allegation contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
11. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
12. Defendant admits CPIF California, LLC (“CPIF”) is a California limited liability
company and that a “UCC-1 Financing Statement” was recorded on April 1, 2021, with document
number 2021-024688. Defendant Hayward Lumber lacks sufficient information or belief as to
the subject matter of the other allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint and, on
those grounds, denies generally and specifically each and every other allegation contained in
Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
13. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
14. Defendant admits All Wall Systems, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and recorded
two Mechanics Liens on August 18, 2023, with document numbers 2023-024462 and 2023-
024482. Defendant Hayward Lumber lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject
matter of the other allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint and, on those grounds,
denies generally and specifically each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 14 of the
Complaint.
/ / /
/ / /
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 5
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
15. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
16. Defendant admits Arnold Builders, Inc. is a California corporation that recorded a
“Claim of Mechanics Lien” on October 11, 2023, with document number 2023-0297784.
Defendant Hayward Lumber lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter of the
other allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies
generally and specifically each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 16 of the
Complaint.
17. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
18. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
19. Defendant admits Coast Engineering & Design, Inc. is a California corporation
and recorded two “Claim of Mechanics Liens” on November 8, 2023 with document numbers
2023-033881 and 2023-033882. Defendant Hayward Lumber lacks sufficient information or
belief as to the subject matter of the other allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint
and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each and every other allegation contained
in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
20. Defendant admits Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation. Defendant Hayward Lumber lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject
matter of the other allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint and, on those grounds,
denies generally and specifically each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 20 of the
Complaint.
21. Defendant admits Culbert Construction & Plumbing, Inc. is a California
corporation and has recorded “Claim of Mechanics Lien” on October 5, 2023, with document
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 6
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
numbers 2023-029296 and 2023-029298. Defendant Hayward Lumber lacks sufficient
information or belief as to the subject matter of the other allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of
the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each and every other
allegation contained in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
22. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
23. Defendant admits Empire Electrical Solutions, Inc. is a California corporation.
Defendant Hayward Lumber lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter of the
other allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies
generally and specifically each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 23 of the
Complaint.
24. Defendant admits G W Surfaces is a California corporation and recorded a
Mechanics Lien on October 2, 2023 with document number 2023-028873. Defendant Hayward
Lumber lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter of the other allegations
contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and
specifically each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
25. Defendant admits Hayward Lumber is a California corporation, and that it holds a
recorded interest in the Subject Property, as described in the Complaint. Defendant denies
Paragraph 25 accurately describes the documents identified therein in Paragraph 25. Hayward
Lumber holds an interest in the Subject Property as a secured creditor and material supplier, and
does not have possession, control or management of the Subject Property. The documents speak
for themselves. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies generally and specifically the
remaining allegations in Paragraph 25.
26. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
/ / /
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 7
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
27. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
28. Defendant admits L W Construction, Inc. is a California corporation. Defendant
Hayward Lumber lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter of the other
allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally
and specifically each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
29. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
30. Defendant admits Noland Church doing business as Colortrends Painting &
Decorating recorded a Mechanics Lien on November 21, 2023 with document number 2023-
035119. Defendant Hayward Lumber lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject
matter of the other allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint and, on those grounds,
denies generally and specifically each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 30 of the
Complaint.
31. Defendant admits The Sherwin-Williams Company is an Ohio corporation and has
a recorded “Mechanics Lien” on October 13, 2023, with document number 2023030096.
Defendant Hayward Lumber lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter of the
other allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies
generally and specifically each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 31 of the
Complaint.
32. Defendant admits United Rentals (North America), Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that recorded two Mechanics Liens on November 14, 2023 with document number 2023-034371
and on November 17, 2023 with document number 2023-034830. Defendant Hayward Lumber
lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter of the other allegations contained in
Paragraph 32 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each and
every other allegation contained in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 8
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
33. Defendant admits US Air Conditioning Distributors, LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company that recorded a “Mechanics Lien” on August 30, 2023, with document number
2023-025727. Defendant Hayward Lumber lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject
matter of the other allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint and, on those grounds,
denies generally and specifically each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 33 of the
Complaint.
34. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
35. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
FACTS
36. Defendant incorporates its admissions, allegations, and denials to the paragraphs
incorporated in Paragraphs 1 through 35 of the Answer, as though those admissions, allegations,
and denials were set forth in full at this point.
37. Defendant admits that the Subject Property, as more specifically defined in
Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, is located in San Luis Obispo County, California.
38. In response to Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, Defendant admits the Subject
Property consists of large multiple parcels and includes a development project. Defendant lacks
sufficient information or belief as to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 38 and, on
those grounds, denies generally and specifically the remaining allegations contained in said
paragraph.
39. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
/ / /
/ / /
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 9
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
41. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
42. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint.
43. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.
44. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
45. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
46. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.
47. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
48. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
/ / /
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 10
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
50. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint.
51. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint.
52. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint.
53. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint.
54. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint.
55. Defendant Hayward Lumber lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject
matter contained in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and
specifically each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint. The document
speaks for itself.
56. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. The document speaks for itself.
57. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint. The document speaks for itself.
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 11
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
58. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint. The document speaks for itself.
59. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint. The document speaks for itself.
60. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 60 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically the remaining
allegations contained in said paragraph. The document speaks for itself.
61. Defendant Hayward Lumber lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject
matter contained in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and
specifically each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint.
62. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint.
63. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint.
64. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint.
65. In response to Paragraph 65 of the Complaint, Defendant admits it received a copy
of the October 3, 2025, 3-Day Notice attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 11. Defendant lacks
sufficient information or belief as to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 65 and, on
those grounds, denies generally and specifically the remaining allegations contained in said
paragraph.
/ / /
/ / /
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 12
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
66. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint.
67. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of Health and Safety Code & Receivership – Plaintiff City of San Luis Obispo
(Against All Defendants)
(Health and Safety Code § 1790.7(c))
68. Defendant reincorporates its admissions, allegations, and denials to the paragraphs
incorporated in Paragraph 1 through 67 of the Answer, as though those admissions, allegations,
and denials were set forth in full at this point.
69. In response to Paragraph 69 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts that the
provisions of HSC section 17980, subsection (1) speak for themselves, and that no admissions or
denials to Paragraph 69 are required.
70. In response to Paragraph 70 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts that the
provisions of HSC section 17920.3 speak for themselves. In further response to Paragraph 70,
Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained in Paragraph 70
of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each and every
allegation contained in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint.
71. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint.
72. Defendant Hayward Lumber, as a creditor and material supplier, with no right of
possession, entry or control of the Subject Property, denies it had the opportunity to abate or
remedy the Subject Property and lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter
contained in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 13
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
specifically each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint.
73. In response to Paragraph 73 of the Complaint, Defendant denies generally and
specifically that it has failed to comply with the law. Defendant denies generally and specifically
each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 73 of the Complaint.
74. In response to Paragraph 74 of the Complaint, Defendant denies generally and
specifically that it has failed to comply with the law. Defendant lacks sufficient information or
belief as to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 74 and, on those grounds, denies
generally and specifically the remaining allegations contained in said paragraph.
75. In response to Paragraph 75 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts that the relief
sought by Plaintiff’s Complaint speaks for itself. In further response to Paragraph 75 of the
Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 75 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically the remaining
allegations contained in said paragraph.
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. Defendant reincorporates its admissions, allegations, and denials to the paragraphs
incorporated in Paragraphs 1 through 75 of the Answer, as though those admissions, allegations,
and denials were set forth in full at this point.
77. The allegations and relief sought set forth in Paragraph 77 of the Complaint speak
for themselves. In further response to Paragraph 77 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient
information or belief as to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 77 and, on those
grounds, denies generally and specifically the remaining allegations contained in said paragraph.
78. In response to Paragraph 78 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts the provisions of
Civil Code section 3479 speak for themselves. In further response to Paragraph 78 of the
Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 78 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically the remaining
allegations contained in said paragraph.
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 14
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
79. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 79 of the Complaint.
80. In response to Paragraph 80 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts the provisions of
Civil Code section 3480 speak for themselves. In further response to Paragraph 80 of the
Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 80 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically the remaining
allegations contained in said paragraph.
81. In response to Paragraph 81 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts the provisions of
SLOMC sections 1.12.040, 1.12.070, 1.12.100, and 8.24.020 speak for themselves. In further
response to Paragraph 81 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to
the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 81 and, on those grounds, denies generally and
specifically the remaining allegations contained in said paragraph.
82. In response to Paragraph 82 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts the provisions of
SLOMC sections 1.12.090 and 8.24.190 speak for themselves. In further response to Paragraph
82 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 82 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically the
remaining allegations contained in said paragraph.
83. In response to Paragraph 83 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts the provisions of
Government Code section 38771 speak for themselves. In further response to Paragraph 83 of the
Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 83 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically the remaining
allegations contained in said paragraph.
84. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 84 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 84 of the Complaint.
85. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 85 of the Complaint.
/ / /
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 15
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
86. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 86 of the Complaint.
87. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 87 of the Complaint.
88. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 88 of the Complaint.
89. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 89 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 89 of the Complaint.
90. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 90 of the Complaint.
91. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 91 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 91 of the Complaint.
92. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 92 of the Complaint.
93. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 93 of the Complaint.
94. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 94 of the Complaint.
95. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 95 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 95 of the Complaint.
96. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 96 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 96 of the Complaint.
/ / /
/ / /
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 16
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
97. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 97 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 97 of the Complaint.
98. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 98 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 98 of the Complaint.
99. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 99 of the Complaint.
100. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 100 of the Complaint.
101. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 101 of the Complaint.
102. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 102 of the Complaint.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Nuisance Per Se-Plaintiff City of San Luis Obispo Against All Defendants)
(San Luis Obispo Municipal Code)
103. Defendant reincorporates its admissions, allegations, and denials to the paragraphs
incorporated in Paragraphs 1 through 102 of the Answer, as though those admissions, allegations,
and denials were set forth in full at this point.
104. In response to Paragraph 104 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts that the
provisions of SLOMC sections 1.12.090 and 8.24.190 and the relief sought by the City speak for
themselves. In further response to Paragraph 104 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient
information or belief as to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 104 and, on those
grounds, denies generally and specifically the remaining allegations contained in said paragraph.
105. In response to Paragraph 105 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts that the
provisions of the SLOMC sections cited thereon speak for themselves. In further response to
Paragraph 105, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining allegations
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 17
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
contained in Paragraph 105 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically the
remaining allegations contained in said paragraph.
106. In response to Paragraph 106 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts that the
provisions of the SLOMC sections cited thereon speak for themselves. In further response to
Paragraph 106, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 106 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically the
remaining allegations contained in said paragraph.
107. In response to Paragraph 107 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts that the
provisions of Government Code section 38771 speak for themselves. In further response to
Paragraph 107, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 107 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically the
remaining allegations contained in said paragraph.
108. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the subject matter contained
in Paragraph 108 of the Complaint and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically each
and every allegation contained in Paragraph 108 of the Complaint.
109. In response to Paragraph 109 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts that the
provisions of SLOMC sections cited speak for themselves. In further response to Paragraph 109,
Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 109 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically the remaining allegations
contained in said paragraph.
110. In response to Paragraph 110 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts that the
provisions of SLOMC section 17.76.060 speak for themselves. In further response to Paragraph
110, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 110 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically the remaining allegations
contained in said paragraph.
111. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 111 of the Complaint.
/ / /
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 18
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
112. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 112 of the Complaint.
113. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 113 of the Complaint.
114. In response to Paragraph 114 of the Complaint, Defendant admits it has a duty to
comply with all laws but denies any inference that any duties this answering Defendant may have
relate to any of the subject matter contained in the Complaint. Except as expressly admitted,
Defendant generally and specifically denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 114
of the Complaint.
115. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 115 of the Complaint.
116. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 116 of the Complaint.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unlawful Business Practices – Plaintiff People of the State of California Against All Defendants)
(Business and Professions Code section 17203)
117. Defendant reincorporates its admissions, allegations, and denials to the paragraphs
incorporated in Paragraphs 1 through 116 of the Answer, as though those admissions, allegations,
and denials were set forth in full at this point.
118. In response to Paragraph 118 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts that the
provisions of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. speak for themselves. In
further response to Paragraph 118 Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 118 and, on those grounds, denies generally and
specifically the remaining allegations contained in said paragraph.
119. In response to Paragraph 119 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient
information or belief as to the subject matter contained in Paragraph 119 of the Complaint and, on
those grounds, denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in Paragraph
119 of the Complaint.
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 19
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
120. In response to Paragraph 120 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts that the
provisions of Business and Professions Code section 17203 speak for themselves. In further
response to Paragraph 120 Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 120 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically
the remaining allegations contained in said paragraph.
121. In response to Paragraph 121 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts that the
provisions of Business and Professions Code section 17205 speak for themselves. In further
response to Paragraph 121 Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 121 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically
the remaining allegations contained in said paragraph.
122. In response to Paragraph 122 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts that the
provisions of Business and Professions Code section 17203 speak for themselves. In further
response to Paragraph 122 Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 122 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically
the remaining allegations contained in said paragraph.
123. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 123 of the Complaint.
124. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 124 of the Complaint.
125. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 125 of the Complaint.
126. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 126 of the Complaint.
127. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 127 of the Complaint.
128. In response to Paragraph 128 of the Complaint, Defendant asserts that the
provisions of Business and Professions Code section 17203 speak for themselves. In further
response to Paragraph 128 Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief as to the remaining
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 20
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
allegations contained in Paragraph 128 and, on those grounds, denies generally and specifically
the remaining allegations contained in said paragraph
129. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
Paragraph 129 of the Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Claim)
Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each and every claim therein fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches/Estoppel)
Plaintiffs’ unreasonable delay in identifying or addressing the alleged conditions,
combined with their failure to take enforcement action against the parties actually in control of
the site, has prejudiced Defendant and bars equitable relief
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Right of Entry/Ability to Cure)
Defendant alleges that it had no right of entry, no contractual or statutory ability to inspect
or repair the Subject Property, and no ability to abate the alleged conditions. Any claim seeking
to impose liability despite this lack of ability to act is barred as a matter of law.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statutes of Limitations)
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ causes of action asserted in the Complaint are barred by
the applicable statutes of limitations.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Acts of Third Parties)
The alleged conditions, if they existed, were created exclusively by owners, developers,
contractors, subcontractors, inspectors, and other personnel at the Subject Property. Defendant
alleges that the violations complained of, if any there were, were proximately contributed to or
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 21
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
caused by the carelessness, negligence, faults or defects created by the remaining parties in this
action, or by other persons, corporations and business entities, unknown to this answering
Defendant at this time, and were not caused in any way by this answering Defendant, or by
persons for whom this answering Defendant is responsible.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Negligence)
Defendant alleges that the violations complained of, if any there were, were either wholly
or in part negligently caused by persons, firms, corporations or entities other than Defendant
Hayward Lumber and such negligence comparatively reduces the percentage of fault attributable,
if any by this answering Defendant.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages in that damages could
have been avoided by Plaintiffs.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Ownership, Possession, or Control)
Defendant alleges it is not, and at all relevant times was not, an owner, possessor,
operator, manager, or person in control of the Subject Property or of any activities allegedly
creating the conditions at issue, and owed no legal duty with respect to correcting, abating, or
preventing such conditions. Any claims premised upon ownership, possession, control, or a duty
to abate are barred, in whole or in part.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Causation as to Alleged Violations or Nuisance)
Defendant alleges that no act or omission by Defendant was a substantial factor in causing
any alleged violation, public nuisance, nuisance per se, or unfair business practice. Plaintiffs
cannot establish causation as to Defendant Hayward Lumber; therefore the claims are barred in
whole or in part.
/ / /
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 22
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Superseding/Intervening Cause)
Defendant alleges that any alleged harm or condition was caused by independent,
intervening, and/or superseding acts or omissions of other parties, entities, or nonparties,
including owners, operators, contractors, and site managers, thereby barring or reducing any
recovery against Defendant Hayward Lumber.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies)
To the extent any cause of action requires exhaustion of administrative remedies,
including appeals or administrative review of notices and orders, Plaintiffs failed to exhaust those
remedies, thereby barring or limiting the claims asserted against Defendant Hayward Lumber.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Inadequate Notice; Due Process)
Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the purported notices, orders, and demands did not
provide Defendant with the statutorily required specificity, timing, service, or opportunity to
respond/cure, and otherwise failed to satisfy due process.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Vagueness/Overbreadth)
The statutes, ordinances, standards, and/or orders invoked by Plaintiffs are
unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad as applied to Defendant Hayward Lumber, a
non-owner and secured creditor and material supplier, and therefore cannot support liability or
injunctive relief against Defendant.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Compliance with Applicable Statutes)
Defendant alleges that its conduct conformed to all applicable statutes and regulations
governing secured interests, financing statements, and mechanics lien rights. To the extent any
conduct was expressly permitted by statute, Plaintiffs cannot impose liability under the Unfair
Competition Law based on conduct authorized by law.
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 23
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands and Waiver)
Plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of
unclean hands and waiver, including Plaintiffs’ own acts or omissions in connection with
inspections, permitting, enforcement discretion, or interactions with the owners and operators of
the Subject Property.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Join Indispensable Parties)
Relief sought by Plaintiffs cannot be accorded in equity and good conscience without the
presence of indispensable parties, including the owners, operators, property managers, and
contractors directly responsible for the alleged conditions at the Subject Property, and the action
should be dismissed or relief denied or limited unless such parties are joined.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Overbreadth of Remedies)
Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution, civil penalties, or attorneys’ fees from this
Defendant absent specific statutory authority and proof attributable to Defendant.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Apportionment and Allocation)
Any liability or equitable relief must be apportioned among all responsible parties based
on their respective responsibility and control over the property and activities, with Defendant’s
share, if any, limited to its comparative responsibility.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Additional Affirmative Defense)
As and for a twenty-first separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendants allege that
they have no independent knowledge, as of the filing of this Answer, of the facts allegedly
constituting the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and based thereon, hereby respectfully request
leave of court to amend this Answer to include those affirmative defenses that are revealed during
the course of discovery.
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
S
AL
I
N
A
S
02439.761 24
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs. Laurel Creek, LP et al/Case No. 25CV-0667
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
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendant Hayward Lumber prays for judgment as follows:
1.That Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of the Complaint on file herein;
2.That Defendant Hayward Lumber be awarded its costs of suit herein;
3. Reasonable attorney’s fees according to proof; and
4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
Dated: January _____, 2026 NOLAND, HAMERLY, ETIENNE & HOSS A Professional Corporation
By
Anne K. Secker Heidi A. Quinn Attorney for Defendant Homer T. Hayward Lumber Co.
15
/s/ Heidi A. Quinn
1
NO
L
A
N
D
,
HA
M
E
R
L
Y
,
ET
I
E
N
N
E
&
Ho
s
s
AT
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
AT
LA
W
SA
L
I
N
A
S
VERIFICATION
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF MONTEREY
[x]I am an officer of HOMER T.HAYWARD LUMBER CO.,a California
corporation,a Defendant in the above-captioned matter,and am authorized to
make this verification for and on behalf of said corporation.I am familiar with
the contents of the foregoing ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATION OF HEALTH &SAFETY CODE AND RECEIVERSHIP;
NUISANCE;NUISANCE PER SE;AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES.
The information supplied therein is based on my own personal knowledge and/or
has been supplied by my attorneys or other agents and is therefore provided as
required by law.The information contained in the foregoing document is true,
except as to the matters which were provided by my attorneys or other agents,
and,as to those matters,I am informed and believe that they are true.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
10
Executed on 6 26 at Monterey,California.
11
12
Rifhard C.R an,Secretary/Treasurer
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
4922-7018-1000,v.4
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02439.761 25
ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
People vs,Laurel Creek,LP et al/Case No.25CV-0667
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
M
ON
T
E
R
E
Y
PROOF OF SERVICE
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
(Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1013(a), 2015.5)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF MONTEREY )
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Monterey County. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is: 333 Salinas Street, Post Office Box 2510, Salinas, CA 93902-2510.
On the date below, I served the attached document(s) entitled: ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF HEALTH & SAFETY CODE AND RECEIVERSHIP; NUISANCE; NUISANCE PER SE; AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES, on the following named person(s) in said action at:
Matthew R. Silver, Esq. Sean E. Morrissey, Esq. Nicholas Garces, Esq. Civica Law Group, APC 4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250 PMB#782 Irvine, CA 92604 MSilver@CivicaLaw.com SMorrissey@CivicaLaw.com NGarces@CivicaLaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff
Duane Morris LLP Meagen E. Leary, Esq. Marcus O. Calabianchi, Esq. Spear Tower One Market Plaza, Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94105-1127 MELeary@duanemorris.com MColabianchi@duanemorris.com Tel: (415) 957-3000 Attorneys for Defendants CPIF California LLC and CPIF Laurel Creek, LLC
☒ By court order or by agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the email address(es) listed above. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. (CCP § 1010.6; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.251).
☐ by personal service on the above-named person(s) at the above stated address(es).
☐ by placing said copy(ies) in a sealed envelope(s), postage thereon fully prepaid, and placed for collection and processing for mailing following the business's ordinary practice with which I am readily familiar. 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 at Salinas, California, addressed as stated above.
☐ by overnight delivery on the above named party(ies) in said action, by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in a designated area for outgoing, same-day pickup by at the offices of Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss for overnight delivery, billed to Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss, and addressed as set forth above.
N
OL
A
N
D
,
H
AM
E
R
L
Y
,
E
TI
E
N
N
E
&
H
OS
S
A
TT
O
R
N
E
Y
S
A
T
L
AW
M
ON
T
E
R
E
Y
02439\748\2081011.1:62124 2
PROOF OF SERVICE
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
☐ by causing to be transmitted a true copy thereof to the above-named recipient via the following facsimile transmission telephone number ("Fax"): (831) 424-1414, and no interruption of transmission was reported.
☐ by causing to be transmitted a true copy thereof to the above-named recipient via the electronic mail address (canossett@nheh.com), and no failure to deliver message was received.
I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 16, 2025, at Salinas, California.
Charlena A. Nossett