HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260210_Answer Filed- Smith and Company & LC Lenders_City v Smith1
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
1
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
TODD A. AMSPOKER, State Bar No. 111245
CHRISTOPHER E. HASKELL, State Bar No. 126745
JEFF F. TCHAKAROV, State Bar No. 295506
PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP
200 East Carrillo Street, Fourth Floor
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 962-0011
Facsimile: (805) 965-3978
taa@ppplaw.com, ceh@ppplaw.com,
jft@ppplaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant
Smith and Company, a Real Estate Investment
Development Corporation, a California corporation,
and LC Lenders, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE 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,
Plaintiffs,
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
Case No.: 25CV-0667
Assigned to the Hon. Tana L. Coates
VERIFIED ANSWER TO VERIFIED
COMPLAINT
Trial: Not Set
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
2/10/2026 2:32 PM
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
2
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
corporation;
ARNOLD BUILDERS, INC., a California
corporation;
B & B CONSTRUCTION CLEANUP INC., a
California corporation
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.
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
3
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.10, et seq., defendant LC
Lenders, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, (“Defendant”) answers the Verified
Complaint (“Complaint”) of 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 Sant Luis Obispo ("Plaintiffs").
The Defendant admits, denies, and alleges as follows:
Summary
1. Answering paragraph 1, Defendant admits that Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint
for Nuisance Abatement, Violation of State Health & Safety Laws, Unfair Business Practices and
Receivership but denies the remaining allegations contained therein.
2. Answering paragraph 2, the Defendant admits that Plaintiffs seek nuisance
abatement, injunctive relief, the appointment of a receiver and other remedies of law but denies
the remaining allegations contained therein.
Parties
3. Answering paragraph 3, Defendant admits that Plaintiffs admits that the action is
being brought in through the city attorney of the city in which the property at issue exists but
denies the remaining allegations contained therein.
4. Answering paragraph 4, Defendant admits this allegation.
5. Answering paragraph 5, Defendant admits this allegation.
6. Answering paragraph 6, Defendant admits this allegation.
7. Answering paragraph 7, Defendant admits this allegation.
8. Answering paragraph 8, Defendant denies such allegations on information and
belief.
9. Answering paragraph 9, Defendant admits Defendant Patrick N. Smith is a
Manager of Defendants 1160 Lauren Lane, LLC, Laurel Creek LP and Laurel Creek II LP but
denies the remaining allegations contained therein, on information and belief.
10. Answering paragraph 10, Defendant admits Patrick N. Smith is an officer and
director of Defendant Smith and Co., and that Smith and Co. holds a recorded interest in the
Subject Property by a mechanic lien recorded in the SLO official records. Defendant denies the
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
4
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
remaining allegations contained therein, on information and belief.
11. Answering paragraph 11, Defendant admits Defendant Patrick N. Smith is the
trustee of the Patrick N. Smith 2004 Living Trust and that he acts on behalf of and directs the
actions of the Trust but denies the remaining allegations contained therein, on information and
belief.
12. Answering paragraph 12, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
13. Answering paragraph 13, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
14. Answering paragraph 14, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
15. Answering paragraph 15, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
16. Answering paragraph 16, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
17. Answering paragraph 17, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
18. Answering paragraph 18, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
19. Answering paragraph 19, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
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
5
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
every allegation contained therein.
20. Answering paragraph 20, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
21. Answering paragraph 21, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
22. Answering paragraph 22, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
23. Answering paragraph 23, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
24. Answering paragraph 24, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to
form a belief concerning the truth of the factual allegations contained therein and, on that basis,
denies such allegations.
25. Answering paragraph 25, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
26. Answering paragraph 26, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
27. Answering paragraph 27, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein, on information and belief.
28. Answering paragraph 28, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
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
6
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
29. Answering paragraph 29, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
30. Answering paragraph 30, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
31. Answering paragraph 31, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
32. Answering paragraph 32, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
33. Answering paragraph 33, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
34. Answering paragraph 34, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
35. Answering paragraph 35, Defendant denies each and every allegation contained
therein, on information and belief.
36. Answering paragraph 36, Defendant incorporate by reference their responses to all
previous paragraphs 1 - 35 as if fully set forth herein.
37. Answering paragraph 37, Defendant admits such allegation.
38. Answering paragraph 38, Defendant admits such allegations.
39. Answering paragraph 39, Defendant denies such allegations.
40. Answering paragraph 40, Defendant denies such allegations.
41. Answering paragraph 41, Defendant denies such allegations.
42. Answering paragraph 42, Defendant admits that these referenced Notice of
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
7
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
Violations were issued but denies the remaining allegations contained therein.
43. Answering paragraph 43, Defendant denies such allegations.
44. Answering paragraph 44, Defendant admits the issuance of the TCOs referenced
therein and that some were extended but denies the remaining allegations contained therein.
45. Answering paragraph 45, Defendant denies such allegations.
46. Answering paragraph 46, Defendant admits the issuance of the March 10, 2025
Notice of Violation and that the NOV allowed warehousing activity to remain but denies the
remaining allegations contained therein.
47. Answering paragraph 47, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
48. Answering paragraph 48, Defendant admits such allegation.
49. Answering paragraph 49, Defendant admits such allegation.
50. Answering paragraph 50, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
51. Answering paragraph 51, Defendant admits that on May 5, 2025, the CBOA held a
formal public hearing, that the CBOA voted unanimously to denies the appeal, and upheld the
NOV and the violations but denies the remaining allegations contained therein.
52. Answering paragraph 52, Defendant denies such allegations.
53. Answering paragraph 53, Defendant admits that certain permits issued before the
CBOA Resolution had expired but denies the remaining allegations contained therein.
54. Answering paragraph 54, Defendant denies such allegations.
55. Answering paragraph 55, Defendant admits that on September 2, 2025, the City
issued a Notice and Order to Repair or Abate on the subject property but denies the remaining
allegations contained therein.
56. Answering paragraph 56, Defendant denies such allegations.
57. Answering paragraph 57, Defendant denies such allegations.
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
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
58. Answering paragraph 58, Defendant denies such allegations.
59. Answering paragraph 59, Defendant denies such allegations.
60. Answering paragraph 60, Defendant denies such allegations.
61. Answering paragraph 61, Defendant admits that on September 2, 2025, the Notice
and Order to Repair or Abate was posted on the property and that the Notice and Order to Repair
and Abate was received by mail but denies the remaining allegations contained therein.
62. Answering paragraph 62, Defendant denies such allegations.
63. Answering paragraph 63, Defendant admits that on September 8, 2025, the City
recorded a Notice of Pendency of Nuisance Abatement Action on title to the subject property but
denies the remaining allegations contained therein.
64. Answering paragraph 64, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, on that basis, denies each and
every allegation contained therein.
65. Answering paragraph 65, Defendant denies such allegations.
66. Answering paragraph 66, Defendant denies such allegations.
67. Answering paragraph 67, Defendant denies such allegations.
First Cause of Action
68. Answering paragraph 68, Defendant incorporate by reference their responses to all
previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
69. Answering paragraph 69, Defendant denies such allegations.
70. Answering paragraph 70, Defendant denies such allegations.
71. Answering paragraph 71, Defendant denies such allegations.
72. Answering paragraph 72, Defendant denies such allegations.
73. Answering paragraph 73, Defendant denies such allegations.
74. Answering paragraph 74, Defendant denies such allegations.
75. Answering paragraph 75, Defendant denies such allegations.
Second Cause of Action
76. Answering paragraph 76, Defendant incorporate by reference their responses to all
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
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
77. Answering paragraph 77, Defendant admits the authority that the Plaintiffs cited is
the authority that Plaintiffs appear to rely upon but denies its applicability to Defendant.
78. Answering paragraph 78, Defendant admits that summary of Civil Code section
3479 contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but denies its applicability to
Defendant.
79. Answering paragraph 79, Defendant denies such allegations.
80. Answering paragraph 80, Defendant admits that summary of Civil Code section
3480 contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but denies its applicability to
Defendant.
81. Answering paragraph 81, Defendant admits that summary of SLOMC 1.12.070
and 1.24.040 contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but denies its
applicability to Defendant.
82. Answering paragraph 82, Defendant admits that summary of SLOMC 1.12.090
contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but denies its applicability to
Defendant.
83. Answering paragraph 83, Defendant denies such allegations.
84. Answering paragraph 84, Defendant denies such allegations.
85. Answering paragraph 85, Defendant denies such allegations.
86. Answering paragraph 86, Defendant denies such allegations.
87. Answering paragraph 87, Defendant denies such allegations.
88. Answering paragraph 88, Defendant denies such allegations.
89. Answering paragraph 89, Defendant denies such allegations.
90. Answering paragraph 90, Defendant denies such allegations.
91. Answering paragraph 91, Defendant denies such allegations.
92. Answering paragraph 92, Defendant denies such allegations.
93. Answering paragraph 93, Defendant denies such allegations.
94. Answering paragraph 94, Defendant denies such allegations.
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
10
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
95. Answering paragraph 95, Defendant denies such allegations.
96. Answering paragraph 96, Defendant denies such allegations.
97. Answering paragraph 97, Defendant denies such allegations.
98. Answering paragraph 98, Defendant denies such allegations.
99. Answering paragraph 99, Defendant denies such allegations.
100. Answering paragraph 100, Defendant denies such allegations.
101. Answering paragraph 101, Defendant denies such allegations.
102. Answering paragraph 102, Defendant denies such allegations.
Third Cause of Action
103. Answering paragraph 103, Defendant incorporate by reference their responses to
all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
104. Answering paragraph 104, Defendant admits the authority that the Plaintiffs cited
is the authority that Plaintiffs appear to rely upon but denies its applicability to Defendant.
105. Answering paragraph 105, Defendant admits that summary of SLOMC 1.12.070
and 1.24.040 contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but denies its
applicability to Defendant.
106. Answering paragraph 106, Defendant admits that summary of SLOMC 1.12.090
contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but denies its applicability to
Defendant.
107. Answering paragraph 107, Defendant denies such allegations.
108. Answering paragraph 108, Defendant denies such allegations.
109. Answering paragraph 109, Defendant admits that summary of SLOMC 15.2.130
contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but denies its applicability to
Defendant.
110. Answering paragraph 110, Defendant admits that summary of SLOMC 17.76.060
contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but denies its applicability to
Defendant.
111. Answering paragraph 111, Defendant denies such allegations.
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
11
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
112. Answering paragraph 112, Defendant denies such allegations.
113. Answering paragraph 113, Defendant denies such allegations.
114. Answering paragraph 114, Defendant denies such allegations.
115. Answering paragraph 115, Defendant denies such allegations.
116. Answering paragraph 116, Defendant denies such allegations.
Fourth Cause of Action
117. Answering paragraph 117, Defendant incorporate by reference their responses to
all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
118. Answering paragraph 118, Defendant admits that summary of B&P Code section
17200 contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but denies its applicability
to Defendant.
119. Answering paragraph 119, Defendant denies such allegations.
120. Answering paragraph 120, Defendant admits that summary of B&P Code section
17203 contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but denies its applicability
to Defendant.
121. Answering paragraph 121, Defendant admits that summary of B&P Code section
17205 contained in this paragraph is an accurate statement of the law but denies its applicability
to Defendant.
122. Answering paragraph 122, Defendant denies such allegations.
123. Answering paragraph 123, Defendant denies such allegations.
124. Answering paragraph 124, Defendant denies such allegations.
125. Answering paragraph 125, Defendant denies such allegations.
126. Answering paragraph 126, Defendant denies such allegations.
127. Answering paragraph 127, Defendant denies such allegations.
128. Answering paragraph 128, Defendant denies such allegations.
129. Answering paragraph 129, Defendant denies such allegations.
Prayer for Relief
Defendant completely and categorically denies all paragraphs and subparagraphs of the
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
12
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
Prayer for Relief.
Affirmative Defenses
Defendant pleads the following separate defenses. Defendant reserves the right to
assert additional affirmative defenses that discovery indicates is proper.
First Defense — Failure to State a Claim
1. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the Verified
Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant on any
cognizable legal theory, whether pleads in the Verified Complaint or otherwise.
Second Defense —Complainant’s Breach
2. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the Complainant
breached its agreements with Defendant and thereby relieved Defendant from any liability for
performing under any of Defendant alleges obligations.
Third Defense — Unclean Hands
3. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Complainant’s
claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands. Complainant should not
be permitted to recover the relief it seeks, or any relief whatsoever, because Complainant has
engaged in wrongful and inequitable conduct related to the present controversy.
Fourth Defense — Waiver
4. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Complainant has
waived its right to assert the claims in its Verified Complaint.
Fifth Defense — Estoppel
5. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Complainant is
estopped from asserting the claims in its Verified Complaint.
Sixth Defense — Excuse of Performance
6. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Defendant'
performance, as alleged in the Verified Complaint, was excused by Complainant’s acts.
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
13
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
Seventh Defense — Bad Faith
7. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Complainant acted in
bad faith.
Eighth Defense — Prevention of Performance
8. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Defendant'
performance of the agreements alleged in the Verified Complaint was prevented by
Complainant’s acts.
Ninth Defense — Laches
9. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Complainant delayed
unreasonably in prosecuting its claims to the prejudice of Defendant and is therefore barred from
bringing its claims by the equitable doctrine of laches.
Tenth Defense — Failure of Conditions Precedent
10. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Complainant’s
claims is barred because there has been a failure of conditions precedent.
Eleventh Defense — Consent
11. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Complainant’s
claims is barred because Complainant consented to the action, conduct, and/or omission alleged in
the Verified Complaint.
Twelfth Defense — Statute of Limitations and Repose
12. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Complainant’s
claims is barred by the applicable statute of limitations and repose.
Thirteenth Defense — Actions of Third Parties
13. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that if Complainant
suffered any damages as alleged in the Verified Complaint, said damages were wholly or partly
the result of the actions of third parties and not of Defendant.
Fourteenth Defense — Ratification
14. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Complainant’s
claims is barred because Complainant ratified the action, conduct, and/or omissions alleged in the
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
14
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
Verified Complaint.
Fifteenth Defense — Superseding Cause
15. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Complainant’s
injuries, if any, were the result of a superseding cause, not Defendant' actions, conduct, and/or
omissions.
Sixteenth Defense — Negligence of Others
16. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Complainant’s
damages, if any, were caused in whole or in part by the negligence of others, and any award of
damages against Defendant must be reduced by the amount of negligence attributed to third
persons.
Seventeenth Defense — Lack of Standing
17. As a separate and affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that Complainant has no
standing or capacity to bring some or all of the claims alleged in the Verified Complaint.
Reservation
18. Defendant presently have insufficient knowledge or information upon which to
form a belief as to whether they may have additional, as yet unstated, affirmative defenses
available. Defendant herein reserve the right to assert additional defenses in the event that
discovery indicates that they would be appropriate.
Prayer for Relief
Wherefore, Defendant pray for relief as follows:
1. That the Verified Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice and in its entirety;
2. That Complainant take nothing by reason of its Verified Complaint and that
judgment be entered against Complainant and in favor of Defendant;
3. That no receiver be appointed on the subject property;
4. That Defendant be awarded costs incurred in defending against the Verified
Complaint; and
5. That Defendant be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.
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
VERIFIED ANSEWR TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
Dated: February 10, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP
By:______________________________
TODD A. AMSPOKER
CHRISTOPHER E. HASKELL
JEFF F. TCHAKAROV
Attorneys for Defendant
Smith and Company, a Real Estate Investment
Development Corporation, a California corporation
and LC Lenders, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company
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
1
VERIFICATION
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
I have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT and know its
contents.
I am an officer a representative of LC LENDERS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, I, a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for
and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason.
I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the
foregoing document are true.
The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge
except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to
those matters 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.
Executed on ______________________, at ______________________________.
(Date) (City, State)
PATRICK N. SMITH, Manager
Type or Print Name and Title Signature
2/10/2026 Santa Barbara, Ca
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
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. My business address is 200 East Carrillo Street,
Fourth Floor, Santa Barbara, California 93101.
On February 10, 2026, I served the foregoing document described as VERIFIED ANSWER
TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT on all interested parties in this action by the original and/or true
copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes, addressed as follows:
Matthew R. Silver
Sean E. Morrissey
CIVICA LAW GROUP APC
4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250, PMB #782
Irvine, CA 92604
MSilver@CivicaLaw.com
SMorrissey@CivicaLaw.com
Meagan E. Leary
Marcus O. Colabiachi
DUANE MORRIS LLP
Spear Tower
One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105
MELeary@duanemorris.com
MColabianchi@duanemorris.com
BY MAIL: I placed the original and/or true copy in a sealed envelope addressed as
indicated herein. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and
processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that
same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party
served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is
more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: I personally delivered the original and/or true copy in a
sealed envelope addressed as indicated herein.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I placed the original and/or true copy in a sealed, fully
prepaid FedEx, Next Day Air envelope addressed as indicated herein, which is picked up
by FedEx on that same day in the ordinary course of business.
BY E-MAIL: I caused to be e-mailed a true copy to the e-mail addresses listed herein.
(STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on February 10, 2026, at Santa Barbara, California.
Signature
TIMOTHY HEARN
Timothy Hearn