Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01242/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01242-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 

Richard E. Morton (Bar No. 54188) 

Brian A. Moore (Bar No. 252900) 

HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP 

5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900 

Santa Ana, California 92707 

Telephone: 714.754.1100 

Facsimile: 714.754.0826 

e-mail: rmorton@hbblaw.com 

bmoore@hbblaw.com 

Attorneys for Cross-defendant ALL SEASONS MOVING & STORAGE, INC. dba DON 

HEMSTEDS VAN AND STORAGE (erroneously sued as Don Hemsted's Van & 

Storage, Inc. herein as ROE 1) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

FRAS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION, 

INC., IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC., 

and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC., 

Cross-complainant, 

v. 

SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION, 

INC. and ROES 1 through 500, inclusive, 

Cross-defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 2:09-cv-01242-MCE-DAD 

[Assigned to Judge Morrison C. England, 

Jr.] 

STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE 

ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND FILE 

ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT; 

ORDER 

Cross-defendant ALL SEASONS MOVING & STORAGE, INC. dba DON 

HEMSTEDS VAN AND STORAGE (erroneously sued as Don Hemsted's Van & Storage, 

Inc. herein as ROE 1) (hereinafter “All Seasons”), by and through its attorneys of record, 

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, and Defendant and Cross-Complainant IKON OFFICE 

Case 2:09-cv-01242-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 12
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 

SOLUTIONS, INC.’s (hereinafter “Ikon”), by and through its attorneys of record, Wood, 

Smith, Henning & Berman LLP, hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 

Whereas, on or about April 3, 2009, Plaintiff FRAS, INC., filed a Complaint against 

Defendants SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION, INC., Ikon, and DOES 1 through 20, 

inclusive, in the Superior Court of California – County of Shasta, Case No. 165835. 

Whereas, on or about May 6, 2009, Defendants STI and Ikon removed this matter 

from the Superior Court of Shasta County to the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California. 

Whereas, on or about May 8, 2009, Ikon filed a Cross-Complaint against STI and 

ROES 1 through 500, inclusive. 

Whereas, on or about July 2, 2009, Ikon filed Roe Amendment No. 1 to Ikon’s 

Cross-Complaint naming DON HEMSTED’S VAN & STORAGE, INC. as Roe No. 1. 

Whereas, a Request for Entry of Default was entered against Cross-Defendant DON 

HEMSTED’S VAN & STORAGE, INC. as to Ikon’s Cross-Complaint. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED: 

1. The Default entered against Cross-Defendant DON HEMSTED’S VAN & 

STORAGE, INC., as to Ikon’s Cross-Complaint shall be set aside. 

2. Cross-Defendant ALL SEASONS MOVING & STORAGE, INC. dba DON 

HEMSTEDS VAN AND STORAGE (erroneously sued as Don Hemsted's Van & Storage, 

Inc. herein as ROE 1) shall be permitted to file the Answer to Ikon’s Cross-Complaint, 

attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Cross-Defendant All Seasons’ Answer is deemed filed and 

served on all parties as of the date of the Court's Order setting aside the default. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:09-cv-01242-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 04/08/10 Page 2 of 12
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 

Dated: March 30, 2010 HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP 

By: /s/ 

Richard E. Morton 

Brian A. Moore 

Attorneys for Cross-defendant ALL 

SEASONS MOVING & STORAGE, 

INC. dba DON HEMSTEDS VAN AND 

STORAGE (erroneously sued as Don 

Hemsted's Van & Storage, Inc. herein as 

ROE 1) 

Dated: March 27, 2010 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN 

LLP 

By: /s/ 

Michael C. Guasco 

Attorneys for Defendant and CrossComplainant IKON OFFICE 

SOLUTIONS, INC. 

Case 2:09-cv-01242-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 04/08/10 Page 3 of 12
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 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1 The Default entered against Cross-Defendant DON HEMSTED’S VAN & 

STORAGE, INC., as to Ikon’s Cross-Complaint is hereby set aside. 

2. Cross-Defendant ALL SEASONS MOVING & STORAGE, INC. dba DON 

HEMSTEDS VAN AND STORAGE’s (erroneously sued as Don Hemsted's Van & 

Storage, Inc. herein as ROE 1) Answer to Ikon’s Cross-Complaint, attached hereto as 

Exhibit "A," is hereby deemed filed and served on all parties as of the date of this Order 

setting aside the default. 

Dated: April 7, 2010

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01242-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 04/08/10 Page 4 of 12
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 

 EXHIBIT "A"

Case 2:09-cv-01242-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 04/08/10 Page 5 of 12
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 

Richard E. Morton (Bar No. 54188) 

Brian A. Moore (Bar No. 252900) 

HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP 

5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900 

Santa Ana, California 92707 

Telephone: 714.754.1100 

Facsimile: 714.754.0826 

e-mail: rmorton@hbblaw.com 

bmoore@hbblaw.com 

Attorneys for Cross-defendant ALL SEASONS MOVING & STORAGE, INC. dba DON 

HEMSTEDS VAN AND STORAGE (erroneously sued as Don Hemsted's Van & 

Storage, Inc. herein as ROE 1) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

FRAS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION, 

INC., IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC., 

and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC., 

Cross-complainant, 

v. 

SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION, 

INC. and ROES 1 through 500, inclusive, 

Cross-defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 2:09-cv-01242-MCE-DAD 

[Assigned to Judge Morrison C. England, 

Jr.] 

ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT 

Cross-defendant, ALL SEASONS MOVING & STORAGE, INC. dba DON 

HEMSTEDS VAN AND STORAGE (erroneously sued as Don Hemsted's Van & Storage, 

Case 2:09-cv-01242-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 04/08/10 Page 6 of 12
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 

Inc. herein as ROE 1) (hereinafter “Cross-Defendant”), answers IKON OFFICE 

SOLUTIONS, INC.’s (hereinafter “Ikon”) Cross-Complaint as follows: 

1. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth, intent or meaning of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Ikon’s 

Cross-Complaint, and, therefore, denies the same. 

2. Cross-Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Ikon’s 

Cross-Complaint as to Cross-Defendant. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth, intent or meaning of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 2 of Ikon’s Cross-Complaint relating to other cross-defendants, and, therefore, 

denies the same. 

3. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth, intent or meaning of the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Ikon’s 

Cross-Complaint, and, therefore, denies the same. 

4. Cross-Defendant admits that Cross-Defendant disputes the contentions in 

Ikon’s Cross-Complaint. Cross-Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 

of Ikon’s Cross-Complaint as to Cross-Defendant. Cross-Defendant lacks information or 

knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth, intent or meaning of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 4 of Ikon’s Cross-Complaint relating to other cross-defendants, 

and, therefore, denies the same. 

5. Cross-Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Ikon’s 

Cross-Complaint as to Cross-Defendant. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth, intent or meaning of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 5 of Ikon’s Cross-Complaint relating to other cross-defendants, and, therefore, 

denies the same. 

6. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth, intent or meaning of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Ikon’s 

Cross-Complaint, and, therefore, denies the same. 

Case 2:09-cv-01242-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 04/08/10 Page 7 of 12
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. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth, intent or meaning of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Ikon’s 

Cross-Complaint, and, therefore, denies the same. 

8. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth, intent or meaning of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Ikon’s 

Cross-Complaint, and, therefore, denies the same. 

9. Cross-Defendant incorporates by reference its response to the allegations of 

Paragraphs 1 through 8 of Ikon’s Cross-Complaint, as set forth above, as if fully set forth 

herein. 

10. Cross-Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 of Ikon’s CrossComplaint as to Cross-Defendant. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth, intent or meaning of the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 10 of Ikon’s Cross-Complaint, and, therefore, denies the same. 

11. Cross-Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 of Ikon’s CrossComplaint as to Cross-Defendant. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth, intent or meaning of the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 11 of Ikon’s Cross-Complaint, and, therefore, denies the same. 

12. Cross-Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Ikon’s 

Cross-Complaint as to Cross-Defendant. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth, intent or meaning of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 12 of Ikon’s Cross-Complaint relating to other cross-defendants, and, therefore, 

denies the same. 

13. Cross-Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 of Ikon’s CrossComplaint as to Cross-Defendant. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth, intent or meaning of the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 13 of Ikon’s Cross-Complaint, and, therefore, denies the same. 

Case 2:09-cv-01242-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 04/08/10 Page 8 of 12
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. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth, intent or meaning of the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Ikon’s 

Cross-Complaint, and, therefore, denies the same. 

15. Cross-Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of Ikon’s 

Cross-Complaint as to Cross-Defendant. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth, intent or meaning of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 15 of Ikon’s Cross-Complaint relating to other cross-defendants, and, therefore, 

denies the same. 

16. Cross-Defendant incorporates by reference its response to the allegations of 

Paragraphs 1 through 15 of Ikon’s Cross-Complaint, as set forth above, as if fully set forth 

herein. 

17. Cross-Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Ikon’s 

Cross-Complaint as to Cross-Defendant. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth, intent or meaning of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 17 of Ikon’s Cross-Complaint relating to other cross-defendants, and, therefore, 

denies the same. 

18. Cross-Defendant incorporates by reference its response to the allegations of 

Paragraphs 1 through 17 of Ikon’s Cross-Complaint, as set forth above, as if fully set forth 

herein. 

19. Cross-Defendant admits that a cross-complaint has been filed against it by 

Ikon. Cross-Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth, intent or meaning of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Ikon’s 

Cross-Complaint, and, therefore, denies the same. 

Case 2:09-cv-01242-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 04/08/10 Page 9 of 12
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

CROSS-DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Fails to State Facts) 

1. Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and upon such information and 

belief alleges that Ikon has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action 

against this Cross-Defendant. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statute of Limitations) 

2. Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and upon such information and 

belief alleges that Ikon’s claims are barred or otherwise limited by the applicable statute of 

limitations. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Comparative Negligence) 

3. Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and upon such information and 

belief alleges that if Ikon was injured or damaged in the manner alleged, or otherwise, 

which this Cross-Defendant denies, then Ikon was comparatively negligent, and such 

comparative negligence proximately caused Ikon’s injuries and damages, if any. 

Accordingly, Ikon’s damages should be reduced in proportion to its own fault. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Negligence of Third Parties) 

 4. Cross-Defendant alleges that the alleged incident and damages complained 

of by Ikon, if any there actually were, said incident and damages being expressly denied by 

this answering Cross-Defendant, were proximately caused by the negligence of firms, 

persons, corporations, or entities other than this answering Cross-Defendant, and said 

negligence comparatively reduces the percentage of any fault, if it should be found that 

this answering Cross-Defendant was negligent, which this Cross-Defendant expressly 

denies. 

Case 2:09-cv-01242-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 04/08/10 Page 10 of 12
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 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Intervening or Superseding Causes) 

5. Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and upon such information and 

belief alleges that independent, intervening or superseding forces and/or actions of third 

parties proximately caused or contributed to Ikon’s alleged losses or damages, barring 

recovery from Cross-Defendant. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Laches) 

6. All claims against this Cross-Defendant are barred, in whole or in part, by 

laches and delay on the part of Ikon, to the prejudice of this Cross-Defendant. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Mitigate) 

7. Ikon has failed to take reasonable action to mitigate its alleged damages, in 

whole or in part; and, as a result of such failure and refusal to undertake reasonable 

mitigation efforts, Ikon’s purported claims for damages herein are barred in their entirety. 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Credits, Reductions and Setoffs) 

8. Pursuant to the common law right to credits, reductions and setoffs, any 

settlement reached between Ikon and a named Cross-Defendant in this action shall reduce 

the amount of Cross-Defendant’s recovery by the stipulated amount of the agreement, or in 

the amount of consideration paid, whichever is greater. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Reservation) 

9. Cross-Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information on 

which to form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet, unstated affirmative 

defenses available. Cross-Defendant reserves herein the right to assert additional defenses 

in the event that the discovery indicates it would be appropriate. 

Case 2:09-cv-01242-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 04/08/10 Page 11 of 12
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 

WHEREFORE, Cross-Defendant prays that Ikon take nothing by its CrossComplaint, for costs of suit herein incurred, and for such other and further relief as the 

Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. 

Dated: March 30, 2010 HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP 

By: /s/ 

Richard E. Morton 

Brian A. Moore 

Attorneys for Cross-defendant ALL 

SEASONS MOVING & STORAGE, 

INC. dba DON HEMSTEDS VAN AND 

STORAGE (erroneously sued as Don 

Hemsted's Van & Storage, Inc. herein as 

ROE 1) 

 

Case 2:09-cv-01242-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 04/08/10 Page 12 of 12