o

F D LE P
1 Michael J. Collins, Bar No. 65506
Julian B. Bellenghi, Bar No 129942
2 COLLINS & BELLENGHI, LLP DEG-^2007
1201 Dove Street, Suite 570
3 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 851-9311
4 Facsimile: (949) 851-9333

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-defendant,

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, a
6 California Non-Profit Religious Corporation; and plaintiff, NEW HOPE
FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER, a California Non-Profit Religious Corporation
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - WESTERN DIVISION
9
RIVERSIDE BRANCH
10
11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT CASE NO. RIC 482762
COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF
12 GOD, a California Non-Profit Assigned for All Purposes To:
Religious Corporation; and NEW Honorable Edward Webster
13 HOPE FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER, a Department 05
California Non Profit Religious
14 Corporation, Complaint Filed: October 11, 2007
15 Plaintiffs,
ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED
16 v. CROSS-COMPLAINT
17 KENNETH M. PETERS, JR.; ALAN R
SPITALNICK; etc.; et al.
18 Defendants.
19 KENNETH M. PETERS, JR; and ALAN
R. SPITALNICK,
20
Cros s-Complainants
21
v.
22
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
23 DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE
ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, a California
24 non-profit religious
corporation; and ROES 1 through
25 50, inclusive,

26 Cro s s-de f endant

27
28

ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

 c
1 Cross-defendant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE

2 ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, a California non profit religious corporation

3 [SCDC], answering for itself, and for no other cross-defendant,

4 responds as follows to the verified first amended cross-complaint

5 [cross-complaint] of KENNETH M. PETERS, JR. [PETERS] and ALAN

6 SPITALNICK [SPITALNICK].

7 1. SCDC admits the allegations in 1 1 of the cross-complaint.

8 2. In response to 1 2 of the cross complaint, SCDC admits that

9 PETERS and SPITALNICK are individuals residing in the County of

10 Riverside, California. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each

11 and every remaining allegation in 1 2.

12 3. In response to 1 3 of the cross-complaint, SCDC denies,

13 generally and specifically that it is indebted to cross-complainants.

14 SCDC admits the remaining allegations in % 3.

15 4. SCDC admits the allegations in % 4 of the cross-complaint.

16 5. SCDC is without sufficient information to form a belief as

17 to the veracity of the allegations in % 5 of the cross-complaint and

18 based thereon, denies, generally and specifically, each and every

19 allegation in f 5.

20 6. SCDC is without sufficient information to form a belief as

21 to the veracity of the allegations in f 6 of the cross-complaint and

22 based thereon, denies, generally and specifically, each and every

23 allegation in % 6.

24 7. SCDC admits the allegations in f 7 of the cross-complaint.

25 8. SCDC admits the allegations in 1 8 of the cross-complaint.

26 9. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

27 allegation in % 9 of the cross-complaint.

28 10. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

2

ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

 c 3
1 allegation in <f 10 of the cross-complaint.
2 11. SCDC admits the allegations in ^| 10 of the cross - complaint.
3 12. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every
4 allegation in ^[ 12 of the cross-complaint.
5 13. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every
6 allegation in % 13 of the cross-complaint.
7 14. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every
8 allegation in ^ 14 of the cross-complaint.
9 15. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every
10 allegation in f 15 of the cross-complaint.
11 16. SCDC incorporates by reference its responses to *h*h 1
12 through 15 of the cross-complaint as though fully set forth herein.
13 17. In response to % 17 of the cross-complaint, SCDC denies,
14 generally and specifically that cross-complainants are the duly
15 elected and acting board of directors of NEW HOPE and that it has
16 made false and misleading representations and claims. SCDC admits
17 the remaining allegations in % 17.
18 18. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, the final sentence
19 of 11 18 of the cross-complaint, because it is unintelligible. SCDC
20 admits the remaining allegations in ^ 18.
21 19. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every
22 allegation in f 19 of the cross-complaint.
23 20. SCDC incorporates by reference its responses to %% 1
24 through 15 of the cross-complaint as though fully set forth herein.
25 21. In response to 1 21, SCDC admits that NEW HOPE has been
26 record title holder of the Property in fee simple, since November 4,
27 1997 by virtue of a grant deed recorded that date as Instrument
28 # 402488 of the Official Records of Riverside County. SCDC denies,
3

ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

 C 3
generally and specifically, each and every remaining allegation in

1 21.
22. In response to K 22 of the cross-complaint, SCDC denies,
generally and specifically, that cross-complaints have any lawful
claim to title to the Property. SCDC denies, generally and
specifically, each and every remaining allegation in 1 22.
23. In response to H 23 of the cross-complaint, SCDC lacks
sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to claims asserted by
unnamed cross-defendants, and based thereon, denies, generally and
specifically, said allegation. SCDC denies, generally and
specifically, each and every remaining allegation in K 23.
24. In response to K 24 of the cross-complaint, SCDC admits
that cross-complainants seek a determination. SDCD denies, generally
and specifically, each and every remaining allegation in H 24.

25. SCDC incorporates by reference its responses to \% 1

through 15 of the cross-complaint as though fully set forth herein.
26. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every
allegation in % 26 of the cross-complaint.
27. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every
allegation in % 27 of the cross-complaint.

28 SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every

allegation in K 28 of the cross-complaint.
29. SCDC incorporates by reference its responses to UH 1
through 15 of the cross-complaint as though fully set forth herein
30. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every
allegation in % 30 of the cross-complaint.
31. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every
allegation in % 31 of the cross-complaint.
4

ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

 3
32. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every
allegation in ^ 32 of the cross-complaint.
33. SCDC incorporates by reference its responses to tl i
through 15 of the cross-complaint as though fully set forth herein.
34. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every
allegation in % 34 of the cross-complaint.
35. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every
allegation in % 35 of the cross-complaint.
36. SCDC denies, generally and specifically, each and every
allegation in f 36 of the cross-complaint.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
37. The cross-complaint and each if its purported causes of
action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
or to state a claim upon which relief of any kind can be granted
against SCDC.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
38. The cross-complaint, and the whole thereof, is barred by
the doctrine of unclean hands.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
39. The cross-complaint, and the whole thereof, is barred by
the doctrine of laches.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
40. The cross-complaint, and the whole thereof, is barred by
the doctrine of waiver.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
41. The cross-complaint, and the whole thereof, is barred by
the doctrine of estoppel.

///

ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

 O
1 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 42. The cross-complaint and each and every claim alleged

3 therein are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.

4 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5 43. The cross-complaint, and the whole thereof, is barred by

6 the ecclesiastical doctrine.

7 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8 44. Cross-complainants are not the real parties in

9 interest, and otherwise have no standing to assert those claims

10 alleged in the cross-complaint.

11 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12 45. Those persons who have brought and/or pursued

13 the cross-complaint have no authority to act on behalf of NEW HOPE

14 FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER.

15 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16 46. The cross-complaint and each of its purported causes of

17 action fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to

18 the damages alleged.

19 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20 47. Cross-complainants have suffered no legally cognizable

21 damages as a result of the matters alleged in the cross-complaint.

22 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23 48. Any acts or omissions by SCDC were not the proximate

24 cause of any injuries suffered by the cross-complainants.

25 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

26 49. Cross-complainants' conduct concerning the matters alleged

27 in the cross-complaint constitutes carelessness, negligence,

28 misconduct, and/or bad faith, or cross-complainants were otherwise at

6

ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

1 fault, and the resulting injuries, if any, sustained by cross-

2 complainants were proximately caused and contributed to, in whole or

3 in part, by the conduct of cross-complainants and cross-complainants'

4 recovery, if any, should thereby be reduced in proportion to their

5 fault.

6 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7 50. Cross-complainants failed to mitigate their damages and

8 failed to exercise due diligence in an effort to mitigate their

9 damages.

10 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

11 51. None of the causes of action alleged in the cross-complaint

12 entitle cross-complainants to an award of attorney's fees.

13 WHEREFORE SCDC prays:

14 1. That cross-complainants take nothing and judgment be

15 entered in SCDC s favor;

16 2. For costs of suit herein;

17 3. For its attorneys' fees; and

18 4. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just

19 and proper.

20
21 Dated: December 19 2007 & BE

22
23
MICHAEL J. COLLINS, ESQ.
24 JULIAN B. BELLENGHI, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and
25 Cross-defendants SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL
26 OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD; and
Plaintiff NEW HOPE FAMILY
27 WORSHIP CENTER

28

ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

 DEM8
-« ™ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ - ~ ~ - — FAX N0
- 1 9A9 252 8435
12/17/2087 09:31 9498519333 COLLINS BELLENGHI U40
° P.

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

I. Ray aashelg,typftOtPtlntNWM
PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CAUFORMIA, COUWTY OF

i am employed h the county of _ „ State of CaMomte.
am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business addresa to*.
On, \ served theforegoingdocument described as

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

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

aew.?fl»
 ~)

1 RE: SCDC and NEW HOPE FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER v, PETERS, SPITALNICK, e t al
Case No. CASE NO. RIC 482762
2 File No. AOG-8
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
4 SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE
5
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I
6 am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my
business address is 1201 Dove Street, Suite 570, Newport Beach, CA
7 92660.

8 On December 19, 2007 I served the document(s) described as:

ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT by placing a copy
9 thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope and addressing it as follows:

10 CHRISTOPHER M. CULLEN Attorney for defendants and

LANAK & HANNA, P.C. cross-complainants, KENNETH
11 400 N. Tustin Ave, Suite 120 M. PETERS, JR.and ALAN R.
Santa Ana, CA 92705 SPITALNICK
12

13

14
I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection
15 and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it
would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day
16 with postage thereon fully prepaid at Newport Beach, California in
the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the
17 party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation
date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of
18 deposit for mailing in affidavit.

19 X (By U.S. Mail) I deposited such envelope to be delivered

in the U.S. mail box at 1201 Dove Street, Newport Beach,
20 California. Executed on December 19, 2007.

21 X (State) I declare under

foregoing is true and o
22
By:
23

24

25

26

27

28