Attorney for W.R. Grace & Co., a California corporation doing business as “Cryovac Factory”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

ANNE ANDERSON, an individual, AND ANNE ANDERSON as executor of the estate of JAMES ANDERSON Plaintiffs, vs.
W.R. GRACE & Co., a California corporation doing business as “Cryovac Factory”, and DOES ONE THROUGH FIVE Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No,:

ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT Defendant, W.R. GRACE & Co., a California corporation doing business as “Cryovac Factory,” answers the complaint of plaintiff Anne Anderson, an individual, and Anne Anderson as executor of the estate of James Anderson.
RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS
1. Defendant W.R. Grace & Co. lacks sufficient information or belief to the truth of the allegations contained in the plaintiffs’ complaint. Based on this lack of information or belief, defendant denies all allegations in the complaint.
2. With respect to paragraphs 1 through 14 of the complaint, defendant denies that it disposed of any toxic chemicals which could have or did contaminate the aquifer.
RESPONSE TO FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
3. With respect to paragraph A though B of the complaint, defendant at all times exercised due care under the circumstances and acted in good faith in accordance with reasonable and customary standards in the industry and in the locality
4. With respect to paragraph C of the complaint, defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.
5. With respect to paragraph D of the complaint, defendant denies that it had any knowledge that TCE is a dangerous toxin that can cause serious health issues and death.
6. With respect to paragraph E of the complaint, defendant acted reasonably and in good faith with due care for the rights and safety of others. RESPONSE TO SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
7. With respect to paragraph F of the complaint, defendant realleges and incorporates by reference denials in paragraphs 1 through 6 of this answer.
8. With respect to paragraphs G through I of the complaint, defendant at all times exercised due care and acted in good faith.
RESPONSE TO THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
9. With respect to paragraph J of the complaint, defendant realleges and incorporates by reference denials in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this answer.
10. With respect to paragraphs K through L of the complaint, defendant denies the allegations in these paragraphs.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Statute of limitations The plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statues of limitations and/or laches. SECOND