1 JEFFREY A.

DINKIN, SBN 111422

jdinkin@sycr.com
2
ROBERT D. DOMINGUEZ, SBN 233984
3 rdominguez@sycr.com
S1RADLING YOCCA CARLSON &RAUTH
4 A Professional Corporation
5
800 Anacapa Street, Suite A
Santa Barbara, California 9310 l
6
Telephone: (805) 730-6800
Facsimile: (805) 730-6801
7
Attorneys for Defendant
8 City of Carmel-by-the Sea
FILED
~ U 181014
9
10
11
12
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
14 JOHN HA.t'\JSON
15
16
Plaintiff,
v.
17 CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and
18
\ DOES 1 through 100,
19
20
21
22
23
241
25
26
27
28
Defendants.
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSO'i & RAUTH
S.l.t\'TA tHRBARA
DOCSSB/54037v l/ l 029! 0-0004
CASE NO. M128436
Assigned to: Hon. Thomas W. Wills
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Dept: 14
Complaint Filed:
Discovery Cutoff:
Motion Cutoff:
Trial Date:
July 3, 2014
Per Code
Per Code
Not Set
FILED BY FAX
ANSWER
1 Defendant City of Cannel-by-the-Sea, ("Defendant" or "City') hereby responds to the
2 unverified Complaint of Plaintiff John Hanson ("Plaintiff') as follows:
3 1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, Defendant generally
4 denies each and every allegation set forth in the Complaint.
5 2. Defendant further alleges the following separate and distinct Affurnative Defenses to
6 the causes of action alleged in the Complaint:
7 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 Plaintiffs Complaint, and every cause of action contained therein, fails to state facts
9 sufficient to state a cause of action.
10 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
11 I Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.
12 TIDRD AFFIRlVIA TIVE DEFENSE
13 Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver.
14 FOURTH AFFIR1v1ATIVE DEFENSE
15 Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
16 unclean hands.
17 FIFTH AFFIRlVIATIVE DEFENSE
18 Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.
19 SIXTH AFFIRviATIVE DEFENSE
20 Plaintiff is estopped from asserting any of the claims against Defendant contained in the
21 Cornpiaint by reason of his own acts, omissions, representations and courses of conduct.
22 SEVENTH A.FFIRlVIA TIVE DEFENSE
23 Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, because the actions
24 I respecting the subject matters in the Complaint were undertaken in good faith, with the absence
25 of discriminatory and/or malicious intent to injure Plaintiff, and constitute lawful, proper and
26 justified means to further the purpose of engaging in and continuing the City's affairs.
27
28
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSOl\ & RAUTH
-2-
LA.WYEitS
iiM.;TA BARBAR,\
DOCSSB/54037v I /I 02910-0004
1
2
"" .)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
"'1
Ll
22
23
I
241
25
26
27
28
STRADUNG YOCCA
CARLSON & RAt;rH
L.>..\VY[!l.S
$ ~ f l T A BARJ}t\R.\
EIGHTH AFFIRl'VIA TIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, as a result of Plaintiffs
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies .
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant has
not interfered with any protectable property interest alleged in the Complaint.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or part, because the relief sought
would improperly interfere with Defendant's discretionary authority.
ELEVENTH AFFIRt'VIATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are subject to setoff, offset, and/or recoupment,
:including, but not limited to, for moneys paid to Plaintiff that exceeded any amounts to which he
was entitled.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or part, because he was an at-will
employee of the City.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in pru1, by the privileges and
immunities applicable to public agencies.
FOURTEENTH AF'FIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of after-acquired
evidence.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, if any, as required by law.
SIXTEENTH AFFIR1\1ATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent Plaintiff has suffered physical or mental injuries-including "emotional
distress"-because of Defendant's conduct, any such damages suffered by Plaintiff are within
-3-
DOCSSB/5403 7v I I I 02910-0004
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
STRADLI:--:G YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWY!D.S
SANTA 8,\!H\,\IU
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board by operation of
California Labor Code section 3200 et seq.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATNE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff ratified,
consented, and/or acquiesced to the conduct about which he now complains.
\VHEREFORE, Defendant prays as follow:
1. For entry of judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff;
2. That Plaintiff take nothing by way ofhis Complaint;
3. That Defendant be awarded costs of suit herein;
4. That Defendant be awarded its attorney fees and costs incurred in defending this suit
in accordance \'Vith applicable law; and
5. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just.
DATED: August 18,2014
j DOCSSB/54037v l!l029l 0-0004
STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH
A Professional Corporation
By t ~ l t t K
Jeffrey A. Dilili.n---
5
Robert D. Dominguez
Attorneys for Defendant City of Carmel-by-the
Sea
-4-