ABSTRACT: In JOHN HANSON Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, CASE NO. M128436, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY, the ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA document. filing date August 18, 2014, is embedded; the text is reproduced.
Defendant City of Cannel-by-the-Sea, ("Defendant" or "City'·) hereby responds to the unverified Complaint of Plaintiff John Hanson ("Plaintiff') as follows:
1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, Defendant generally denies each and every allegation set forth in the Complaint.
2. Defendant further alleges the following separate and distinct Affirmative Defenses to the causes of action alleged in the Complaint:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSEDefendant City of Cannel-by-the-Sea, ("Defendant" or "City'·) hereby responds to the unverified Complaint of Plaintiff John Hanson ("Plaintiff') as follows:
1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, Defendant generally denies each and every allegation set forth in the Complaint.
2. Defendant further alleges the following separate and distinct Affirmative Defenses to the causes of action alleged in the Complaint:
Plaintiffs Complaint, and every cause of action contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action.
JOHN HANSON Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants
CASE NO. M128436
SECOND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Plaintiffs
claims, and each of them, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.
THIRD
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs
claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
waiver.
FOURTH
AFFIR1v1ATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs
claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
unclean hands.
FIFTH
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs
claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
laches.
SIXTH
AFFIRMITIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff is
estopped from asserting any of the claims against Defendant contained in the
Complaint by reason of his own acts, omissions, representations and courses of
conduct.
SEVENTH
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs
claims, and each of them, are barred, in whole or in part, because the actions
respecting the subject matters in the Complaint were undertaken in good faith,
with the absence of discriminatory and/or malicious intent to injure Plaintiff,
and constitute lawful, proper and justified means to further the purpose of
engaging in and continuing the City's affairs.
EIGHTH
AFFIRMITIVE 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
AFFIRMATIVE 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
AFFIRMATIVE 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 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.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays
as follow:
1. For entry of
judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff;
2. That
Plaintiff take nothing by way of his 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 with applicable law; and
5. For such
other and further relief as this Court may deem just.
DATED: August
18, 2014
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
A Professional
Corporation
By
______________________
Jeffrey A.
Dinkin
Robert D.
Dominguez
Attorneys for
Defendant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Hanson v. City of Carmel Answer of Defendant City of Carmel-By-The-sea
Hanson v. City of Carmel Answer of Defendant City of Carmel-By-The-sea
JOHN HANSON Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants
CASE NO. M128436
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
