Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
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

Ratings: (0)|Views: 291|Likes:
Published by L. A. Paterson
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,
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,

More info:

Published by: L. A. Paterson on Aug 25, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/29/2014

pdf

text

original

 
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
FILE
~U
181 14
9
10
12
3
SUPERIOR COURT
OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY
OF
MONTEREY
14
JOHN
HA.t \JSON
5
6
Plaintiff,
v.
17
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and
18 \
DOES 1 through 100,
19
20
21
22
23
24
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
ITY
O
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
 
 
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.
1
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.
4
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
FFIRvi TIVE
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
especting 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 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
'1
l
22
23
I
241
25
26
27 28
STRADUNG
YOCCA
CARLSON
RAt rH
L.>..\VY[ l.S
$
·~f lTA
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.
T NTH
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.
TW LFTH
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
02910-0004

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->