Preview
DeMaria Law Firm, A.P.C. [Exempt From FilingFee
Anthony N. DeMaria, #177894 Government Code §6103]
ademaria@demarialawfirm.com
1690 W. Shaw Ave., Suite 220
Fresno, California 93711 E-FILED
Telephone: (559) 206-24 l 0 3/12/2020 4:25 PM
Facsimile: (559) 570-0126 Superior Court of California
County of Fresno
\OOOQOUIAUJNv—I
Attorneys for STATE CENTER COMMUNITY
By: . Herrera, Deputy
COLLEGE DISTRICT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
ANITA REYES, Case No.: 19CECG03 826
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
v.
STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT, MADERA COMMUNITY
COLLEGE CENTER and DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
NNNNNNNNNHHH—au—a—np—an—an—an—a
COMES NOW, DEFENDANT, STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
and in answering the plaintiffs Complaint on file herein
WNQMAWN—‘OOMNQMAL’JNv—‘O
state as follows:
Pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure Section 43 1 .30, this answering defendant denies generally
and specifically each and every allegation of the Complaint.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant asserts that the Complaint, and each and every cause ofaction therein, fails to state
facts sufficient to constitute a cause of against this answering Defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant asserts that the Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is barred by
the applicable statutes of limitation.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant asserts that any and all acts by Defendant were just, fair, privileged, with good
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
cause, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory, and in good faith compliance with controlling law.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff agreed, consented to, and welcomed the acts alleged in the
Complaint.
\OOOQC\M-5LIJNn—n
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That the Plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care, caution or prudence to avoid the happening of
~
said incident and said incident and the injuries, ifany, and damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff, was
directly and proximately caused and contributed to by the fault of said Plaintiff.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That the sole and proximate cause of the incident complained of by the Plaintiffwas due to the
acts and/or omissions of persons and entities other than this answering Defendant.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This answering Defendant asserts that itsresponsibility, if any, and/or liability, if any, as to
non-economic damages, if any, shall be limited to the percentage of fault attributable, if any, to this
answering Defendant, and a separate judgment be so rendered.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This answering Defendant
NNNNNNNNNt—‘r—In—In—nv—nu—nn—an—n—AH
alleges that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury or damage
alleged in the Complaint.
OOQQMAMNi—‘OKOOONQMACANHO
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The causes of action attempted to be stated and set forth in said Complaint herein were not
timely filed and are barred by the applicable statute of limitations set forth by the Code of Civil
Procedure.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff, by the exercise ofreasonable effort and/or care, could have
mitigated the damages alleged to have been suffered, but Plaintiffhas failed, neglected, and refused to
mitigate her damages, if any, as required by law.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches.
2
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by the doctrine of Unclean Hands.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff is barred from recovery based on the fact that the alleged defect and/or risk of harm
and/or dangerous condition
\OOOQQUI-bMNn—a
was open and obvious.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant is entitled to an offset credit or reduction of any monies in consideration already
paid and for any and all Workers' Compensation benefits, medical payments and/or other benefits
paid.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant asserts application of the Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy Rule.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant asserts the special employee doctrine.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant asserts release, waiver, satisfaction and/or accord.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That at all times herein mentioned, this answering Defendant is informed and believes and
NNNNNNNNNn—Av—In—Ir—tu—‘v—‘HHH—n
thereon alleges as follows:
OOQQMAWNHOOOONOMQWNi—‘O
That on and prior to March 18, 2019, plaintiff was an employee of plaintiff’s
employer, with its principal place of business in the State of California and were acting within the
course and scope of said employment at said time and place. That said employer, acting through its
officers, agents and employees, so negligently and carelessly directed, supervised, maintained,
entrusted, instructed, and controlled said plaintiff so as to proximately cause the injury to plaintiff
who, at the time ofthe accident referred to in said Complaint, was acting within the course and scope
of her employment for said employer. That at all times herein mentioned, plaintiff was subjected to
the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act ofthe State of California in that plaintiff sustained
injuries and properly damage arising out of and occurring within the course and scope of her
employment, and was subject to the provisions ofthe Labor Code of the State of California. That the
3
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER T0 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
plaintiff, the co-employees of plaintiff, and the employees of plaintiff’s employer were negligent in
that they negligently and carelessly directed, supervised, maintained, entrusted, instructed and
controlled said plaintiff and that said conduct on the part of said employer, its agents, servants,
officers and employees is imputed to said employer and to the Workers' Compensation insurer, and by
reason thereof, they are barred from recovering any
\OOOQQUIAUJN—a
sum or sums paid or payable to plaintiff, as and
for Workers' Compensation benefits under the Labor Code ofthe State of California and the Workers'
Compensation Act ofthe State of California, or any sum or sums for which plaintiffs employer and/or
its Workers' Compensation insurer is liable under the Labor Code of the State of California. If
plaintiff recovers against the defendant referred to in the Complaint on file herein, this answering
defendant prays that the court diminish and reduce said judgment by the amount of Workers'
Compensation benefits which have been paid or which shall be hereafter payable, or for which said
employer or its Workers' Compensation insurer shall be liable under the Labor Code of the State of
California, or to which plaintiffmay be entitled under the Workers' Compensation Act ofthe State of
California. That this answering defendant does not know the exact amount of any Workers'
Compensation benefits which shall be payable or for which the employer and its Workers'
Compensation insurer shall be liable in the future. This answering defendant prays leave to amend
Answer to Complaint to amount when the same become known.
NNNNNNNNNn—nt—n—ny—nn—nflr—tv—Av—Iu—a
their insert the precise shall
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This answering Defendant asserts that each
WQQM$MNHOOWQQM#WNHO
is a public entity or employee of a public entity
entitled to the immunities, and qualified immunities, by law, including those found in the Government
Code and Education Code, as afforded to public entities and their employees.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This answering Defendant asserts itsrights under the Eleventh Amendment, as to immunities
and jurisdictional protections.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant asserts that at the times and places alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff did
commit willful misconduct and/or negligent conduct in and about the matters alleged, which willful
misconduct and/or negligence proximately caused and contributed to whatever injury and/or damages
4
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff may have sustained, if any.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
All actions or inactions, and all allegations of tort against Defendant and its employees,
officers and trustees, are based on actions which were privileged and/or for which Defendant is
entitled to
\OOOQQMAUJNp—t immunity, the immunities applicable to the discretionary acts ofpublic employees, as well
as all other common law and statutory immunities applicable to Defendant.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant includes government and public officials acting within the authority and/or
discretion of their jobs and duties, and are, thereby, immune, both as an absolute immunity and as a
qualified immunity, from the allegations stated herein.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, based on the fact that this answering
"
Defendant’s conduct was made pursuant to the "good fait qualified immunity.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff is barred from recovery based on the doctrines ofwaiver, release and authorization for
Defendant’s conduct.
NNNNNNNNNHHHHn—AHp—tb—tv—Av—t
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant is informed and believes and based thereon assert that Plaintiffhas failed to exhaust
her administrative remedies as required by state and federal law.
WQQMAWNHOOWQQMAWNHO
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
All actions or inactions and all allegations oftort against Defendant and its employees, officers
and trustees, are based on actions which were privileged and/or immune.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That Plaintiff failed to comply with her obligations under the government tort claims act.
TWENTY—NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or
corrective opportunities provided by Defendant, or to otherwise avoid harm.
///
5
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff is barred from recovery, in whole or in part, based upon the doctrine of avoidable
UJN
consequences (the avoidable consequences doctrine).
THIRTY-ONE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each purported claim contained therein, is barred
since Defendant, and its agents, did not violate clearly established statutory rights.
\OOOQONUI-h
THIRTY-TWO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant asserts that Defendant reasonably believed the actions taken were lawful and is
entitled to a defense verdict and/or immunity for their actions therefrom.
10 THIRTY-THREE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 Plaintiff is barred from recovery, in whole or in part, based upon the discretionary immunity
12 applicable to all defendants, as stated in Government Code section 820.2, et seq.
13 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 The Complaint fails for the lack of an actual or constructive notice, and Defendant did not
15 have actual or constructive notice of the allegations and acts stated herein
16 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails, in whole or in part due to the business
18 necessity defense.
19 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 Defendant assert that at all times herein mentioned, it had no intention of discriminating
21 against the Plaintiff and acted in good faith in connection with the things and matters alleged in
22 plaintiffs Complaint on file herein.
23 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 Defendant asserts the defense of trivial defect.
25 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is
27 barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, including, but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure
28 §§ 335.1, 340 and Government Code §§ 12960, 12965 and relevant Federal Statutes, and the
6
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Government Tort Claim filing timelines.
THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This answering Defendant alleges that all acts or omissions by agents or employees of STATE
CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, and all defendants complained ofby Plaintiffwas
KOOOflQM-PUJNu—i
done in the exercise of discretion vested in such employees, agents and Defendant. Accordingly, such
employees and agents of STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT is immune from
liability pursuant to the provisions of Government Code §§800, ct seq. and 900 et seq.
FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant reasonably believed the actions taken were lawful and is entitled to a defense
verdict and/or immunity for its actions therefrom.
FORTY—FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff has waived her rights to recovery and all allegations of liability and damages against
Defendant.
FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, based upon the immunities, protections,
conditions and limitations found in Government Code Section 820 et seq., Sections 821, 820.4,
NNNNNNNNNn—‘p—ar—Ar—Av—ar—Av—‘Ht—I—a
820.8, 820.9, 821.4, 822.2, 835.4, 835, 835.2, 840, 840.2, 840.4, 840.6.
FORTY -SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
OOQQM-hWNHOOOOQQMAWNHO
Defendant is protected by the immunities, privileges and limitations of liability, as stated in
statutory and common law, afforded to public entities, the officers ofpublic entities and the employees
of public entities.
FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The facility, as built, complied with the then existing law and requirements at construction.
FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant is immune and/or free from liability, under Government Code Sections 835 and
835.2, and California law, as there was no dangerous condition on Defendant’s property.
7
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant is immune from liability under Government Code Sections 818 and 8 1 8.2, et.seq.
AWN FIFTY—FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant is immune from liability under Government Code Section 818.6.
FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant is immune from liability under Government Code Section 830.2.
\OOOQQKII
FIFTY—THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant asserts the defense and immunities ofGovernment Code Sections 830.4, 830.5, and
830.6, 830.8, 831, 831.2 and 831.3
10 FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 Defendant is immune from liability under the Recreational Use Immunity, and Government
12 Code Section 830 et. seq., 831 et. seq., 831.7 ct. sq.,and Civil Code Section 46.
13 FIFTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 Modifications were impractical and/or impossible.
15 FIFTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 Defendant asserts the state of art defense.
17 FIFTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 All codes, laws, regulations and standards were complied with by Defendant.
19 FIFTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 The incident and alleged injuries were caused by the actions and or negligence of other third _
21 parties.
22 FIFTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a beliefas to
24 whether they may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. This answering Defendant
25 reserves the right to assert additional defenses that are revealed by fithher investigation or by
26 discovery.
27 WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays that plaintiff take nothing by reason of the
28 Complaint herein, and that said defendant be hence dismissed and receive judgment for costs incurred
8
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
and for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Dated: March LZflOZO DEMARIA LAW FIRM, A.P.C.
Bv:
Anthony N. DeMaria
Attorneys for STATE CENTER COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
PROOF OF SERVICE
[\J
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. My business address is 7647 North Fresno
Street, Fresno, CA 93720.
On March 12, 2020, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this
action as follows:
Eugenia L. Steele
The Torkzadeh Law Firm
3240 E. Camino Real, Suite 26
Irvine, CA 92602
BY MAIL: I enclosed said document(s) in a sealed envelope 0r package addressed to the
persons at the address listed on the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing
following our ordinary business practices. Iam readily familiar with this business’s practice f0]
collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day the correspondence is
placed from collection and mailing it is deposited in the ordinary course ofbusiness with the United
States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully pre-paid.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this
Court at whose direction the service was made.
Executed on March 12, 2020, at Fresno, California.
WWW
Teri Maxwell
\
23
24
25
26
27
28
Preview
DeMaria Law Firm, A.P.C. [Exempt From FilingFee Anthony N. DeMaria, #177894 Government Code §6103] ademaria@demarialawfirm.com 1690 W. Shaw Ave., Suite 220 Fresno, California 93711 E-FILED Telephone: (559) 206-24 l 0 3/12/2020 4:25 PM Facsimile: (559) 570-0126 Superior Court of California County of Fresno \OOOQOUIAUJNv—I Attorneys for STATE CENTER COMMUNITY By: . Herrera, Deputy COLLEGE DISTRICT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO ANITA REYES, Case No.: 19CECG03 826 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT v. STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, MADERA COMMUNITY COLLEGE CENTER and DOES 1-20, Defendants. NNNNNNNNNHHH—au—a—np—an—an—an—a COMES NOW, DEFENDANT, STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, and in answering the plaintiffs Complaint on file herein WNQMAWN—‘OOMNQMAL’JNv—‘O state as follows: Pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure Section 43 1 .30, this answering defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation of the Complaint. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts that the Complaint, and each and every cause ofaction therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of against this answering Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts that the Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts that any and all acts by Defendant were just, fair, privileged, with good DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT cause, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory, and in good faith compliance with controlling law. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff agreed, consented to, and welcomed the acts alleged in the Complaint. \OOOQC\M-5LIJNn—n FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That the Plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care, caution or prudence to avoid the happening of ~ said incident and said incident and the injuries, ifany, and damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff, was directly and proximately caused and contributed to by the fault of said Plaintiff. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That the sole and proximate cause of the incident complained of by the Plaintiffwas due to the acts and/or omissions of persons and entities other than this answering Defendant. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This answering Defendant asserts that itsresponsibility, if any, and/or liability, if any, as to non-economic damages, if any, shall be limited to the percentage of fault attributable, if any, to this answering Defendant, and a separate judgment be so rendered. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This answering Defendant NNNNNNNNNt—‘r—In—In—nv—nu—nn—an—n—AH alleges that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury or damage alleged in the Complaint. OOQQMAMNi—‘OKOOONQMACANHO NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The causes of action attempted to be stated and set forth in said Complaint herein were not timely filed and are barred by the applicable statute of limitations set forth by the Code of Civil Procedure. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff, by the exercise ofreasonable effort and/or care, could have mitigated the damages alleged to have been suffered, but Plaintiffhas failed, neglected, and refused to mitigate her damages, if any, as required by law. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches. 2 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by the doctrine of Unclean Hands. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff is barred from recovery based on the fact that the alleged defect and/or risk of harm and/or dangerous condition \OOOQQUI-bMNn—a was open and obvious. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant is entitled to an offset credit or reduction of any monies in consideration already paid and for any and all Workers' Compensation benefits, medical payments and/or other benefits paid. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts application of the Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy Rule. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts the special employee doctrine. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts release, waiver, satisfaction and/or accord. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That at all times herein mentioned, this answering Defendant is informed and believes and NNNNNNNNNn—Av—In—Ir—tu—‘v—‘HHH—n thereon alleges as follows: OOQQMAWNHOOOONOMQWNi—‘O That on and prior to March 18, 2019, plaintiff was an employee of plaintiff’s employer, with its principal place of business in the State of California and were acting within the course and scope of said employment at said time and place. That said employer, acting through its officers, agents and employees, so negligently and carelessly directed, supervised, maintained, entrusted, instructed, and controlled said plaintiff so as to proximately cause the injury to plaintiff who, at the time ofthe accident referred to in said Complaint, was acting within the course and scope of her employment for said employer. That at all times herein mentioned, plaintiff was subjected to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act ofthe State of California in that plaintiff sustained injuries and properly damage arising out of and occurring within the course and scope of her employment, and was subject to the provisions ofthe Labor Code of the State of California. That the 3 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER T0 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT plaintiff, the co-employees of plaintiff, and the employees of plaintiff’s employer were negligent in that they negligently and carelessly directed, supervised, maintained, entrusted, instructed and controlled said plaintiff and that said conduct on the part of said employer, its agents, servants, officers and employees is imputed to said employer and to the Workers' Compensation insurer, and by reason thereof, they are barred from recovering any \OOOQQUIAUJN—a sum or sums paid or payable to plaintiff, as and for Workers' Compensation benefits under the Labor Code ofthe State of California and the Workers' Compensation Act ofthe State of California, or any sum or sums for which plaintiffs employer and/or its Workers' Compensation insurer is liable under the Labor Code of the State of California. If plaintiff recovers against the defendant referred to in the Complaint on file herein, this answering defendant prays that the court diminish and reduce said judgment by the amount of Workers' Compensation benefits which have been paid or which shall be hereafter payable, or for which said employer or its Workers' Compensation insurer shall be liable under the Labor Code of the State of California, or to which plaintiffmay be entitled under the Workers' Compensation Act ofthe State of California. That this answering defendant does not know the exact amount of any Workers' Compensation benefits which shall be payable or for which the employer and its Workers' Compensation insurer shall be liable in the future. This answering defendant prays leave to amend Answer to Complaint to amount when the same become known. NNNNNNNNNn—nt—n—ny—nn—nflr—tv—Av—Iu—a their insert the precise shall NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This answering Defendant asserts that each WQQM$MNHOOWQQM#WNHO is a public entity or employee of a public entity entitled to the immunities, and qualified immunities, by law, including those found in the Government Code and Education Code, as afforded to public entities and their employees. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This answering Defendant asserts itsrights under the Eleventh Amendment, as to immunities and jurisdictional protections. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts that at the times and places alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff did commit willful misconduct and/or negligent conduct in and about the matters alleged, which willful misconduct and/or negligence proximately caused and contributed to whatever injury and/or damages 4 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Plaintiff may have sustained, if any. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE All actions or inactions, and all allegations of tort against Defendant and its employees, officers and trustees, are based on actions which were privileged and/or for which Defendant is entitled to \OOOQQMAUJNp—t immunity, the immunities applicable to the discretionary acts ofpublic employees, as well as all other common law and statutory immunities applicable to Defendant. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant includes government and public officials acting within the authority and/or discretion of their jobs and duties, and are, thereby, immune, both as an absolute immunity and as a qualified immunity, from the allegations stated herein. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, based on the fact that this answering " Defendant’s conduct was made pursuant to the "good fait qualified immunity. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff is barred from recovery based on the doctrines ofwaiver, release and authorization for Defendant’s conduct. NNNNNNNNNHHHHn—AHp—tb—tv—Av—t TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant is informed and believes and based thereon assert that Plaintiffhas failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as required by state and federal law. WQQMAWNHOOWQQMAWNHO TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE All actions or inactions and all allegations oftort against Defendant and its employees, officers and trustees, are based on actions which were privileged and/or immune. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That Plaintiff failed to comply with her obligations under the government tort claims act. TWENTY—NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts that Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities provided by Defendant, or to otherwise avoid harm. /// 5 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff is barred from recovery, in whole or in part, based upon the doctrine of avoidable UJN consequences (the avoidable consequences doctrine). THIRTY-ONE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each purported claim contained therein, is barred since Defendant, and its agents, did not violate clearly established statutory rights. \OOOQONUI-h THIRTY-TWO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts that Defendant reasonably believed the actions taken were lawful and is entitled to a defense verdict and/or immunity for their actions therefrom. 10 THIRTY-THREE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 Plaintiff is barred from recovery, in whole or in part, based upon the discretionary immunity 12 applicable to all defendants, as stated in Government Code section 820.2, et seq. 13 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 The Complaint fails for the lack of an actual or constructive notice, and Defendant did not 15 have actual or constructive notice of the allegations and acts stated herein 16 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails, in whole or in part due to the business 18 necessity defense. 19 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 Defendant assert that at all times herein mentioned, it had no intention of discriminating 21 against the Plaintiff and acted in good faith in connection with the things and matters alleged in 22 plaintiffs Complaint on file herein. 23 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 Defendant asserts the defense of trivial defect. 25 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is 27 barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, including, but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure 28 §§ 335.1, 340 and Government Code §§ 12960, 12965 and relevant Federal Statutes, and the 6 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Government Tort Claim filing timelines. THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This answering Defendant alleges that all acts or omissions by agents or employees of STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, and all defendants complained ofby Plaintiffwas KOOOflQM-PUJNu—i done in the exercise of discretion vested in such employees, agents and Defendant. Accordingly, such employees and agents of STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT is immune from liability pursuant to the provisions of Government Code §§800, ct seq. and 900 et seq. FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant reasonably believed the actions taken were lawful and is entitled to a defense verdict and/or immunity for its actions therefrom. FORTY—FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff has waived her rights to recovery and all allegations of liability and damages against Defendant. FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, based upon the immunities, protections, conditions and limitations found in Government Code Section 820 et seq., Sections 821, 820.4, NNNNNNNNNn—‘p—ar—Ar—Av—ar—Av—‘Ht—I—a 820.8, 820.9, 821.4, 822.2, 835.4, 835, 835.2, 840, 840.2, 840.4, 840.6. FORTY -SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OOQQM-hWNHOOOOQQMAWNHO Defendant is protected by the immunities, privileges and limitations of liability, as stated in statutory and common law, afforded to public entities, the officers ofpublic entities and the employees of public entities. FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The facility, as built, complied with the then existing law and requirements at construction. FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant is immune and/or free from liability, under Government Code Sections 835 and 835.2, and California law, as there was no dangerous condition on Defendant’s property. 7 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant is immune from liability under Government Code Sections 818 and 8 1 8.2, et.seq. AWN FIFTY—FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant is immune from liability under Government Code Section 818.6. FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant is immune from liability under Government Code Section 830.2. \OOOQQKII FIFTY—THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant asserts the defense and immunities ofGovernment Code Sections 830.4, 830.5, and 830.6, 830.8, 831, 831.2 and 831.3 10 FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 Defendant is immune from liability under the Recreational Use Immunity, and Government 12 Code Section 830 et. seq., 831 et. seq., 831.7 ct. sq.,and Civil Code Section 46. 13 FIFTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 Modifications were impractical and/or impossible. 15 FIFTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 Defendant asserts the state of art defense. 17 FIFTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 All codes, laws, regulations and standards were complied with by Defendant. 19 FIFTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 The incident and alleged injuries were caused by the actions and or negligence of other third _ 21 parties. 22 FIFTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a beliefas to 24 whether they may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. This answering Defendant 25 reserves the right to assert additional defenses that are revealed by fithher investigation or by 26 discovery. 27 WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays that plaintiff take nothing by reason of the 28 Complaint herein, and that said defendant be hence dismissed and receive judgment for costs incurred 8 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT and for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. Dated: March LZflOZO DEMARIA LAW FIRM, A.P.C. Bv: Anthony N. DeMaria Attorneys for STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE [\J STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. My business address is 7647 North Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93720. On March 12, 2020, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action as follows: Eugenia L. Steele The Torkzadeh Law Firm 3240 E. Camino Real, Suite 26 Irvine, CA 92602 BY MAIL: I enclosed said document(s) in a sealed envelope 0r package addressed to the persons at the address listed on the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. Iam readily familiar with this business’s practice f0] collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day the correspondence is placed from collection and mailing it is deposited in the ordinary course ofbusiness with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully pre-paid. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on March 12, 2020, at Fresno, California. WWW Teri Maxwell \ 23 24 25 26 27 28