Preview
1 RYAN L. KRAFT, SBN 281407
RYAN DAHM, SBN 282569
2 HAAPALA, THOMPSON & ABERN, LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 800 ELECTRONICALLY
3 Oakland, California 94612-3527
Telephone: (510) 763-2324 FILED
Superior Court of California,
4 Facsimile: (510) 273-8534 County of San Francisco
Email: rkraft@htalaw.com
5 Email: rdahm@htalaw.com 03/09/2022
Clerk of the Court
BY: EDWARD SANTOS
6 Attorneys For Defendant and Cross-Defendant Deputy Clerk
ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING
7 INTIATIVE, LLC aka DOE 51
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
REGINA TALTON, ) Case No.: CGC-20-584733
11 )
Plaintiff, )
Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP
12 ) DEFENDANT ALLEN COMMUNITY
vs. ) HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC AKA DOE
1939 Harrison St., Suite 800
Telephone: 510-763-2324
Oakland, California 94612
Facsimile: 510-273-8534
13 ) 51’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF
Park Plaza Building
Attorneys At Law
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ) PLAINTIFF REGINA TALTON
14 and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Inclusive, )
)
15 Defendant. )
) Complaint Filed: June 8, 2020
16 ) Doe 51 Amendment Filed: January 27, 2022
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN )
17 FRANCISCO, )
)
18 Cross-Complainant, )
)
19 vs. )
)
20 ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING )
INTIATIVE, LLC and ROES 1 THROUGH )
21 25, Inclusive, )
)
22 Cross-Defendant. )
23 Defendant and Cross-Defendant ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC
24 aka DOE 51 (“Defendant”) answers the Complaint of Plaintiff Regina Talton (“Plaintiff”) as
25 follows:
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1
Regina Talton v. City and County of San Francisco, et al
DEFENDANT ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF
PLAINTIFF REGINA TALTON
1 GENERAL DENIAL
2 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to Section
3 431.30 thereof, Defendant hereby denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations of the
4 Complaint and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to indemnity or contribution in the sum or sums
5 alleged, in any other sum, or at all, in any manner or form whatsoever, by any act, omission, or
6 obligation of Plaintiff.
7 The following affirmative defenses are pled as a matter of law and customary practice,
8 and do not waive any obligations by other parties, nor are they to be considered factual or
9 evidentiary allegations.
10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
11 FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP
12 1. Plaintiff fails to state sufficient facts to constitute any cause or causes of action
1939 Harrison St., Suite 800
Telephone: 510-763-2324
Oakland, California 94612
Facsimile: 510-273-8534
13 against this answering Defendant.
Park Plaza Building
Attorneys At Law
14 ESTOPPEL
15 2. The Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is barred by the
16 doctrine of estoppel.
17 WAIVER
18 3. The Complaint, and each and every cause of action contained therein, is barred by
19 the doctrine of waiver.
20 NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFF
21 4. At all times and places set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiff failed to exercise
22 ordinary care, which negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion, up to
23 and including the whole thereof, of the injuries and damages complained of in this action.
24 Plaintiff’s recovery against this answering Defendant therefore should be barred or reduced
25 according to principles of comparative negligence.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2
Regina Talton v. City and County of San Francisco, et al
DEFENDANT ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF
PLAINTIFF REGINA TALTON
1 COMPARATIVE FAULT AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK
2 5. At all times and places set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiff failed to exercise
3 ordinary care, which negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion, up to
4 and including the whole thereof, of the injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiff in this
5 action. The fault, if any, of this answering Defendant should be compared with the fault of
6 Plaintiff and damages, if any, should be apportioned between Plaintiff and Defendant in direct
7 relation to each of their comparative fault. This answering Defendant should be obligated to pay
8 only such damages, if any, which are directly attributable to her percentage of comparative fault.
9 To require this answering Defendant to pay any more than her percentage of comparative fault
10 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution of the United States and
11 the Constitution of the State of California.
Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP
12 ASSUMPTION OF RISK
1939 Harrison St., Suite 800
Telephone: 510-763-2324
Oakland, California 94612
Facsimile: 510-273-8534
13 6. That the perils or dangers, if any, existing at the time of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries,
Park Plaza Building
Attorneys At Law
14 if any, were open and obvious and known to Plaintiff and Defenant who nevertheless conducted
15 themselves in such a manner so as to expose themselves to said perils and dangers, if any, and by
16 so doing, assumed all the risks attendant thereto.
17 IMPLIED ASSUMPTION OF RISK
18 7. Prior to the event in which the Plaintiff was allegedly injured as a result of
19 Defendants’ negligence, the Plaintiff and Defendant by their conduct impliedly assumed the risk
20 of a known and appreciated danger, and thus may not recover damages from Defendant for that
21 injury.
22 FAULT OF OTHERS
23 8. The injuries and/or damages alleged by Plaintiffs were caused in whole or in part
24 by the negligence and/or other conduct of persons, firms, corporations, and/or entities other than
25 this answering Defendant, and said negligence is either imputed to Plaintiff and/or Cross-
26 Complainant by reason of said parties’ relationship to Plaintiffs and/or said negligence
27 comparatively reduces the percentage of negligence, if any, of this answering Defendant.
28 ///
3
Regina Talton v. City and County of San Francisco, et al
DEFENDANT ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF
PLAINTIFF REGINA TALTON
1 EXCLUSIVE REMEDY RULE
2 9. Pursuant to Labor Code section 3601 and section 3602, Plaintiff and Cross-
3 Complainant are barred from recovering from this answering Cross-Defendant under the worker’s
4 compensation exclusive remedy rule.
5 WILLFULLY INVITED INJURY
6 10. Plaintiff by their conduct with respect to the alleged dangerous condition willfully
7 invited injury by their actions and conduct, and thus may not recover damages from this answering
8 Defendant for that injury.
9 FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES
10 11. If Plaintiff suffered any damages, as alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, said
11 damages were due solely to the fact that Plaintiff failed to act in a manner which would have
Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP
12 mitigated said alleged damages, in whole or in part.
1939 Harrison St., Suite 800
Telephone: 510-763-2324
Oakland, California 94612
Facsimile: 510-273-8534
13 SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES
Park Plaza Building
Attorneys At Law
14 12. Plaintiff is barred from seeking indemnity and contribution from Defendant
15 under Civil Code Section 1431.2.
16 FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOR ATTORNEYS FEES
17 13. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for attorneys fees.
18 UNCLEAN HANDS
19 14. Plaintiff’s recovery is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.
20 CONSENT
21 15. Plaintiff’s action is barred, in whole or in part, by virtue of the fact that she
22 consented, expressly or impliedly, to the acts and events set forth in the Complaint.
23 STATUTES OF LIMITATION
24 16. The purported causes of action alleged in the Plaintiff are barred, in whole or in
25 part, by the applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited to those contained in
26 Sections 337, 338, 338.1, 339, 340, and 343 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
27 ///
28 ///
4
Regina Talton v. City and County of San Francisco, et al
DEFENDANT ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF
PLAINTIFF REGINA TALTON
1 LACHES
2 17. The Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is barred by the
3 doctrine of laches.
4 NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE
5 18. This answering Defendant had no actual knowledge of the alleged dangerous
6 condition.
7 INTERVENING AND SUPERCEDING NEGLIGENCE
8 19. This answering Defendant alleges that if, as alleged, Plaintiffs were injured or
9 damaged in any manner whatsoever, then said injuries or damage were a direct and proximate
10 result of the intervening and superseding negligence or fault on the part of other persons and that
11 this intervening and superseding negligence bars recovery herein by Plaintiffs against this
Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP
12 answering Defendant.
1939 Harrison St., Suite 800
Telephone: 510-763-2324
Oakland, California 94612
Facsimile: 510-273-8534
13 NO DUTY OF DEFENDANT TO PERFORM SIDEWALK REPAIRS RELATED TO
Park Plaza Building
Attorneys At Law
A STREET TREE’S GROWTH OR ROOT SYSTEM
14
15 20. Defendant has no statutory duty or responsibility to perform sidewalk repairs
16 related to a Street Tree’s growth or root system under San Francisco Public Works Code section
17 805(a), including because a City tree impacted the alleged defect.
18 RIGHT TO ASSERT ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
19 21. This answering Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information
20 upon which to form a belief as to whether they may have additional, as-yet unstated, affirmative
21 defenses. This answering Defendant reserves herein the right to assert additional affirmative
22 defenses in the event discovery indicates to do so would be appropriate.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
5
Regina Talton v. City and County of San Francisco, et al
DEFENDANT ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF
PLAINTIFF REGINA TALTON
1 WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays for relief as follows:
2 1. For judgment in favor of this answering Defendant on each of the purported causes
3 of action in Complaint;
4 2. For dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice;
5 3. For Plaintiff to take nothing by way of the instant action;
6 4. For this answering Defendant to be awarded costs incurred in this action;
7 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
8
9 DATED: March 9, 2022 HAAPALA THOMPSON & ABERN, LLP
10
BY ___________________________________
11 RYAN L. KRAFT
Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP
RYAN DAHM
12
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant ALLEN
1939 Harrison St., Suite 800
Telephone: 510-763-2324
Oakland, California 94612
COMMUNITY HOUSING INTIATIVE,
Facsimile: 510-273-8534
13
Park Plaza Building
LLC
Attorneys At Law
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Regina Talton v. City and County of San Francisco, et al
DEFENDANT ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF
PLAINTIFF REGINA TALTON
Preview
1 RYAN L. KRAFT, SBN 281407 RYAN DAHM, SBN 282569 2 HAAPALA, THOMPSON & ABERN, LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 800 ELECTRONICALLY 3 Oakland, California 94612-3527 Telephone: (510) 763-2324 FILED Superior Court of California, 4 Facsimile: (510) 273-8534 County of San Francisco Email: rkraft@htalaw.com 5 Email: rdahm@htalaw.com 03/09/2022 Clerk of the Court BY: EDWARD SANTOS 6 Attorneys For Defendant and Cross-Defendant Deputy Clerk ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING 7 INTIATIVE, LLC aka DOE 51 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 REGINA TALTON, ) Case No.: CGC-20-584733 11 ) Plaintiff, ) Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP 12 ) DEFENDANT ALLEN COMMUNITY vs. ) HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC AKA DOE 1939 Harrison St., Suite 800 Telephone: 510-763-2324 Oakland, California 94612 Facsimile: 510-273-8534 13 ) 51’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF Park Plaza Building Attorneys At Law CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ) PLAINTIFF REGINA TALTON 14 and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Inclusive, ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) Complaint Filed: June 8, 2020 16 ) Doe 51 Amendment Filed: January 27, 2022 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN ) 17 FRANCISCO, ) ) 18 Cross-Complainant, ) ) 19 vs. ) ) 20 ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING ) INTIATIVE, LLC and ROES 1 THROUGH ) 21 25, Inclusive, ) ) 22 Cross-Defendant. ) 23 Defendant and Cross-Defendant ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC 24 aka DOE 51 (“Defendant”) answers the Complaint of Plaintiff Regina Talton (“Plaintiff”) as 25 follows: 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Regina Talton v. City and County of San Francisco, et al DEFENDANT ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF REGINA TALTON 1 GENERAL DENIAL 2 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to Section 3 431.30 thereof, Defendant hereby denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations of the 4 Complaint and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to indemnity or contribution in the sum or sums 5 alleged, in any other sum, or at all, in any manner or form whatsoever, by any act, omission, or 6 obligation of Plaintiff. 7 The following affirmative defenses are pled as a matter of law and customary practice, 8 and do not waive any obligations by other parties, nor are they to be considered factual or 9 evidentiary allegations. 10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 11 FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP 12 1. Plaintiff fails to state sufficient facts to constitute any cause or causes of action 1939 Harrison St., Suite 800 Telephone: 510-763-2324 Oakland, California 94612 Facsimile: 510-273-8534 13 against this answering Defendant. Park Plaza Building Attorneys At Law 14 ESTOPPEL 15 2. The Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is barred by the 16 doctrine of estoppel. 17 WAIVER 18 3. The Complaint, and each and every cause of action contained therein, is barred by 19 the doctrine of waiver. 20 NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFF 21 4. At all times and places set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiff failed to exercise 22 ordinary care, which negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion, up to 23 and including the whole thereof, of the injuries and damages complained of in this action. 24 Plaintiff’s recovery against this answering Defendant therefore should be barred or reduced 25 according to principles of comparative negligence. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 Regina Talton v. City and County of San Francisco, et al DEFENDANT ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF REGINA TALTON 1 COMPARATIVE FAULT AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK 2 5. At all times and places set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiff failed to exercise 3 ordinary care, which negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion, up to 4 and including the whole thereof, of the injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiff in this 5 action. The fault, if any, of this answering Defendant should be compared with the fault of 6 Plaintiff and damages, if any, should be apportioned between Plaintiff and Defendant in direct 7 relation to each of their comparative fault. This answering Defendant should be obligated to pay 8 only such damages, if any, which are directly attributable to her percentage of comparative fault. 9 To require this answering Defendant to pay any more than her percentage of comparative fault 10 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution of the United States and 11 the Constitution of the State of California. Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP 12 ASSUMPTION OF RISK 1939 Harrison St., Suite 800 Telephone: 510-763-2324 Oakland, California 94612 Facsimile: 510-273-8534 13 6. That the perils or dangers, if any, existing at the time of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, Park Plaza Building Attorneys At Law 14 if any, were open and obvious and known to Plaintiff and Defenant who nevertheless conducted 15 themselves in such a manner so as to expose themselves to said perils and dangers, if any, and by 16 so doing, assumed all the risks attendant thereto. 17 IMPLIED ASSUMPTION OF RISK 18 7. Prior to the event in which the Plaintiff was allegedly injured as a result of 19 Defendants’ negligence, the Plaintiff and Defendant by their conduct impliedly assumed the risk 20 of a known and appreciated danger, and thus may not recover damages from Defendant for that 21 injury. 22 FAULT OF OTHERS 23 8. The injuries and/or damages alleged by Plaintiffs were caused in whole or in part 24 by the negligence and/or other conduct of persons, firms, corporations, and/or entities other than 25 this answering Defendant, and said negligence is either imputed to Plaintiff and/or Cross- 26 Complainant by reason of said parties’ relationship to Plaintiffs and/or said negligence 27 comparatively reduces the percentage of negligence, if any, of this answering Defendant. 28 /// 3 Regina Talton v. City and County of San Francisco, et al DEFENDANT ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF REGINA TALTON 1 EXCLUSIVE REMEDY RULE 2 9. Pursuant to Labor Code section 3601 and section 3602, Plaintiff and Cross- 3 Complainant are barred from recovering from this answering Cross-Defendant under the worker’s 4 compensation exclusive remedy rule. 5 WILLFULLY INVITED INJURY 6 10. Plaintiff by their conduct with respect to the alleged dangerous condition willfully 7 invited injury by their actions and conduct, and thus may not recover damages from this answering 8 Defendant for that injury. 9 FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES 10 11. If Plaintiff suffered any damages, as alleged in the Complaint or otherwise, said 11 damages were due solely to the fact that Plaintiff failed to act in a manner which would have Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP 12 mitigated said alleged damages, in whole or in part. 1939 Harrison St., Suite 800 Telephone: 510-763-2324 Oakland, California 94612 Facsimile: 510-273-8534 13 SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES Park Plaza Building Attorneys At Law 14 12. Plaintiff is barred from seeking indemnity and contribution from Defendant 15 under Civil Code Section 1431.2. 16 FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOR ATTORNEYS FEES 17 13. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for attorneys fees. 18 UNCLEAN HANDS 19 14. Plaintiff’s recovery is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands. 20 CONSENT 21 15. Plaintiff’s action is barred, in whole or in part, by virtue of the fact that she 22 consented, expressly or impliedly, to the acts and events set forth in the Complaint. 23 STATUTES OF LIMITATION 24 16. The purported causes of action alleged in the Plaintiff are barred, in whole or in 25 part, by the applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited to those contained in 26 Sections 337, 338, 338.1, 339, 340, and 343 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 27 /// 28 /// 4 Regina Talton v. City and County of San Francisco, et al DEFENDANT ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF REGINA TALTON 1 LACHES 2 17. The Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, is barred by the 3 doctrine of laches. 4 NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE 5 18. This answering Defendant had no actual knowledge of the alleged dangerous 6 condition. 7 INTERVENING AND SUPERCEDING NEGLIGENCE 8 19. This answering Defendant alleges that if, as alleged, Plaintiffs were injured or 9 damaged in any manner whatsoever, then said injuries or damage were a direct and proximate 10 result of the intervening and superseding negligence or fault on the part of other persons and that 11 this intervening and superseding negligence bars recovery herein by Plaintiffs against this Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP 12 answering Defendant. 1939 Harrison St., Suite 800 Telephone: 510-763-2324 Oakland, California 94612 Facsimile: 510-273-8534 13 NO DUTY OF DEFENDANT TO PERFORM SIDEWALK REPAIRS RELATED TO Park Plaza Building Attorneys At Law A STREET TREE’S GROWTH OR ROOT SYSTEM 14 15 20. Defendant has no statutory duty or responsibility to perform sidewalk repairs 16 related to a Street Tree’s growth or root system under San Francisco Public Works Code section 17 805(a), including because a City tree impacted the alleged defect. 18 RIGHT TO ASSERT ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 19 21. This answering Defendant presently has insufficient knowledge or information 20 upon which to form a belief as to whether they may have additional, as-yet unstated, affirmative 21 defenses. This answering Defendant reserves herein the right to assert additional affirmative 22 defenses in the event discovery indicates to do so would be appropriate. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 5 Regina Talton v. City and County of San Francisco, et al DEFENDANT ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF REGINA TALTON 1 WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays for relief as follows: 2 1. For judgment in favor of this answering Defendant on each of the purported causes 3 of action in Complaint; 4 2. For dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice; 5 3. For Plaintiff to take nothing by way of the instant action; 6 4. For this answering Defendant to be awarded costs incurred in this action; 7 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 8 9 DATED: March 9, 2022 HAAPALA THOMPSON & ABERN, LLP 10 BY ___________________________________ 11 RYAN L. KRAFT Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP RYAN DAHM 12 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant ALLEN 1939 Harrison St., Suite 800 Telephone: 510-763-2324 Oakland, California 94612 COMMUNITY HOUSING INTIATIVE, Facsimile: 510-273-8534 13 Park Plaza Building LLC Attorneys At Law 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Regina Talton v. City and County of San Francisco, et al DEFENDANT ALLEN COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, LLC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF REGINA TALTON