Answer: JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ENO

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Apr-21-2011 12:31 pm

Case Number: CGC-10-501168

Filing Date: Apr-21-2011 12:27

. Juke Box: 001 Image: 03190032
ANSWER

JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF S ASSOCIATION, A ¢

001003190032

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.0D Oo YN DH AH RF HY NY

ves
Co oN A A FF WY KH SD

Harry S. Stern, SBN 176854

Lara Cullinane-Smith, SBN 268671 \O
Rains Lucia STERN PC ard F, I aL

2300 Contra Costa Boulevard, Suite 500 ¢ Court of Californi
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Car Sa rne
Telephone: 925.609.1699 APR 2.1 2011

Facsimile: 925.609.1690

Email: Ismith@rlslawyers.com een OF THE COURT
BY. x
Attorneys for Defendant — ark V

San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

JOHNA PECOT, ET AL. Case # CCC-10-501168
v.

SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY
SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (“SFDSA”) hereby answers the

Complaint filed by Johna Pecot et al., (Plaintiffs) and alleges as follows:
ANSWER
1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d), Defendant
denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in the Complaint; denies
that the Plaintiffs have been damaged in the sums alleged or in any sum; and further denies that
Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief.
2. SFDSA alleges the following separate and distinct affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs’
causes of action alleged in the Complaint:
First AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)

3. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, SFDSA alleges that the

1

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINTComplaint, and each and every cause of action alleged therein, fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action against SFDSA.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)

4. Asa separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that by virtue of the
Plaintiffs’ acts, conduct, and omissions, Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery with respect to
each and every cause of action alleged in the Complaint against Defendant by reason of the
doctrine of unclean hands.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Equitable Estoppel)
5. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that by virtue of the
Plaintiffs’ acts, conduct, and omissions, Plaintiffs are estopped from asserting they are entitled
to any recovery with respect to any of the purported causes of action alleged in the Complaint
against Defendant.
FourTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)

6. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that by virtue of the
Plaintiffs’ acts, conduct, and omissions, Plaintiff s are barred from any recovery, with respect to
each and every cause of action alleged in the Complaint against Defendant by reason of the
doctrine of laches.

FirTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statute of Limitations)

7. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that each and every
cause of action alleged in the Complaint against Defendant is barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.

SixTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Authorization/Ratification of Agreement)

8. Asa separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the Plaintiffs

2
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINTCoe NA KH FF Ww KM

eee »)Y NY Ye NY RK NY = oe oe
e223 AA FSH HF SF Ge BWR ARBEE AS

)
v)

authorized, approved, and/or ratified Defendant’s conduct, and the Plaintiffs are therefore
estopped from asserting any cause of action based on Defendant’s conduct, or recovering any
damages, if any there are.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Consent)

9. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the Plaintiffs
consented to and approved all the acts and omissions about which Plaintiff s now complain.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are barred from pursing this action.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(RELEASE)

10. Asa separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the Plaintiffs
released Defendant in writing from all liability to Plaintiffs relating to the contract at issue in
this matter in exchange for full and adequate consideration provided by Defendant and accepted
by Plaintiffs.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(SETTLEMENT)

il. Asa separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the matters alleged
in this complaint are encompassed within and barred by a settlement and release agreement
reached by the parties that operates as a merger and bar against any further litigation on matters
raised or potentially raised in connection with the settlement and release. [A true and correct
copy of that agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.]

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Timely Serve Defendant)

12. Asa separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the
Plaintiffs failed to comply with California Rule of Court 3.110(b) in that the Complaint was
served on Defendant more than 60 days after it was filed and no good cause for such a delay has
been shown.

‘il

3
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINToC SG IN DH Bw BP HY

Yb NY KY WY nN oN oe -
ea SUR REBORN R’SESE RT RZEESHE rE

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Issues Not Appropriate for a Class Action)
13. As a separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that the
Plaintiffs have not stated claims against SFDSA appropriate for class certification.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows:
1. That the Plaintiffs take nothing by way of its unverified Complaint and that
judgment be entered in favor of Defendants;
2. That Defendants be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees;
3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: April 21, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
RAINS, LUCIA & STERN PC

Zi

By: Lara Culli
Attorneys for San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’
Association

4

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINTrae enema