Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
1 GRIFFITH & THORNBURGH, LLP 6/7/2023 2:51 PM
ATIORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
BEAST FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 300 By: Narzralli Baksh , Deputy
2 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101-2762
TELEPHONE: 805-965-5131
TELECOPIER: 805-965-6751
3
4 Craig Price, SBN #51361
price@g-tlaw.com All fees waived
5 John C. Eck, SBN #194975 per Gov. Code
eck@g-tlaw.com Section 6103.
6
Attorneys for Defendant, Carpinteria Unified School
7 District
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN SANTA BARBARA
10 ANACAPA DIVISION
11
12 JOHN DOE CLG03277, CASE NO.: 22CV05053
13 Plaintiff,
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT,
14 V. CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, TO SECOND AMENDED
15 CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
DISTRICT, a business entity of form unknown,
16 and DOES 1-500,
[Assigned for all Purposes to the Honorable
17 Defendants. Thomas P. Anderle]
18
19 DEFENDANT, CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOO DISTRICT (hereinafter
20 "Defendant"), answers the unverified Second Amended Complaint for Damages ("Complaint")
21 of Plaintiff, JOHN DOE CLG03277 ("Plaintiff'), as follows:
22 GENERAL DENIAL
23 Pursuant to the provisions of §431 .30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, this
24 answering Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation of the
25 Complaint pertaining to it, and the whole thereof, and each and every purported cause of action
26 pertaining to it therein. This answering Defendant further denies that Plaintiff has been exposed
27 to liability or otherwise damaged in any sum or manner whatsoever by reason of any act or
28 omission on the part of this answering Defendant; and in further answering, denies that Plaintiff
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, CARPINTERJA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRJCT, TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 is entitled to any relief whatsoever as to this answering Defendant.
2 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 (Failure to State a Cause of Action)
4 1. Neither the Complaint nor any cause of action in the Complaint states facts
5 sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this appearing Defendant.
6 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Statute of Limitations)
8 2. The Complaint and each cause of action contained therein are barred by the
9 applicable statutes oflimitation; including, but not limited to, section 340.5 of the Code of
10 Civil Procedure.
11 TIDRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Mitigation of Damages)
13 3. Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages, if any, were aggravated by Plaintiffs
14 failure to use reasonable diligence to mitigate them.
15 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (Waiver)
17 4. The Plaintiff has waived the right to maintain the actions filed in this case.
18 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Comparative Negligence)
20 5. The Plaintiff was guilty of comparative fault or negligence in the matters set
21 forth in the Complaint which proximately caused or contributed to the injuries or damages
22 alleged in the Complaint.
23 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Co-defendant Liability)
25 6. The co-defendants, and each of them, named and unnamed in the Complaint,
26 were guilty of negligence, or other acts or omissions related to the matters set forth in the
27 Complaint which proximately caused the injuries and damages alleged therein, if any, and the
28 percentage of negligence attributable to each said co-defendant should be determined and
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 allocated accordingly.
2 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 (Assumption of Risk)
4 7. The Plaintiff had knowledge of the risks and hazards inherent in the events and
5 activities which took place at the times set forth in the Complaint, as well as the magnitude of
6 those risks and hazards, and thereafter knowingly and willingly assumed and accepted those
7 risks and hazards.
8 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (Irrelevant Standard)
10 8. Plaintiff is not a member of the class of person for whose protection the statute,
11 ordinance or regulation referred to in Plaintiffs complaint was adopted.
12 NINTH AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSE
13 (Willful Misconduct)
14 9. Plaintiffs behavior at the time of his injury constitutes willful misconduct, and
15 Plaintiff is thus barred from seeking recovery based upon the asserted negligence of Defendant.
16 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Lack of Malice)
18 10. The communications complained of by Plaintiff were made without malice or
19 wrongful intent on the part of the Defendant.
20 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (Governmental Immunity)
22 11. Defendant is entitled to the privileges and immunities from liability for the acts
23 complained of by Plaintiff under the applicable Government Code sections.
24 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Laches)
26 12. The actions filed in this case are not maintainable under the doctrine of laches
27 because of Plaintiffs prejudicial delay in asserting them.
28
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Unclean Hands)
3 13. The Plaintiff has "unclean hands" with regard to the relief sought in the
4 Complaint and is therefore barred from obtaining such relief.
5 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Standing)
7 14. Each and every cause of action alleged against Defendant should be dismissed
8 on the ground that the Plaintiff lacks standing to sue this answering Defendant.
9 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Responsibility of Third Parties)
11 15. The damages or injuries allegedly sustained or suffered by Plaintiff, if any, were
12 the result in whole or in part of the acts and/ or omissions of a third party or parties, whether
13 parties to this action or not, over whom this answering Defendant had no control and/or duty to
14 supervise.
15 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (Punitive Damages)
17 16. Plaintiff is barred from recovering punitive damages against this answering
18 Defendant in that such an award of damages would be unconstitutional and violative of the 5th,
19 8th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, sections 7 and 17 of
20 the California State Constitution.
21 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Justification/Privilege)
23 17. Defendant alleges that one or more cause of action contained in the Complaint
24 are barred by the doctrines of justification or privilege.
25 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMTIVE DEFESEN
26 (Proposition 51)
27 18. The liability of this answering Defendant, if any, for Plaintiffs non-economic
28 losses must be allocated in accordance with the provisions of California Civil Code Section
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 1431.2.
2 NINTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 (Equitable Indemnity)
4 19. In the event this answering Defendant is held liable to Plaintiff, and any other
5 defendants are also held liable, this answering Defendant is entitled to a percentage
6 contribution of the total liability from such co-defendants, in accordance with principles of
7 equitable indemnity and comparative contributions.
8 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (Intervening/Superseding Causes)
10 20. The damages and injuries alleged by Plaintiff, if any were not legally caused by
11 this answering Defendant, but instead were legally caused by intervening and superseding
12 causes of circumstances.
13 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Not in the Course and Scope)
15 21. If Plaintiff sustained damages as a result of the conduct of the alleged
16 perpetrator, this answering Defendant has no liability because at the time of the perpetrator's
17 alleged wrongful acts and/or at the time Plaintiff sustained damages, the alleged perpetrator
18 was not acting within the course and scope of any alleged employment or agency relationship,
19 if any with this answering Defendant.
20 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that Plaintiff take nothing by way of this Complaint
21 and that Defendant has judgment in its favor, for all costs of suit, attorneys' fees, on all special
22 defenses, and for all other relief that the Court may order or award in this case.
23 Dated: June 7, 2023. GRIFFITH & THORNBURGH, LLP
24
25 By: ~{l~
Johri C. Eck, Attorneys for Defendant,
26 Carpinteria Unified School District
27
28
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of
18 and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 8 East Figueroa Street, Suite
3 300, Santa Barbara, California 93101-2762; my business email address is cordero@g-tlaw.com.
4 On June 7, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as ANSWER OF
DEFENDANT, CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TO SECOND AMENDED
5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES on interested parties in this action as follows:
6 Pedro "Peter" de la Cerda, Esq.
Edwards & De La Cerda, PLLC
7 3500 Maple Ave., Ste. 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
8 E-mail: vdelacerda(ciJ,thematthewslawfirm. com
9 ~ BY MAIL: by placing D the original~ a true copy thereof enclosect"in sealed envelopes
addressed as shown above or on the attached service list. I am "readily familiar" with the
10 firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that
practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage
11 thereon fully prepaid at Santa Barbara, California, in the ordinary course of business. I
am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal
12 cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for
mailing in affidavit.
13
D BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package
14 provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses
listed above or on the attached service list. I placed the envelope or package for
15 collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the
overnight delivery carrier.
16
D BY FACSIMILE: I caused to be transmitted the document described herein via the fax
17 number listed above or on the attached service list. Upon completion of said facsimile
transmission, the transmitting machine issued a transmission report showing the
18 transmission was complete and without error.
19 D BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered said document by hand to the addressee listed
above or on the attached service list.
20
~ BY E-MAIL (Pursuant to CCR 2.251 and CCP 1010.6): I caused the document to be
21 sent electronically to the person at the e-mail address listed above or on the attached
service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any
22 electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
23 D BY ELECTRONIC FILING SERVICE PROVIDER (EFSP) (Pursuant to CCR 2.251 and
CCP 1010.6): I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for filing electronically. I
24 caused e-service notification to be electronically sent through the certified, court
approved EFSP, to the address which was listed as the designated service contact on the
25 EFSP.
26 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
27
Executed on June 7, 2023, at Santa Barb~
28
K· berlie Cordero
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 1 GRIFFITH & THORNBURGH, LLP 6/7/2023 2:51 PM ATIORNEYS AND COUNSELORS BEAST FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 300 By: Narzralli Baksh , Deputy 2 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101-2762 TELEPHONE: 805-965-5131 TELECOPIER: 805-965-6751 3 4 Craig Price, SBN #51361 price@g-tlaw.com All fees waived 5 John C. Eck, SBN #194975 per Gov. Code eck@g-tlaw.com Section 6103. 6 Attorneys for Defendant, Carpinteria Unified School 7 District 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN SANTA BARBARA 10 ANACAPA DIVISION 11 12 JOHN DOE CLG03277, CASE NO.: 22CV05053 13 Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, 14 V. CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TO SECOND AMENDED 15 CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DISTRICT, a business entity of form unknown, 16 and DOES 1-500, [Assigned for all Purposes to the Honorable 17 Defendants. Thomas P. Anderle] 18 19 DEFENDANT, CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOO DISTRICT (hereinafter 20 "Defendant"), answers the unverified Second Amended Complaint for Damages ("Complaint") 21 of Plaintiff, JOHN DOE CLG03277 ("Plaintiff'), as follows: 22 GENERAL DENIAL 23 Pursuant to the provisions of §431 .30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, this 24 answering Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation of the 25 Complaint pertaining to it, and the whole thereof, and each and every purported cause of action 26 pertaining to it therein. This answering Defendant further denies that Plaintiff has been exposed 27 to liability or otherwise damaged in any sum or manner whatsoever by reason of any act or 28 omission on the part of this answering Defendant; and in further answering, denies that Plaintiff ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, CARPINTERJA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRJCT, TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 is entitled to any relief whatsoever as to this answering Defendant. 2 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 (Failure to State a Cause of Action) 4 1. Neither the Complaint nor any cause of action in the Complaint states facts 5 sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this appearing Defendant. 6 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Statute of Limitations) 8 2. The Complaint and each cause of action contained therein are barred by the 9 applicable statutes oflimitation; including, but not limited to, section 340.5 of the Code of 10 Civil Procedure. 11 TIDRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Mitigation of Damages) 13 3. Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages, if any, were aggravated by Plaintiffs 14 failure to use reasonable diligence to mitigate them. 15 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Waiver) 17 4. The Plaintiff has waived the right to maintain the actions filed in this case. 18 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Comparative Negligence) 20 5. The Plaintiff was guilty of comparative fault or negligence in the matters set 21 forth in the Complaint which proximately caused or contributed to the injuries or damages 22 alleged in the Complaint. 23 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Co-defendant Liability) 25 6. The co-defendants, and each of them, named and unnamed in the Complaint, 26 were guilty of negligence, or other acts or omissions related to the matters set forth in the 27 Complaint which proximately caused the injuries and damages alleged therein, if any, and the 28 percentage of negligence attributable to each said co-defendant should be determined and ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 allocated accordingly. 2 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 (Assumption of Risk) 4 7. The Plaintiff had knowledge of the risks and hazards inherent in the events and 5 activities which took place at the times set forth in the Complaint, as well as the magnitude of 6 those risks and hazards, and thereafter knowingly and willingly assumed and accepted those 7 risks and hazards. 8 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (Irrelevant Standard) 10 8. Plaintiff is not a member of the class of person for whose protection the statute, 11 ordinance or regulation referred to in Plaintiffs complaint was adopted. 12 NINTH AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSE 13 (Willful Misconduct) 14 9. Plaintiffs behavior at the time of his injury constitutes willful misconduct, and 15 Plaintiff is thus barred from seeking recovery based upon the asserted negligence of Defendant. 16 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Lack of Malice) 18 10. The communications complained of by Plaintiff were made without malice or 19 wrongful intent on the part of the Defendant. 20 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (Governmental Immunity) 22 11. Defendant is entitled to the privileges and immunities from liability for the acts 23 complained of by Plaintiff under the applicable Government Code sections. 24 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Laches) 26 12. The actions filed in this case are not maintainable under the doctrine of laches 27 because of Plaintiffs prejudicial delay in asserting them. 28 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Unclean Hands) 3 13. The Plaintiff has "unclean hands" with regard to the relief sought in the 4 Complaint and is therefore barred from obtaining such relief. 5 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Standing) 7 14. Each and every cause of action alleged against Defendant should be dismissed 8 on the ground that the Plaintiff lacks standing to sue this answering Defendant. 9 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Responsibility of Third Parties) 11 15. The damages or injuries allegedly sustained or suffered by Plaintiff, if any, were 12 the result in whole or in part of the acts and/ or omissions of a third party or parties, whether 13 parties to this action or not, over whom this answering Defendant had no control and/or duty to 14 supervise. 15 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Punitive Damages) 17 16. Plaintiff is barred from recovering punitive damages against this answering 18 Defendant in that such an award of damages would be unconstitutional and violative of the 5th, 19 8th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, sections 7 and 17 of 20 the California State Constitution. 21 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Justification/Privilege) 23 17. Defendant alleges that one or more cause of action contained in the Complaint 24 are barred by the doctrines of justification or privilege. 25 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMTIVE DEFESEN 26 (Proposition 51) 27 18. The liability of this answering Defendant, if any, for Plaintiffs non-economic 28 losses must be allocated in accordance with the provisions of California Civil Code Section ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 1431.2. 2 NINTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 (Equitable Indemnity) 4 19. In the event this answering Defendant is held liable to Plaintiff, and any other 5 defendants are also held liable, this answering Defendant is entitled to a percentage 6 contribution of the total liability from such co-defendants, in accordance with principles of 7 equitable indemnity and comparative contributions. 8 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (Intervening/Superseding Causes) 10 20. The damages and injuries alleged by Plaintiff, if any were not legally caused by 11 this answering Defendant, but instead were legally caused by intervening and superseding 12 causes of circumstances. 13 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Not in the Course and Scope) 15 21. If Plaintiff sustained damages as a result of the conduct of the alleged 16 perpetrator, this answering Defendant has no liability because at the time of the perpetrator's 17 alleged wrongful acts and/or at the time Plaintiff sustained damages, the alleged perpetrator 18 was not acting within the course and scope of any alleged employment or agency relationship, 19 if any with this answering Defendant. 20 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that Plaintiff take nothing by way of this Complaint 21 and that Defendant has judgment in its favor, for all costs of suit, attorneys' fees, on all special 22 defenses, and for all other relief that the Court may order or award in this case. 23 Dated: June 7, 2023. GRIFFITH & THORNBURGH, LLP 24 25 By: ~{l~ Johri C. Eck, Attorneys for Defendant, 26 Carpinteria Unified School District 27 28 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 8 East Figueroa Street, Suite 3 300, Santa Barbara, California 93101-2762; my business email address is cordero@g-tlaw.com. 4 On June 7, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TO SECOND AMENDED 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES on interested parties in this action as follows: 6 Pedro "Peter" de la Cerda, Esq. Edwards & De La Cerda, PLLC 7 3500 Maple Ave., Ste. 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 8 E-mail: vdelacerda(ciJ,thematthewslawfirm. com 9 ~ BY MAIL: by placing D the original~ a true copy thereof enclosect"in sealed envelopes addressed as shown above or on the attached service list. I am "readily familiar" with the 10 firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage 11 thereon fully prepaid at Santa Barbara, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal 12 cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 13 D BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package 14 provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above or on the attached service list. I placed the envelope or package for 15 collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. 16 D BY FACSIMILE: I caused to be transmitted the document described herein via the fax 17 number listed above or on the attached service list. Upon completion of said facsimile transmission, the transmitting machine issued a transmission report showing the 18 transmission was complete and without error. 19 D BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered said document by hand to the addressee listed above or on the attached service list. 20 ~ BY E-MAIL (Pursuant to CCR 2.251 and CCP 1010.6): I caused the document to be 21 sent electronically to the person at the e-mail address listed above or on the attached service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any 22 electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 23 D BY ELECTRONIC FILING SERVICE PROVIDER (EFSP) (Pursuant to CCR 2.251 and CCP 1010.6): I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for filing electronically. I 24 caused e-service notification to be electronically sent through the certified, court approved EFSP, to the address which was listed as the designated service contact on the 25 EFSP. 26 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 27 Executed on June 7, 2023, at Santa Barb~ 28 K· berlie Cordero