On May 25, 2021 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Nguyen, Phuong T. P.O. Box,
and
Azam, Abdul,
Azam, Zameer Riaz,
Berger, Chaska,
Borovina, Michael,
Breed, London,
Choi, Jennifer Eunjin,
City And County Of San Francisco,
City Of San Francisco,
Coaker, William J.,
Crashpadz Inc,
Dc Crashpad, Llc,
Does 1 Through 100,
Excalibur Trading Llc,
Guaiumi, Jim,
Guy, Kevin,
Jain, Sharad,
Masry, Omar M,
Mayor Of San Francisco,
Miyamoto, Paul M.,
Pacific Gas And Electric Company,
Pg & E Corporation,
Rahaim, John,
Recology East Bay,
Recology Sunset Scavenger,
Ruiz, Juan S.,
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,
Sfc Crashpad Llc,
Sf Crashpadz Llc,
Sfo Crashpad Llc,
Tam, Tina T.,
Teague, Corey,
Teague, Cory A.,
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,
Voelker, Jason Paul,
Patterson, Ryan James,
for FRAUD
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
DAVID CHIU, State Bar #189542
City Attorne:
JAMES F. HANNAWALT, State Bar #139657 ELECTRONICALLY
Acting Chief Trial Deputy FILED
NATASSIA KWAN, State Bar #294322 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Deputy City Attorney
Fox Plaza 10/04/2023
1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor Clerk of the Court
BY: GINA GONZALES
San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Deputy Clerk
Telephone: (415) 554-4272
Facsimile: (415) 554-3837
E-Mail: natassia.kwan @sfcityatty.org
Attorneys for Defendants
Mayor London Breed, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto,
Defendants Tina Tam, Michael Borovina,
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,
10 Jennifer Choi and Corey Teague
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
13 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
14 PHUONG T. NGUYEN, Case No. CGC-21-591803
15 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS JENNIFER CHOI AND
COREY TEAGUE’S ANSWER TO
16 vs. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
17 LONDON BREED; MAYOR OF SAN
FRANCISCO; CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO;
18 PG & E CORPORATION; PACIFIC GAS Date Action Filed: May 25, 2021
AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, A Trial Date: Not Set
19 CORPORATION; RECOLOGY EAST BAY,
A CORPORATION; RECOLOGY SUNSET
20 SCAVENGER, A BUSINESS FORM
UNKNOWN; SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
21 UTITUTIES COMMISSION; PAUL M.
MIYAMOTO AKA SAN FRANCISCO
22 COUNTY SHERIFF; ZARNEER RIAZ
AZAM; ABDUL AZARN; JASON PAUL
23 VOELKER; JUAN S. RUIZ AKA JUAN
SALVADOR RUIZ; SHARAD JAIN;
24 CRASHPAD LLC; CRASHPADZ INC;
EXCALIBUR TRADING LLC; SF
25 CRASHPAD LLC; SF CRASHPADZ LLC;
SFC CRASHPAD LLC; SFO CRASHPAD
26 LLC; DC CRASHPAD, LLC; ' COREY A.
TEAGUE; RYAN JAMES PATTERSON;
27 JENNIFER EUNJIN CHOI, TINA T. TAM;
WILLIAMJ.COAKER; MICHAEL J.
28 BOROVINA JR.; AND DOES 1
1
Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 n:Mlit\li2023\2 109 16\01709244.docx.
THROUGH 100,
Defendants.
Defendants JENNIFER CHOI and COREY TEAGUE, individuals (“Defendants”) responds to
the Complaint of Plaintiff PHUONG T. NGUYEN (“Plaintiff”) as follows:
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 431.30 and 446(a), Defendants deny each and
every allegation in the Complaint. Defendants further deny that Plaintiff has been damaged in any
sum or sums, or otherwise, or at all, by reason of any act or omission of these specific Defendants.
10 Defendants set forth below their affirmative defenses. By setting forth these affirmative
11 defenses, Defendants do not assume the burden of proving any fact, issue, or element of a cause of
12 action where such burden properly belongs to Plaintiff. Moreover, nothing stated herein is intended or
13 shall be construed as an acknowledgment that any particular issue or subject matter is relevant to
14 Plaintiff's allegations.
15 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
16 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Failure to State a Claim)
18 The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under any theory.
19 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Failure to Comply with Government Code, Failure to File Gov’t Claim)
21 The Complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to state a cause of action due to a failure to
22 comply with the claim filing requirements of the California Government Code, including but not
23 limited to Plaintiff's Complaint is barred for failure to file a government claim under Government
24 Code section 905, 910, 911.2 inter alia, which requires that for lawsuits seeking monetary relief be
25 barred where n timely claim is filed. (Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 838; N.G. v. County
26 of San Diego (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 63, 72.)
27 1
28
2
Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 n:Mlit\li2023\210916\01709244.docx,
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Consent, Waiver, Estoppel, Unclean Hands, Laches)
As an affirmative defense to each cause of action in the Complaint, Defendants allege that
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of consent, waiver, estoppel,
equitable estoppel, unclean hands, and/or laches.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Public Liability Act)
The provisions of the Public Liability Act of the California Government Code limits the duty
of this answering Defendant.
10 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Good Faith)
12 Defendants allege that them and their employees acted with both subjective and objective good
13 faith, such that any claim for relief that Plaintiff may have is barred by law.
14 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Improper Service)
16 Defendants allege that Plaintiff did not properly serve them with the Summons and Complaint,
17 at the correct location, nor via personal service or service means required by the California Code of
18 Civil Procedure.
19 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Comparative Negligence)
21 Defendants allege by way of a plea of comparative negligence that Plaintiff was negligent in
22 and about the matters and activities alleged in said Complaint; that said negligence contributed to and
23 was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, if any, or was the sole cause thereof;
24 and that if Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages against Defendant by virtue of said Complaint,
25 Defendant prays that the recovery be diminished or extinguished by reason of the negligence of the
26 Plaintiff in proportion to the degree of fault attributable to the Plaintiff.
27 M
28 u
3
Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 n:Mit\li2023\2 109 16\01709244.docx,
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Contribution)
Defendants allege that the fault of persons other than this answering Defendant contributed to
and proximately caused the occurrence; and that under the principles formulated in the case of
American Motorcycle Assoc. v. Super. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578, Defendant prays that the percentage
of such contribution be established by special verdict or other procedure, and that Defendant's ultimate
liability be reduced to the extent of such contribution.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Proposition 51- Several Liability)
10 Defendants allege that in the event that this answering Defendant is found to be liable -- which
11 liability is specifically denied and stated merely for the purposes of this affirmative defense -- such
12 liability, if any there be, for non-economic damages shall be several and not joint, pursuant to the
13 California Fair Responsibility Act of 1986 (Proposition 51) as set forth in section 1431 er seq. of the
14 California Civil Code. This answering Defendant requests that the trier of fact be instructed that the
15 amount of non-economic damages be allocated in direct proportion to the percentage of fault, if any
16 there be, assessed against each person or entity to which the Act applies and that a separate judgment
17 be rendered against each such person or entity in the amount of such non-economic damages
18 attributable to that person or entity.
19 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (California Tort Claims Act)
21 Defendants allege that the Complaint is barred by the following provisions of the California
22 Tort Claims Act, Government Code Sections: 815; 815.2; 815.2(b); 815.6; 820(b); 820.2; 820.4;
23 820.8; 820.9; 840; 840.6.
24 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Failure to Mitigate)
26 Defendants allege that Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to mitigate
27 Plaintiff's alleged damages.
28 MW
4
Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 n:Mit\li2023\210916\01709244.docx,
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Government Code Bars)
Defendants allege that the said Complaint and the purported causes of action thereof are barred
by the provisions of California Government Code Sections 815, 815.2, 815.4, 815.6, 818, 818.2, 820,
820.2, 820.4, 820.8, 821, 840, 840.2, 840.6, and other applicable provisions of law and each of said
sections.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Variance between Tort Claim and Complaint)
Plaintiff's causes of action are limited to those factual allegations and theories of recovery set
10 forth in Plaintiff's written government tort claim, if any, and that to the extent that the Complaint
ll attempts to enlarge or expand upon those allegations and theories, the Complaint fails to state a cause
12 of action and is barred pursuant to Government Code Sections 905, 910, 911.2, 945.5, 950.2 and
13 related provisions.
14 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Reduction of Verdict or Judgment)
16 As an affirmative defense to each cause of action in the Complaint, Defendants allege that any
17 verdict or judgment that might be recovered by Plaintiff must be reduced by those amounts that have
18 already or will in the future, with reasonable certainty, indemnify Plaintiff in whole or in part for any
19 past or future claimed economic loss from any collateral source such as insurance, social security,
20 workers’ compensation, or employee benefit program.
21 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Defendant’s Acts Not A But-For Cause)
23 Defendant states that any act or omission on the part of the answering defendant was not the
24 actual but-for cause of Plaintiff’s injury.
25 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 (Superseding Cause and Intervening Cause)
27 Defendant states that any act or omission on the part of the answering defendant was not the
28 actual cause of Plaintiff's injury due to Superseding Causes and Intervening Causes, specifically other
5
Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 n:Mit\li2023\210916\01709244.docx
tortfeasors named as co-defendants, and individuals who were inhabiting Plaintiff’s property during
the time period alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unjust Enrichment)
Given that the injuries and damages sought by Plaintiff were caused by other tortfeasors named
as co-defendants, and individuals who were inhabiting Plaintiffs property during the time period
alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff is attempting to recover damages from City employees who
were not responsible or liable for the damage to Plaintiff’s proper. As such, based on equitable
principles, Plaintiff would be unjustly enriched should its Complaint be granted.
10 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff as follows:
11 1 That the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and with prejudice;
12 2. That Plaintiff take nothing by the Complaint;
13 3 That judgment be entered in favor of San Francisco;
14 4 That San Francisco recover its costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees, in
15 this action; and
16 5 For such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
17 Dated: October 4, 2023
18 DAVID CHIU
City Attorney
19
JAMES F. HANNAWALT
20 Acting Chief Trial Deputy
NATASSIA KWAN
21 Deputy City Attorney
22
By:/s/ Natassia Kwan
23 NATASSIA KWAN
24 Attorneys for Defendants
Mayor London Breed, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto,
25 Defendants Tina Tam, Michael Borovina,
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,
26 Jennifer Choi and Corey Teague
27
28
6
Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 nMit\li2023\210916\01709244.docx
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, AMY ZEHRING, declare as follows:
Tam a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above-
entitled action. Iam employed at the City Attorney’s Office of San Francisco, Fox Plaza Building,
1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.
On October 4, 2023, I served the following document(s):
DEFENDANTS JENNIFER CHOI AND COREY TEAGUE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
on the following persons at the locations specified:
Phuong T. Nguyen Scott A. Freedman
P.O. Box 585 Laura F. Strazzo
Brisbane, CA 94005 ZACKS & FREEDMAN, PC
Telephone: (650) 228-6880 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
Email: drfaith37 @ gmail.com San Francisco, CA 94111
10 Telephone: (415) 956-8100
Plaintiff in Pro Per Facsimile: (415) 288-9755
11 Email: scott@zfplaw.com
12 (by U.S. Mail and Email) (by Email Only)
13 Attorneys for Defendant
RYAN JAMES PATTERSON
14
James B. Kraus
15 816 Alvarado Street
San Francisco, CA 94114
16 Telephone: (415) 606-8535
Email: jbkrausesq @aol.com
17
(by Email Only)
18
Attorneys for Defendant
19 RYAN JAMES PATTERSON
20 in the manner indicated below:
21 Xx BY UNITED STATES MAIL: Following ordinary business practices, I sealed true and correct copies of
the above documents in addressed envelope(s) and placed them at my workplace for collection and mailing with
22 the United States Postal Service. I am readily familiar with the practices of the San Francisco City Attorney’s
Office for collecting and processing mail. In the ordinary course of business, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed
23 for collection would be deposited, postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service that same day.
24 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic
service, I caused the documents to be sent to the person(s) at the electronic service address(es) listed above. Such
25 document(s) were transmitted via electronic mail from the electronic address: amy.zehring@sfcityatty.org in
portable document format (“PDF”) Adobe Acrobat.
26
27
28
7
Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 nMit\li2023\2
109 16\01709244.docx,
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the
1 foregoing is true and correct.
2 Executed October 4, 2023, at San Francisco, California.
AMY ZEHRING \
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 nMitli2023\2109 16\01709244.docx
Preview
DAVID CHIU, State Bar #189542 City Attorne: JAMES F. HANNAWALT, State Bar #139657 ELECTRONICALLY Acting Chief Trial Deputy FILED NATASSIA KWAN, State Bar #294322 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Fox Plaza 10/04/2023 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor Clerk of the Court BY: GINA GONZALES San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Deputy Clerk Telephone: (415) 554-4272 Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 E-Mail: natassia.kwan @sfcityatty.org Attorneys for Defendants Mayor London Breed, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto, Defendants Tina Tam, Michael Borovina, The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 10 Jennifer Choi and Corey Teague 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 13 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 14 PHUONG T. NGUYEN, Case No. CGC-21-591803 15 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS JENNIFER CHOI AND COREY TEAGUE’S ANSWER TO 16 vs. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 17 LONDON BREED; MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO; CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO; 18 PG & E CORPORATION; PACIFIC GAS Date Action Filed: May 25, 2021 AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, A Trial Date: Not Set 19 CORPORATION; RECOLOGY EAST BAY, A CORPORATION; RECOLOGY SUNSET 20 SCAVENGER, A BUSINESS FORM UNKNOWN; SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC 21 UTITUTIES COMMISSION; PAUL M. MIYAMOTO AKA SAN FRANCISCO 22 COUNTY SHERIFF; ZARNEER RIAZ AZAM; ABDUL AZARN; JASON PAUL 23 VOELKER; JUAN S. RUIZ AKA JUAN SALVADOR RUIZ; SHARAD JAIN; 24 CRASHPAD LLC; CRASHPADZ INC; EXCALIBUR TRADING LLC; SF 25 CRASHPAD LLC; SF CRASHPADZ LLC; SFC CRASHPAD LLC; SFO CRASHPAD 26 LLC; DC CRASHPAD, LLC; ' COREY A. TEAGUE; RYAN JAMES PATTERSON; 27 JENNIFER EUNJIN CHOI, TINA T. TAM; WILLIAMJ.COAKER; MICHAEL J. 28 BOROVINA JR.; AND DOES 1 1 Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 n:Mlit\li2023\2 109 16\01709244.docx. THROUGH 100, Defendants. Defendants JENNIFER CHOI and COREY TEAGUE, individuals (“Defendants”) responds to the Complaint of Plaintiff PHUONG T. NGUYEN (“Plaintiff”) as follows: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 431.30 and 446(a), Defendants deny each and every allegation in the Complaint. Defendants further deny that Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or sums, or otherwise, or at all, by reason of any act or omission of these specific Defendants. 10 Defendants set forth below their affirmative defenses. By setting forth these affirmative 11 defenses, Defendants do not assume the burden of proving any fact, issue, or element of a cause of 12 action where such burden properly belongs to Plaintiff. Moreover, nothing stated herein is intended or 13 shall be construed as an acknowledgment that any particular issue or subject matter is relevant to 14 Plaintiff's allegations. 15 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 16 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Failure to State a Claim) 18 The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under any theory. 19 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Failure to Comply with Government Code, Failure to File Gov’t Claim) 21 The Complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to state a cause of action due to a failure to 22 comply with the claim filing requirements of the California Government Code, including but not 23 limited to Plaintiff's Complaint is barred for failure to file a government claim under Government 24 Code section 905, 910, 911.2 inter alia, which requires that for lawsuits seeking monetary relief be 25 barred where n timely claim is filed. (Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 838; N.G. v. County 26 of San Diego (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 63, 72.) 27 1 28 2 Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 n:Mlit\li2023\210916\01709244.docx, THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Consent, Waiver, Estoppel, Unclean Hands, Laches) As an affirmative defense to each cause of action in the Complaint, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of consent, waiver, estoppel, equitable estoppel, unclean hands, and/or laches. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Public Liability Act) The provisions of the Public Liability Act of the California Government Code limits the duty of this answering Defendant. 10 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Good Faith) 12 Defendants allege that them and their employees acted with both subjective and objective good 13 faith, such that any claim for relief that Plaintiff may have is barred by law. 14 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Improper Service) 16 Defendants allege that Plaintiff did not properly serve them with the Summons and Complaint, 17 at the correct location, nor via personal service or service means required by the California Code of 18 Civil Procedure. 19 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Comparative Negligence) 21 Defendants allege by way of a plea of comparative negligence that Plaintiff was negligent in 22 and about the matters and activities alleged in said Complaint; that said negligence contributed to and 23 was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, if any, or was the sole cause thereof; 24 and that if Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages against Defendant by virtue of said Complaint, 25 Defendant prays that the recovery be diminished or extinguished by reason of the negligence of the 26 Plaintiff in proportion to the degree of fault attributable to the Plaintiff. 27 M 28 u 3 Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 n:Mit\li2023\2 109 16\01709244.docx, EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Contribution) Defendants allege that the fault of persons other than this answering Defendant contributed to and proximately caused the occurrence; and that under the principles formulated in the case of American Motorcycle Assoc. v. Super. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578, Defendant prays that the percentage of such contribution be established by special verdict or other procedure, and that Defendant's ultimate liability be reduced to the extent of such contribution. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Proposition 51- Several Liability) 10 Defendants allege that in the event that this answering Defendant is found to be liable -- which 11 liability is specifically denied and stated merely for the purposes of this affirmative defense -- such 12 liability, if any there be, for non-economic damages shall be several and not joint, pursuant to the 13 California Fair Responsibility Act of 1986 (Proposition 51) as set forth in section 1431 er seq. of the 14 California Civil Code. This answering Defendant requests that the trier of fact be instructed that the 15 amount of non-economic damages be allocated in direct proportion to the percentage of fault, if any 16 there be, assessed against each person or entity to which the Act applies and that a separate judgment 17 be rendered against each such person or entity in the amount of such non-economic damages 18 attributable to that person or entity. 19 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (California Tort Claims Act) 21 Defendants allege that the Complaint is barred by the following provisions of the California 22 Tort Claims Act, Government Code Sections: 815; 815.2; 815.2(b); 815.6; 820(b); 820.2; 820.4; 23 820.8; 820.9; 840; 840.6. 24 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Failure to Mitigate) 26 Defendants allege that Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to mitigate 27 Plaintiff's alleged damages. 28 MW 4 Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 n:Mit\li2023\210916\01709244.docx, TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Government Code Bars) Defendants allege that the said Complaint and the purported causes of action thereof are barred by the provisions of California Government Code Sections 815, 815.2, 815.4, 815.6, 818, 818.2, 820, 820.2, 820.4, 820.8, 821, 840, 840.2, 840.6, and other applicable provisions of law and each of said sections. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Variance between Tort Claim and Complaint) Plaintiff's causes of action are limited to those factual allegations and theories of recovery set 10 forth in Plaintiff's written government tort claim, if any, and that to the extent that the Complaint ll attempts to enlarge or expand upon those allegations and theories, the Complaint fails to state a cause 12 of action and is barred pursuant to Government Code Sections 905, 910, 911.2, 945.5, 950.2 and 13 related provisions. 14 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Reduction of Verdict or Judgment) 16 As an affirmative defense to each cause of action in the Complaint, Defendants allege that any 17 verdict or judgment that might be recovered by Plaintiff must be reduced by those amounts that have 18 already or will in the future, with reasonable certainty, indemnify Plaintiff in whole or in part for any 19 past or future claimed economic loss from any collateral source such as insurance, social security, 20 workers’ compensation, or employee benefit program. 21 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Defendant’s Acts Not A But-For Cause) 23 Defendant states that any act or omission on the part of the answering defendant was not the 24 actual but-for cause of Plaintiff’s injury. 25 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (Superseding Cause and Intervening Cause) 27 Defendant states that any act or omission on the part of the answering defendant was not the 28 actual cause of Plaintiff's injury due to Superseding Causes and Intervening Causes, specifically other 5 Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 n:Mit\li2023\210916\01709244.docx tortfeasors named as co-defendants, and individuals who were inhabiting Plaintiff’s property during the time period alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unjust Enrichment) Given that the injuries and damages sought by Plaintiff were caused by other tortfeasors named as co-defendants, and individuals who were inhabiting Plaintiffs property during the time period alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff is attempting to recover damages from City employees who were not responsible or liable for the damage to Plaintiff’s proper. As such, based on equitable principles, Plaintiff would be unjustly enriched should its Complaint be granted. 10 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff as follows: 11 1 That the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and with prejudice; 12 2. That Plaintiff take nothing by the Complaint; 13 3 That judgment be entered in favor of San Francisco; 14 4 That San Francisco recover its costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees, in 15 this action; and 16 5 For such further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 17 Dated: October 4, 2023 18 DAVID CHIU City Attorney 19 JAMES F. HANNAWALT 20 Acting Chief Trial Deputy NATASSIA KWAN 21 Deputy City Attorney 22 By:/s/ Natassia Kwan 23 NATASSIA KWAN 24 Attorneys for Defendants Mayor London Breed, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto, 25 Defendants Tina Tam, Michael Borovina, The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 26 Jennifer Choi and Corey Teague 27 28 6 Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 nMit\li2023\210916\01709244.docx PROOF OF SERVICE I, AMY ZEHRING, declare as follows: Tam a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above- entitled action. Iam employed at the City Attorney’s Office of San Francisco, Fox Plaza Building, 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. On October 4, 2023, I served the following document(s): DEFENDANTS JENNIFER CHOI AND COREY TEAGUE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the following persons at the locations specified: Phuong T. Nguyen Scott A. Freedman P.O. Box 585 Laura F. Strazzo Brisbane, CA 94005 ZACKS & FREEDMAN, PC Telephone: (650) 228-6880 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 Email: drfaith37 @ gmail.com San Francisco, CA 94111 10 Telephone: (415) 956-8100 Plaintiff in Pro Per Facsimile: (415) 288-9755 11 Email: scott@zfplaw.com 12 (by U.S. Mail and Email) (by Email Only) 13 Attorneys for Defendant RYAN JAMES PATTERSON 14 James B. Kraus 15 816 Alvarado Street San Francisco, CA 94114 16 Telephone: (415) 606-8535 Email: jbkrausesq @aol.com 17 (by Email Only) 18 Attorneys for Defendant 19 RYAN JAMES PATTERSON 20 in the manner indicated below: 21 Xx BY UNITED STATES MAIL: Following ordinary business practices, I sealed true and correct copies of the above documents in addressed envelope(s) and placed them at my workplace for collection and mailing with 22 the United States Postal Service. I am readily familiar with the practices of the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office for collecting and processing mail. In the ordinary course of business, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed 23 for collection would be deposited, postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service that same day. 24 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the documents to be sent to the person(s) at the electronic service address(es) listed above. Such 25 document(s) were transmitted via electronic mail from the electronic address: amy.zehring@sfcityatty.org in portable document format (“PDF”) Adobe Acrobat. 26 27 28 7 Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 nMit\li2023\2 109 16\01709244.docx, I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the 1 foregoing is true and correct. 2 Executed October 4, 2023, at San Francisco, California. AMY ZEHRING \ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 Defs Choi & Teague Answer to PL SAC; Case No. CGC-21-591803 nMitli2023\2109 16\01709244.docx