Preview
1 CHRISTOPHER J. DIAZ, Bar No. 235249
christopher.diaz@bbklaw.com
2 DENISE HANSEN, Bar No. 156363
denise.hansen@bbklaw.com
3 ANDREW E. LOPEZ, Bar No. 337993
andrew.lopez@bbklaw.com
4 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
2001 N. Main Street
5 Suite 390
Walnut Creek, California 94596
6 Telephone: (925) 977-3300
Facsimile: (925) 977-1870
7
Attorneys for Respondent EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT
8 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390
12
MAHMOOD PANJWANI, Case No. 23-CIV-04568
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
Petitioner, ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT
14 OF MANDATE PURSUANT TO
v. CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL
15 PROCEDURE SECTION 1094.5, 1094.6
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO SEEKING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
16 COUNTY HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH DECISION OF LOCAL
POLICY AND PLANNING; PENINSULA ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
17 HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA
(“PHS/SCPA”); TOWN OF [Deemed verified under Code Civ. Proc.,
18 HILLSBOROUGH; PROGRAM MANAGER § 446.]
OF ANIMAL CONTROL AND LICENSING,
19
Respondent(s). Judge: Hon. V. Raymond Swope
20 Dept. Dept. 23
21
Action Filed: September 27, 2023
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
61236.06000\41898349.1
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE
1 ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
2 Respondent Town of Hillsborough (“Respondent”), answers the Petition for Writ of
3 Mandate Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5, 1094.6 Seeking Judicial
4 Review of Decision of Local Administrative Agency (“Petition”) filed by Mahmood Panjwani
5 (“Peitioner”) as to itself, and not as to any other named respondent, as follows.
6 RESPONSE TO GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7 1. Answering Paragraph 1, all relevant facts and documents related to the
8 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself
9 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter.
10 2. Answering Paragraph 2, Respondent admits that Petitioner Mahmood Panjwani
11 owns Timmy. Respondent also admits that it is an interested party in this matter. Respondent Town
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390
12 of Hillsborough only answers this Petition as to itself; other named respondents have yet, but are,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 required to be served.
14 3. Answering Paragraph 3, all relevant facts and documents related to the
15 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself
16 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter.
17 4. Answering Paragraph 4, all relevant facts and documents related to the
18 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself
19 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter.
20 5. Answering Paragraph 5, all relevant facts and documents related to the
21 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself
22 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter.
23 6. Answering Paragraph 6, all relevant facts and documents related to the
24 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself
25 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter. Further answering
26 Paragraph 6, Respondent lacks sufficient information or belief to either admit or deny the
27 allegations of said Paragraph and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation contained therein.
28
61236.06000\41898349.1
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE
1 7. Answering Paragraph 7, all relevant facts and documents related to the
2 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself
3 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter
4 8. Answering Paragraph 8, all relevant facts and documents related to the
5 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself
6 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter.
7 9. Answering Paragraph 9, Respondent lacks sufficient information or belief to either
8 admit or deny the allegations of said Paragraph and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation
9 contained therein.
10 10. Answering Paragraph 10, all relevant facts and documents related to the
11 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390
12 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 11. Answering Paragraph 11, all relevant facts and documents related to the
14 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself
15 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter.
16 12. Answering Paragraph 12, all relevant facts and documents related to the
17 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself
18 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter.
19 RESPONSE TO BASIS FOR RELIEF
20 1. Answering Paragraph 1, the allegations of this Paragraph contain Petitioners’ legal
21 theories and conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required
22 Respondent denies generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 1.
23 2. Answering Paragraph 2, the allegations of this Paragraph contain Petitioners’ legal
24 theories and conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required
25 Respondent denies generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 2.
26 3. Answering Paragraph 3, the allegations of this Paragraph contain Petitioners’ legal
27 theories and conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required
28 Respondent denies generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 3.
61236.06000\41898349.1 -3-
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE
1 RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 1. Answering Prayer for Relief Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1 contains Petitioners’ prayer
3 for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent the prayer for relief requires an answer,
4 Respondent denies generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 1, and
5 affirmatively alleges that Petitioners are not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
6 2. Answering Prayer for Relief Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2 contains Petitioners’ prayer
7 for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent the prayer for relief requires an answer,
8 Respondent denies generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 2, and
9 affirmatively alleges that Petitioners are not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
11 Respondent alleges the following affirmative defenses to Petitioners’ Petition.
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 (Failure to State a Claim)
14 1. As a first separate affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim
15 therein, Respondent alleges that the Petition, and each claim asserted therein, fails to state facts to
16 support any claim upon which relief can be granted.
17 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 (Reasonable Conduct)
19 2. As a second separate affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim
20 therein, Respondent alleges that the Petition, and each claim asserted therein, fails because where
21 applicable, Respondent acted in an objectively reasonably fashion given the totality of the
22 circumstances.
23 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Unclean Hands)
25 3. As a third separate affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim
26 therein, Respondent alleges that the Petition fails due to the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.
27
28
61236.06000\41898349.1 -4-
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE
1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Acts or Omissions of Third Parties)
3 4. As a fourth separate affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim
4 therein, Petitioners are not entitled to relief against Respondent as sought by the Petition to the
5 extent the damages alleged, if suffered, were caused or contributed to, by the acts and/or omissions
6 of other parties, persons or entities. Accordingly, such acts and/or omissions were intervening and
7 superseding causes of Petitioners’ alleged damages. Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261 (9th Cir.
8 1981).
9 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Immunities)
11 5. As a fifth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, the
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390
12 Petition fails because Respondent is immune from liability pursuant to the provisions of California
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 Government Code, including but not limited to Government Code §§ 815.2, 818.8, 820.2, 820.6,
14 820.8 and/or 821.6, as well as Civil Code § 43.55 and Penal Code § 847.
15 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (Waiver)
17 6. As a sixth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, the
18 Petition fails because Petitioners are not entitled to relief against Respondent as sought by the
19 Petition to the extent Petitioners’ claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of waiver.
20 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (Estoppel)
22 7. As a seventh affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein,
23 Petitioners are not entitled to relief against Respondent as sought by the Petition to the extent
24 Petitioners’ claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of estoppel.
25
26
27
28
61236.06000\41898349.1 -5-
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE
1 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Qualified Immunity)
3 8. As an eight affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein,
4 individual government officials are shielded from liability based on the doctrine of “qualified
5 immunity.” Ogborn v. City of Lancaster, 101 Cal. App. 4th 448, 458 (2002).
6 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Laches)
8 9. As a ninth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein,
9 Petitioners are barred from maintaining this action by the doctrine of laches.
10 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Failure to Exhaust)
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390
12 10. As a tenth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 Petitioners are barred from maintaining this action because Petitioners have failed to exhaust all
14 administrative remedies.
15 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (Acts in Accordance With Law and Substantial Evidence)
17 11. As an eleventh affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein,
18 Respondent alleges with respect to all actions referred to in the Petition, that Respondent proceeded
19 in the manner required by law; did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or wholly without evidentiary
20 support; did not abuse their discretion; and made all required findings, which supported
21 Respondent’s actions and were supported by substantial evidence.
22 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Lack of Standing)
24 12. As a twelfth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein,
25 Respondent alleges that Petitioners lack standing to bring this action against Respondent.
26
27
28
61236.06000\41898349.1 -6-
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE
1 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Ripeness)
3 13. As thirteenth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein,
4 the Petition, and each purported claim for relief asserted therein, is barred because Petitioners’
5 claim is not ripe for adjudication.
6 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Improper Administrative Writ Petition)
8 14. As a fourteenth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein,
9 Petitioners lack jurisdiction to obtain and are not entitled to its requested writ of mandate inasmuch
10 as Petitioners have failed to satisfy or comply with the conditions and requirements of Code of
11 Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 et seq.
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 (Consent)
14 15. As a fifteenth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein,
15 Respondent alleges that Petitioners’ claims are barred by the doctrine of consent.
16 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (Statute of Limitations)
18 16. As a sixteenth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein,
19 and each purported claim for relief asserted therein, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations,
20 including but not limited to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.6.
21 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 (Right to Plead Additional Defenses)
23 17. As a seventeenth affirmative defense, Respondent reserves the right to plead
24 additional affirmative defenses.
25 RESPONDENT’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
26 WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that:
27 1. Petitioners take nothing by the Petition;
28 2. This Court deny Petitioners’ request for a writ of mandamus;
61236.06000\41898349.1 -7-
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE
1 3. This Court deny every and all relief prayed for by Petitioners;
2 4. This Court deny the Petition in its entirety, with prejudice;
3 5. That Respondent be awarded costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred in defense of
4 this action, and any and all costs associated with preparation of the administrative
5 record; and
6 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
7
8 Dated: December 22, 2023 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
9
10 By:
CHRISTOPHER J. DIAZ
11 DENISE HANSEN
ANDREW E. LOPEZ
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390
12 Attorneys for Respondent
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Town of Hillsborough
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
61236.06000\41898349.1 -8-
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, Pamela Crawford, declare:
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in San Bernardino County, California. I
3 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business
Preview
1 CHRISTOPHER J. DIAZ, Bar No. 235249 christopher.diaz@bbklaw.com 2 DENISE HANSEN, Bar No. 156363 denise.hansen@bbklaw.com 3 ANDREW E. LOPEZ, Bar No. 337993 andrew.lopez@bbklaw.com 4 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 2001 N. Main Street 5 Suite 390 Walnut Creek, California 94596 6 Telephone: (925) 977-3300 Facsimile: (925) 977-1870 7 Attorneys for Respondent EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT 8 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 11 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390 12 MAHMOOD PANJWANI, Case No. 23-CIV-04568 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 Petitioner, ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT 14 OF MANDATE PURSUANT TO v. CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL 15 PROCEDURE SECTION 1094.5, 1094.6 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO SEEKING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF 16 COUNTY HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH DECISION OF LOCAL POLICY AND PLANNING; PENINSULA ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY 17 HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA (“PHS/SCPA”); TOWN OF [Deemed verified under Code Civ. Proc., 18 HILLSBOROUGH; PROGRAM MANAGER § 446.] OF ANIMAL CONTROL AND LICENSING, 19 Respondent(s). Judge: Hon. V. Raymond Swope 20 Dept. Dept. 23 21 Action Filed: September 27, 2023 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 61236.06000\41898349.1 ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE 1 ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 2 Respondent Town of Hillsborough (“Respondent”), answers the Petition for Writ of 3 Mandate Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5, 1094.6 Seeking Judicial 4 Review of Decision of Local Administrative Agency (“Petition”) filed by Mahmood Panjwani 5 (“Peitioner”) as to itself, and not as to any other named respondent, as follows. 6 RESPONSE TO GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 7 1. Answering Paragraph 1, all relevant facts and documents related to the 8 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself 9 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter. 10 2. Answering Paragraph 2, Respondent admits that Petitioner Mahmood Panjwani 11 owns Timmy. Respondent also admits that it is an interested party in this matter. Respondent Town BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390 12 of Hillsborough only answers this Petition as to itself; other named respondents have yet, but are, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 required to be served. 14 3. Answering Paragraph 3, all relevant facts and documents related to the 15 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself 16 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter. 17 4. Answering Paragraph 4, all relevant facts and documents related to the 18 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself 19 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter. 20 5. Answering Paragraph 5, all relevant facts and documents related to the 21 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself 22 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter. 23 6. Answering Paragraph 6, all relevant facts and documents related to the 24 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself 25 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter. Further answering 26 Paragraph 6, Respondent lacks sufficient information or belief to either admit or deny the 27 allegations of said Paragraph and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation contained therein. 28 61236.06000\41898349.1 ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE 1 7. Answering Paragraph 7, all relevant facts and documents related to the 2 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself 3 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter 4 8. Answering Paragraph 8, all relevant facts and documents related to the 5 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself 6 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter. 7 9. Answering Paragraph 9, Respondent lacks sufficient information or belief to either 8 admit or deny the allegations of said Paragraph and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation 9 contained therein. 10 10. Answering Paragraph 10, all relevant facts and documents related to the 11 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390 12 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 11. Answering Paragraph 11, all relevant facts and documents related to the 14 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself 15 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter. 16 12. Answering Paragraph 12, all relevant facts and documents related to the 17 administrative hearing will be contained in the administrative record, which will speak for itself 18 and will be the best evidence of all proceedings conducted regarding this matter. 19 RESPONSE TO BASIS FOR RELIEF 20 1. Answering Paragraph 1, the allegations of this Paragraph contain Petitioners’ legal 21 theories and conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required 22 Respondent denies generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 1. 23 2. Answering Paragraph 2, the allegations of this Paragraph contain Petitioners’ legal 24 theories and conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required 25 Respondent denies generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 2. 26 3. Answering Paragraph 3, the allegations of this Paragraph contain Petitioners’ legal 27 theories and conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required 28 Respondent denies generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 3. 61236.06000\41898349.1 -3- ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE 1 RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 1. Answering Prayer for Relief Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1 contains Petitioners’ prayer 3 for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent the prayer for relief requires an answer, 4 Respondent denies generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 1, and 5 affirmatively alleges that Petitioners are not entitled to any relief whatsoever. 6 2. Answering Prayer for Relief Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2 contains Petitioners’ prayer 7 for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent the prayer for relief requires an answer, 8 Respondent denies generally and specifically each and every allegation in Paragraph 2, and 9 affirmatively alleges that Petitioners are not entitled to any relief whatsoever. 10 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 11 Respondent alleges the following affirmative defenses to Petitioners’ Petition. BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390 12 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 (Failure to State a Claim) 14 1. As a first separate affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim 15 therein, Respondent alleges that the Petition, and each claim asserted therein, fails to state facts to 16 support any claim upon which relief can be granted. 17 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 (Reasonable Conduct) 19 2. As a second separate affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim 20 therein, Respondent alleges that the Petition, and each claim asserted therein, fails because where 21 applicable, Respondent acted in an objectively reasonably fashion given the totality of the 22 circumstances. 23 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Unclean Hands) 25 3. As a third separate affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim 26 therein, Respondent alleges that the Petition fails due to the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. 27 28 61236.06000\41898349.1 -4- ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE 1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Acts or Omissions of Third Parties) 3 4. As a fourth separate affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim 4 therein, Petitioners are not entitled to relief against Respondent as sought by the Petition to the 5 extent the damages alleged, if suffered, were caused or contributed to, by the acts and/or omissions 6 of other parties, persons or entities. Accordingly, such acts and/or omissions were intervening and 7 superseding causes of Petitioners’ alleged damages. Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 8 1981). 9 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Immunities) 11 5. As a fifth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, the BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390 12 Petition fails because Respondent is immune from liability pursuant to the provisions of California ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 Government Code, including but not limited to Government Code §§ 815.2, 818.8, 820.2, 820.6, 14 820.8 and/or 821.6, as well as Civil Code § 43.55 and Penal Code § 847. 15 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Waiver) 17 6. As a sixth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, the 18 Petition fails because Petitioners are not entitled to relief against Respondent as sought by the 19 Petition to the extent Petitioners’ claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of waiver. 20 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 (Estoppel) 22 7. As a seventh affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, 23 Petitioners are not entitled to relief against Respondent as sought by the Petition to the extent 24 Petitioners’ claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of estoppel. 25 26 27 28 61236.06000\41898349.1 -5- ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE 1 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Qualified Immunity) 3 8. As an eight affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, 4 individual government officials are shielded from liability based on the doctrine of “qualified 5 immunity.” Ogborn v. City of Lancaster, 101 Cal. App. 4th 448, 458 (2002). 6 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Laches) 8 9. As a ninth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, 9 Petitioners are barred from maintaining this action by the doctrine of laches. 10 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Failure to Exhaust) BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390 12 10. As a tenth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 Petitioners are barred from maintaining this action because Petitioners have failed to exhaust all 14 administrative remedies. 15 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Acts in Accordance With Law and Substantial Evidence) 17 11. As an eleventh affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, 18 Respondent alleges with respect to all actions referred to in the Petition, that Respondent proceeded 19 in the manner required by law; did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or wholly without evidentiary 20 support; did not abuse their discretion; and made all required findings, which supported 21 Respondent’s actions and were supported by substantial evidence. 22 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Lack of Standing) 24 12. As a twelfth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, 25 Respondent alleges that Petitioners lack standing to bring this action against Respondent. 26 27 28 61236.06000\41898349.1 -6- ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE 1 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Ripeness) 3 13. As thirteenth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, 4 the Petition, and each purported claim for relief asserted therein, is barred because Petitioners’ 5 claim is not ripe for adjudication. 6 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Improper Administrative Writ Petition) 8 14. As a fourteenth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, 9 Petitioners lack jurisdiction to obtain and are not entitled to its requested writ of mandate inasmuch 10 as Petitioners have failed to satisfy or comply with the conditions and requirements of Code of 11 Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 et seq. BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390 12 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 (Consent) 14 15. As a fifteenth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, 15 Respondent alleges that Petitioners’ claims are barred by the doctrine of consent. 16 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 (Statute of Limitations) 18 16. As a sixteenth affirmative defense to the Petition and each and every claim therein, 19 and each purported claim for relief asserted therein, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, 20 including but not limited to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.6. 21 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 (Right to Plead Additional Defenses) 23 17. As a seventeenth affirmative defense, Respondent reserves the right to plead 24 additional affirmative defenses. 25 RESPONDENT’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF 26 WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that: 27 1. Petitioners take nothing by the Petition; 28 2. This Court deny Petitioners’ request for a writ of mandamus; 61236.06000\41898349.1 -7- ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE 1 3. This Court deny every and all relief prayed for by Petitioners; 2 4. This Court deny the Petition in its entirety, with prejudice; 3 5. That Respondent be awarded costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred in defense of 4 this action, and any and all costs associated with preparation of the administrative 5 record; and 6 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 7 8 Dated: December 22, 2023 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 9 10 By: CHRISTOPHER J. DIAZ 11 DENISE HANSEN ANDREW E. LOPEZ BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 2001 N. MAIN STREET, SUITE 390 12 Attorneys for Respondent ATTORNEYS AT LAW Town of Hillsborough 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 61236.06000\41898349.1 -8- ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDATE 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I, Pamela Crawford, declare: I am a citizen of the United States and employed in San Bernardino County, California. I 3 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business