Preview
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
JASON R. CHERMELA, SB# 204039
2 E-Mail: Jason.Chermela@lewisbrisbois.com
JOSEPH C. OWENS, SB# 116075
3 E-Mail: Joseph.Owens@lewisbrisbois.com
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
4 Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: 213.250.1800
5 Facsimile: 213.250.7900
6 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF KERN,
erroneously sued as KERN COUNTY and
7 NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT
CORPORATION
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF KERN
10
11
VICTORIA JEAN NAVIN, an individual, Case No. BCV-24-100004
12
Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND
13 FOR JURY TRIAL
vs.
14 Assigned for All Purposes to:
CITY OF DELANO, a public entity; KERN Hon. Gregory Pulskamp, Dept. J
15 COUNTY, a public entity; STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, a public entity; CALIFORNIA Action Filed: January 2, 2024
16 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, a Trial Date: None Set
public entity; NATIONAL EXPRESS
17 TRANSIT CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; JOHN DOE, an individual; and
18 DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
19 Defendants.
20
21 COMES NOW Defendants COUNTY OF KERN, erroneously sued as KERN COUNTY
22 (the “County”) and NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT CORPORATION (“Defendants”),
23 answering the unverified Complaint by Plaintiff VICTORIA JEAN NAVIN (“Plaintiff”) on file
24 herein, and denies and alleges as follows:
25 GENERAL DENIAL
26 1. Under the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30, Defendants
27 generally and specifically deny each, every, and all of the allegations of Plaintiff’s unverified
28 Complaint, and the whole thereof, and denies that Plaintiff has sustained injury or damages in the
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 137890564.1
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 sums alleged, or in any other sum, or at all.
2 2. Further, in answering Plaintiff’s unverified Complaint on file herein, and the whole
3 thereof, Defendants deny that Plaintiff has sustained any injury, damage or loss, if any, by reason
4 of any act or omission by Defendants, or its agents or employees.
5 SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
6 Defendants hereby plead the following separate and affirmative defenses. By alleging the
7 separate and affirmative defenses set forth below, Defendants intend no alteration of the burden of
8 proof and/or burden of going forward with evidence that otherwise exists with respect to any
9 particular issue at law or in equity. Furthermore, all such defenses are pleaded in the alternative,
10 and do not constitute an admission of liability or that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever.
11 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Failure to State a Claim)
13 3. Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each cause of action
14 therein, fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants.
15 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (Comparative Fault of Plaintiff)
17 4. Defendants affirmatively allege that at all relevant and material times, Plaintiff was
18 negligent and failed to use the degree of care and caution that a reasonably prudent person would
19 have used under the same or similar circumstances and, therefore, was a proximate cause of the
20 alleged events which form the basis for Plaintiff’s unverified Complaint. Plaintiff’s recovery, if
21 any, should be reduced by an amount proportionate to the amount which contributed to the
22 happening of the alleged incident(s).
23 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Comparative Fault of Others)
25 5. Defendants affirmatively allege that at all relevant and material times, the acts or
26 omissions of third persons, other than Defendants, proximately caused Plaintiff’s alleged damages,
27 the fact of which is expressly denied. Further, Defendants affirmatively allege that Defendants are
28 not vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of such third persons. Defendants are entitled to a
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
137890564.1 2
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 judicial determination of the percentage of the fault of each person who is a proximate cause of the
2 alleged injuries sustained.
3 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 (Assumption of Risk)
5 6. Defendants affirmatively allege that it is not liable for Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, the
6 fact of which is expressly denied, under the doctrines of primary and secondary assumption of the
7 risk. At the time and place of the events alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff knew of the danger and
8 risk inherent in his activity, but nevertheless freely and voluntarily exposed Plaintiff to all risks of
9 harm and thus assumed all risk of harm incidental thereto.
10 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Intervening Acts)
12 7. Defendants allege that the direct and proximate cause of any and all of Plaintiff’s
13 alleged injuries, the fact of which is expressly denied, were unforeseeable actions of others, which
14 constitute as supervening, superseding, or intervening causes for which Defendants are not liable.
15 Thus, Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, if any, are not recoverable from
16 Defendants. In the alternative, any damages that Plaintiff may be entitled to recover against
17 Defendants must be reduced to the extent such damages are attributable to the intervening acts
18 and/or omissions of persons other than Defendants.
19 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (No Damages)
21 8. Defendants affirmatively allege that in connection with any and all of Plaintiff’s
22 allegations pertaining to or referring to alleged damages, and Defendants’ denial of each and all of
23 such allegations, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, or any part thereof, Defendants
24 hereby specifically deny that Plaintiff has been, or will be, damaged in any way or amount alleged,
25 in any amount whatsoever, or at all, and specifically denies that Plaintiff, has been, or will be entitled
26 to any general, compensatory, or other damage, or injunctive relief as alleged, sought or referred to,
27 or any other relief at all, and Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff has not been and will not
28 be damaged or entitled to recover damages of any type or kind, in any amount whatsoever, or at all.
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
137890564.1 3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Failure to Mitigate Damages)
3 9. Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff was unreasonable in and about the
4 matters alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, in that Plaintiff did not take reasonable precautions to avoid
5 or reduce her alleged damages.
6 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Damages Uncertain)
8 10. Defendants affirmatively allege that the damages claimed by Plaintiff are uncertain
9 and speculative, thereby precluding calculation and any recovery.
10 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 (Consent)
12 11. Defendants affirmatively allege that at all times material, Plaintiff consented to each
13 and every act and omission attributed to or allegedly performed by Defendants.
14 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 (Estoppel)
16 12. Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff is estopped from seeking the requested
17 relief.
18 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Statute of Limitations)
20 13. Defendants affirmatively allege that all or portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred
21 by the statutes of limitations set forth in, including, but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure §§
22 335.1, 337, 337.1, 337.15, 338, and 343.
23 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Waiver)
25 14. Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff has waived any rights that Plaintiff may
26 have to the requested relief.
27 / / /
28 / / /
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
137890564.1 4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Unclean Hands)
3 15. By virtue of Plaintiff’s unlawful, careless, negligent and other wrongful conduct,
4 Plaintiff should be barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands from recovering any of
5 Plaintiff’s requested relief.
6 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Indemnity/Contribution)
8 16. Defendants allege that if it should be established that Defendants are in any manner
9 legally responsible for Plaintiff’s alleged damages, which Defendants deny, Defendants would be
10 entitled to indemnity and/or contribution from Plaintiff and/or other third parties in direct proportion
11 to Plaintiff’s and/or other third parties' negligence or other actionable conduct which proximately
12 caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any.
13 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Civil Code §§ 1431.1 through 1431.5)
15 17. Defendants allege that pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 1431.1 through 1431.5
16 inclusive, Plaintiff is barred and precluded from recovering against Defendants on the Complaint
17 for any non-economic damages except those allocated to Defendants in direct proportion to
18 Defendants’ percentage of fault, if any such fault or damages there be.
19 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Unforeseeable Idiosyncratic Condition)
21 18. Defendants allege that any and all of the injuries allegedly suffered by Plaintiff, the
22 fact of which is expressly denied, are the direct and proximate result of an unforeseeable
23 idiosyncratic condition or reaction on the part of Plaintiff, and not, as alleged, as a direct and
24 proximate result of wrongful conduct on the part of Defendants, the fact of which is expressly
25 denied.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
137890564.1 5
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Failure to Join)
3 19. Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred, in whole or in
4 part, on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to join an indispensable party needed for a just
5 adjudication of this action.
6 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 (Set-off)
8 20. Defendants affirmatively allege that Defendants are entitled to set off any settlement,
9 judgments, or similar amounts received by Plaintiff, against any judgment rendered in Plaintiff’s
10 favor.
11 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Unjust Enrichment)
13 21. Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, on the
14 ground that any recovery would constitute unjust enrichment under the circumstances presented.
15 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (Other Affirmative Defenses)
17 22. Defendants allege that Defendants presently have insufficient knowledge or
18 information upon which to form a basis as to whether it may have additional separate and affirmative
19 defenses available, of which Defendants are not now fully aware. To the extent not set forth herein,
20 Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer to assert and rely upon such other separate and
21 additional affirmative defenses after the same shall be ascertained through clarification of Plaintiff’s
22 unverified Complaint, through discovery or other proceedings, or through further legal analysis of
23 Plaintiff’s claims in this action.
24 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Causes of Action Not Stated in Claim)
26 23. The County alleges that if, and to the extent that, the allegations of Plaintiff’s
27 Complaint attempt to enlarge upon the facts and/or contentions set forth in any Claim[s] made by
28 Plaintiff upon County, if any such claim was made, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
137890564.1 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 action and violates provisions of the California Government Code, Division 3.6, Part 3, Chapter I
2 (commencing with section 900) and Chapter II (commencing with section 910) and County reserves
3 the right to move to strike any such allegations and to object to any evidence directed to the proof
4 of any such allegations.
5 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 (Immunities)
7 24. As a further separate and distinct affirmative defense, the County alleges that it is
8 immune from liability for the causes of action alleged in the Complaint, if any, pursuant to California
9 Government Code sections 815, 815.2, 815.3, 818, 818.2, 818.4, 818.8, 820(b), 820.2, 820.4, 820.6,
10 820.8, 821, 822.2 and 823 of the Government Code and sections 834, 834a, 835, 835a and 836 of
11 the Penal Code.
12 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 (Tort Claim Immunity)
14 25. As a further separate and distinct affirmative defense, the County alleges immunity
15 on all state law claims by virtue of the applicable immunities of the Tort Claims Act (Government
16 Code §§ 810, et seq.), Civil Code § 43.55 or any other provision of law.
17
18 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
19 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment, as follows:
20 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of Plaintiff’s Complaint herein;
21 2. That judgment of dismissal be entered in favor of Defendants;
22 3. That Defendants be awarded the costs and attorney's fees that it has incurred in
23 defending this lawsuit as permitted by contract or by statute or otherwise allowed by law;
24 4. That Defendants be granted any such other and further relief as the Court deems
25 just and proper.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
137890564.1 7
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 Defendants, COUNTY OF KERN, erroneously sued as KERN COUNTY and
3 NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT CORPORATION hereby demand a trial by jury of the above-
4 captioned matter on all claims so triable.
5
6 DATED: April 1, 2024 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
7
8
By:
9 JOSEPH C. OWENS
Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF KERN,
10 erroneously sued as KERN COUNTY and
NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT
11
CORPORATION
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
137890564.1 8
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE
Navin, Victoria Jean v. City of Delano, et al.
2 KCSC Case No. BCV-24-100004
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My
business address is 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90071.
5
On April 1, 2024, I served true copies of the following document(s): ANSWER TO
6 COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
7 I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax
numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable):
8
Lauren A. Landau, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff,
9 DOWNTOWN LA LAW GROUP VICTORIA JEAN NAVIN
910 S. Broadway
10 Los Angeles, CA 90015
Telephone: 213.389.3765
11 Facsimile: 877.389.2775
Email: lauren@downtownlalaw.com
12
The documents were served by the following means:
13
(BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an
14 agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the
documents to be sent from e-mail address Corinne.Taylor@lewisbrisbois.com to the
15 persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time
after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
16 unsuccessful.
17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
18
Executed on April 1, 2024, at Los Angeles, California.
19
20
/s/ Corinne Taylor
21 Corinne Taylor
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
137890564.1 9
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Preview
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP JASON R. CHERMELA, SB# 204039 2 E-Mail: Jason.Chermela@lewisbrisbois.com JOSEPH C. OWENS, SB# 116075 3 E-Mail: Joseph.Owens@lewisbrisbois.com 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 4 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213.250.1800 5 Facsimile: 213.250.7900 6 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF KERN, erroneously sued as KERN COUNTY and 7 NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT CORPORATION 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF KERN 10 11 VICTORIA JEAN NAVIN, an individual, Case No. BCV-24-100004 12 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND 13 FOR JURY TRIAL vs. 14 Assigned for All Purposes to: CITY OF DELANO, a public entity; KERN Hon. Gregory Pulskamp, Dept. J 15 COUNTY, a public entity; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a public entity; CALIFORNIA Action Filed: January 2, 2024 16 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, a Trial Date: None Set public entity; NATIONAL EXPRESS 17 TRANSIT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; JOHN DOE, an individual; and 18 DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 COMES NOW Defendants COUNTY OF KERN, erroneously sued as KERN COUNTY 22 (the “County”) and NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT CORPORATION (“Defendants”), 23 answering the unverified Complaint by Plaintiff VICTORIA JEAN NAVIN (“Plaintiff”) on file 24 herein, and denies and alleges as follows: 25 GENERAL DENIAL 26 1. Under the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30, Defendants 27 generally and specifically deny each, every, and all of the allegations of Plaintiff’s unverified 28 Complaint, and the whole thereof, and denies that Plaintiff has sustained injury or damages in the LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD 137890564.1 & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 sums alleged, or in any other sum, or at all. 2 2. Further, in answering Plaintiff’s unverified Complaint on file herein, and the whole 3 thereof, Defendants deny that Plaintiff has sustained any injury, damage or loss, if any, by reason 4 of any act or omission by Defendants, or its agents or employees. 5 SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 6 Defendants hereby plead the following separate and affirmative defenses. By alleging the 7 separate and affirmative defenses set forth below, Defendants intend no alteration of the burden of 8 proof and/or burden of going forward with evidence that otherwise exists with respect to any 9 particular issue at law or in equity. Furthermore, all such defenses are pleaded in the alternative, 10 and do not constitute an admission of liability or that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever. 11 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Failure to State a Claim) 13 3. Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each cause of action 14 therein, fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants. 15 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Comparative Fault of Plaintiff) 17 4. Defendants affirmatively allege that at all relevant and material times, Plaintiff was 18 negligent and failed to use the degree of care and caution that a reasonably prudent person would 19 have used under the same or similar circumstances and, therefore, was a proximate cause of the 20 alleged events which form the basis for Plaintiff’s unverified Complaint. Plaintiff’s recovery, if 21 any, should be reduced by an amount proportionate to the amount which contributed to the 22 happening of the alleged incident(s). 23 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Comparative Fault of Others) 25 5. Defendants affirmatively allege that at all relevant and material times, the acts or 26 omissions of third persons, other than Defendants, proximately caused Plaintiff’s alleged damages, 27 the fact of which is expressly denied. Further, Defendants affirmatively allege that Defendants are 28 not vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of such third persons. Defendants are entitled to a LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 137890564.1 2 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 judicial determination of the percentage of the fault of each person who is a proximate cause of the 2 alleged injuries sustained. 3 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 (Assumption of Risk) 5 6. Defendants affirmatively allege that it is not liable for Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, the 6 fact of which is expressly denied, under the doctrines of primary and secondary assumption of the 7 risk. At the time and place of the events alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff knew of the danger and 8 risk inherent in his activity, but nevertheless freely and voluntarily exposed Plaintiff to all risks of 9 harm and thus assumed all risk of harm incidental thereto. 10 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Intervening Acts) 12 7. Defendants allege that the direct and proximate cause of any and all of Plaintiff’s 13 alleged injuries, the fact of which is expressly denied, were unforeseeable actions of others, which 14 constitute as supervening, superseding, or intervening causes for which Defendants are not liable. 15 Thus, Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses, if any, are not recoverable from 16 Defendants. In the alternative, any damages that Plaintiff may be entitled to recover against 17 Defendants must be reduced to the extent such damages are attributable to the intervening acts 18 and/or omissions of persons other than Defendants. 19 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (No Damages) 21 8. Defendants affirmatively allege that in connection with any and all of Plaintiff’s 22 allegations pertaining to or referring to alleged damages, and Defendants’ denial of each and all of 23 such allegations, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, or any part thereof, Defendants 24 hereby specifically deny that Plaintiff has been, or will be, damaged in any way or amount alleged, 25 in any amount whatsoever, or at all, and specifically denies that Plaintiff, has been, or will be entitled 26 to any general, compensatory, or other damage, or injunctive relief as alleged, sought or referred to, 27 or any other relief at all, and Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff has not been and will not 28 be damaged or entitled to recover damages of any type or kind, in any amount whatsoever, or at all. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 137890564.1 3 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Failure to Mitigate Damages) 3 9. Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff was unreasonable in and about the 4 matters alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, in that Plaintiff did not take reasonable precautions to avoid 5 or reduce her alleged damages. 6 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Damages Uncertain) 8 10. Defendants affirmatively allege that the damages claimed by Plaintiff are uncertain 9 and speculative, thereby precluding calculation and any recovery. 10 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 (Consent) 12 11. Defendants affirmatively allege that at all times material, Plaintiff consented to each 13 and every act and omission attributed to or allegedly performed by Defendants. 14 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 (Estoppel) 16 12. Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff is estopped from seeking the requested 17 relief. 18 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Statute of Limitations) 20 13. Defendants affirmatively allege that all or portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred 21 by the statutes of limitations set forth in, including, but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure §§ 22 335.1, 337, 337.1, 337.15, 338, and 343. 23 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Waiver) 25 14. Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff has waived any rights that Plaintiff may 26 have to the requested relief. 27 / / / 28 / / / LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 137890564.1 4 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Unclean Hands) 3 15. By virtue of Plaintiff’s unlawful, careless, negligent and other wrongful conduct, 4 Plaintiff should be barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands from recovering any of 5 Plaintiff’s requested relief. 6 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Indemnity/Contribution) 8 16. Defendants allege that if it should be established that Defendants are in any manner 9 legally responsible for Plaintiff’s alleged damages, which Defendants deny, Defendants would be 10 entitled to indemnity and/or contribution from Plaintiff and/or other third parties in direct proportion 11 to Plaintiff’s and/or other third parties' negligence or other actionable conduct which proximately 12 caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any. 13 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Civil Code §§ 1431.1 through 1431.5) 15 17. Defendants allege that pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 1431.1 through 1431.5 16 inclusive, Plaintiff is barred and precluded from recovering against Defendants on the Complaint 17 for any non-economic damages except those allocated to Defendants in direct proportion to 18 Defendants’ percentage of fault, if any such fault or damages there be. 19 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Unforeseeable Idiosyncratic Condition) 21 18. Defendants allege that any and all of the injuries allegedly suffered by Plaintiff, the 22 fact of which is expressly denied, are the direct and proximate result of an unforeseeable 23 idiosyncratic condition or reaction on the part of Plaintiff, and not, as alleged, as a direct and 24 proximate result of wrongful conduct on the part of Defendants, the fact of which is expressly 25 denied. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 137890564.1 5 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Failure to Join) 3 19. Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred, in whole or in 4 part, on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to join an indispensable party needed for a just 5 adjudication of this action. 6 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 (Set-off) 8 20. Defendants affirmatively allege that Defendants are entitled to set off any settlement, 9 judgments, or similar amounts received by Plaintiff, against any judgment rendered in Plaintiff’s 10 favor. 11 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Unjust Enrichment) 13 21. Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, on the 14 ground that any recovery would constitute unjust enrichment under the circumstances presented. 15 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Other Affirmative Defenses) 17 22. Defendants allege that Defendants presently have insufficient knowledge or 18 information upon which to form a basis as to whether it may have additional separate and affirmative 19 defenses available, of which Defendants are not now fully aware. To the extent not set forth herein, 20 Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer to assert and rely upon such other separate and 21 additional affirmative defenses after the same shall be ascertained through clarification of Plaintiff’s 22 unverified Complaint, through discovery or other proceedings, or through further legal analysis of 23 Plaintiff’s claims in this action. 24 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Causes of Action Not Stated in Claim) 26 23. The County alleges that if, and to the extent that, the allegations of Plaintiff’s 27 Complaint attempt to enlarge upon the facts and/or contentions set forth in any Claim[s] made by 28 Plaintiff upon County, if any such claim was made, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 137890564.1 6 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 action and violates provisions of the California Government Code, Division 3.6, Part 3, Chapter I 2 (commencing with section 900) and Chapter II (commencing with section 910) and County reserves 3 the right to move to strike any such allegations and to object to any evidence directed to the proof 4 of any such allegations. 5 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 (Immunities) 7 24. As a further separate and distinct affirmative defense, the County alleges that it is 8 immune from liability for the causes of action alleged in the Complaint, if any, pursuant to California 9 Government Code sections 815, 815.2, 815.3, 818, 818.2, 818.4, 818.8, 820(b), 820.2, 820.4, 820.6, 10 820.8, 821, 822.2 and 823 of the Government Code and sections 834, 834a, 835, 835a and 836 of 11 the Penal Code. 12 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 (Tort Claim Immunity) 14 25. As a further separate and distinct affirmative defense, the County alleges immunity 15 on all state law claims by virtue of the applicable immunities of the Tort Claims Act (Government 16 Code §§ 810, et seq.), Civil Code § 43.55 or any other provision of law. 17 18 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 19 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment, as follows: 20 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of Plaintiff’s Complaint herein; 21 2. That judgment of dismissal be entered in favor of Defendants; 22 3. That Defendants be awarded the costs and attorney's fees that it has incurred in 23 defending this lawsuit as permitted by contract or by statute or otherwise allowed by law; 24 4. That Defendants be granted any such other and further relief as the Court deems 25 just and proper. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 137890564.1 7 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 Defendants, COUNTY OF KERN, erroneously sued as KERN COUNTY and 3 NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT CORPORATION hereby demand a trial by jury of the above- 4 captioned matter on all claims so triable. 5 6 DATED: April 1, 2024 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 7 8 By: 9 JOSEPH C. OWENS Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF KERN, 10 erroneously sued as KERN COUNTY and NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT 11 CORPORATION 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 137890564.1 8 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE Navin, Victoria Jean v. City of Delano, et al. 2 KCSC Case No. BCV-24-100004 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business address is 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90071. 5 On April 1, 2024, I served true copies of the following document(s): ANSWER TO 6 COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 7 I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable): 8 Lauren A. Landau, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff, 9 DOWNTOWN LA LAW GROUP VICTORIA JEAN NAVIN 910 S. Broadway 10 Los Angeles, CA 90015 Telephone: 213.389.3765 11 Facsimile: 877.389.2775 Email: lauren@downtownlalaw.com 12 The documents were served by the following means: 13 (BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an 14 agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent from e-mail address Corinne.Taylor@lewisbrisbois.com to the 15 persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was 16 unsuccessful. 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 18 Executed on April 1, 2024, at Los Angeles, California. 19 20 /s/ Corinne Taylor 21 Corinne Taylor 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 137890564.1 9 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL