Preview
1 TODD H. MASTER [SBN 185881] Exempt from Filing Fees
SHAWN M. RIDLEY [SBN 144311] Pursuant to Government
2 RIDLEY♦MASTER Code section 6103
1900 O’Farrell Street, Suite 280
3 San Mateo, CA 94403
Telephone: (650) 365-7715
4 Facsimile: (650) 364-5297
Email: sridley@hrmrlaw.com
5
Attorneys for Defendant
6 CITY OF SEASIDE
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
11 HEDY WAINSCOAT, Case No. 23CV003953
1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280
12
RIDLEY♦MASTER
Plaintiff, Assigned For All Purposes To
TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715
The Honorable Thomas W. Wills, Dept. 15
vs.
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
13
DEFENDANT CITY OF SEASIDE’S
14 CITY OF SEASIDE; CITY OF SAND CITY ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
and DOES 1 to 10,
15
16 Defendants.
17
18 COMES NOW defendant CITY OF SEASIDE (“the City”) and hereby answers the
19
unverified Complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff HEDY WAINSCOAT (“Plaintiff”), and admits,
20
denies and alleges as follows:
21
GENERAL DENIAL
22
23 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d), the City denies,
24 generally and specifically, each and every material allegation, statement, matter and purported
25 cause of action contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint. The City further denies, generally and
26 specifically, that Plaintiff has been damaged in the manner or sums alleged, or in any way at all, by
27 reason of any acts or omissions of the City.
28 ///
________________
DEFENDANT CITY OF SEASIDE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; Case No. 23CV003953
1
1 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 1. As a first and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that the
3 Complaint fails to state a cause of action against the City.
4 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 2. As a second and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City denies any
6 wrongdoing, negligence or liability on its part but, should it be determined that the City is liable to
7 Plaintiff, then the City alleges that Plaintiff was also legally at fault, and possibly others as well,
8 and thus any recovery that might otherwise be rendered against the City must be reduced by that
9 percentage which reflects the comparative fault of others.
10 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 3. As a third and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that
1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280
12
RIDLEY♦MASTER
Plaintiff acted with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding her injuries and
TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
13 that said matters for which Plaintiff assumed the risk proximately contributed to and proximately
14
caused her injuries, if any.
15
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16
4. As a fourth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that
17
Plaintiff has failed to mitigate the alleged damages, if any, which she claims to have sustained, and
18
her recovery, if any, should be barred or diminished accordingly.
19
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20
5. As a fifth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that
21
this action is barred by virtue of the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, including, but not
22
limited to Government Code §§815, 815.2, 815.4, 818, 818.2, 818.4, 818.6, 818.8, 820.2, 820.4,
23
820.6, 820.8, 821, 821.2, 821.4, 821.8, 822.2, 830, 830.2, 830.4, 830.5, 830.6, 830.8, 831, 831.3,
24
831.4, 831.7, 835, 835.2, 835.4, and 840.6.
25
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26
6. As a sixth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that
27
this action is barred by virtue of the provisions of the Statute of Limitations and, in particular, the
28
________________
DEFENDANT CITY OF SEASIDE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; Case No. 23CV003953
2
1 provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 313 through 349.4 including, but not
2 limited to Sections 337.1, 337.15, 338, 338(j), 339, 340 and 342.
3 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 7. As a seventh and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that
5 Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by virtue of her failure to comply with Government Code
6 §§900 et seq. and particularly, Government Code §§ 901, 905, 910, 911.2, 911.4, 945.6 and 946.6.
7 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 8. As an eighth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges by
9 virtue of Plaintiff’s affirmative conduct, she is estopped from making any claim against the City by
10 reason of the doctrine of estoppel.
11 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280
12
RIDLEY♦MASTER
9. As a ninth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that
TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
13 the causes of action are frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation and therefore the City is
14
entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1038.
15
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16
10. As a tenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that
17
because the Complaint is couched in conclusory terms, the City cannot fully anticipate all
18
affirmative defenses that may be applicable to the within action. Accordingly, the City reserves the
19
right to add additional affirmative defenses as discovery progresses.
20
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21
11. As an eleventh and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges
22
that the condition on which Plaintiff was injured was open and obvious, negating any potential duty
23
to warn by the City.
24
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25
12. As a twelfth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that
26
to the extent the condition on which Plaintiff was injured can be considered a defect, it is of such a
27
trivial nature that the City cannot be held liable to Plaintiff for her injuries occasioned by said
28
________________
DEFENDANT CITY OF SEASIDE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; Case No. 23CV003953
3
1 defect.
2 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 13. As a thirteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges
4 that it had neither actual nor constructive notice of the condition alleged by Plaintiff to be a
5 dangerous condition of public property.
6 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 14. As a fourteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges
8 that it neither owned, controlled nor maintained the condition alleged by Plaintiff to be a dangerous
9 condition of public property.
10 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 15. As a fifteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges
1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280
12
RIDLEY♦MASTER
that it neither created nor caused to exist the condition alleged by Plaintiff to be a dangerous
TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
13 condition of public property.
14
WHEREFORE, defendant CITY OF SEASIDE prays that Plaintiff take nothing by her
15
Complaint, for costs of suit incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as to the Court
16
may deem reasonable and proper.
17
DATED: April 11, 2024
18
RIDLEY♦MASTER
19
20
21
22 By:______________________________________
Shawn M. Ridley
23 Attorneys for Defendant
CITY OF SEASIDE
24
25
26
27
28
________________
DEFENDANT CITY OF SEASIDE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; Case No. 23CV003953
4
1 Hedy Wainscoat v. City of Seaside, et al./Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 23CV003953
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO:
4 I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age
5 of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1900 O’Farrell
Street, Suite 280, San Mateo, CA 94403. On the date set forth below I served the DEFENDANT
6 CITY OF SEASIDE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT on the following person(s)
in this action:
7
Neil P. Berman ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
8 Rucka Oboyle Lombardo & McKenna HEDY WAINSCOAT
9 245 W. Laurel Drive
Salinas, CA 93906
10 Telephone: (831) 443-1051
Fax: (831) 443-6419
11 Email: sergio@rolmlaw.com
1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280
12
RIDLEY♦MASTER
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE, ONLY—Based on (1) a court order; (2) agreement of the parties herein to accept
TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
13 electronic service, or (3) CCP §1010.6, I caused the above-described document(s) to be sent electronically, addressed to
the person(s) on whom it is to be served, at the email address(es) shown on the above Service List.
14 (VIA MAIL -- CCP §§ 1013(a), 2015.5) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as
above, and placing each for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar
15 with my firm's business practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service
and correspondence placed for collection and mailing would be deposited in the U.S. Postal Service at San Mateo, California,
16 with postage thereon fully prepaid, that same day in the ordinary course of business.
17 (VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY -- CCP §§ 1011, 2015.5) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s),
addressed as above, and causing each envelope(s) to be hand delivered on that day by , in the ordinary course of my
firm's business practice.
18
(VIA FACSIMILE -- CCP §§ 1013(e), 2015.5, CRC 2008) By arranging for facsimile transmission from facsimile number
19 650/364-5297 to the above-listed facsimile number(s) prior to 5:00 p.m. I am readily familiar with my firm's business
practice of collection and processing of correspondence via facsimile transmission(s) and any such correspondence would
20 be transmitted in the ordinary course of business. The facsimile transmission(s) was reported as complete and without error,
and a copy of the transmission report is attached.
21
(VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL/COURIER -- CCP §§ 1013(c), 2015.5) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope(s), addressed as above, and placing each for collection by overnight mail service or overnight courier service. I
22 am familiar with my firm's business practice of collection and processing of correspondence for overnight mail or overnight
courier service, and my correspondence placed for collection for overnight delivery would, in the ordinary course of
23 business, be delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the overnight mail carrier to receive documents, with
delivery fees paid or provided for, that same day, for delivery on the following business day.
24
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose
25 direction the service was made. Executed on April 11, 2024, at San Mateo, California.
26
27
28 Lorene Spinelli
________________
DEFENDANT CITY OF SEASIDE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; Case No. 23CV003953
5
Preview
1 TODD H. MASTER [SBN 185881] Exempt from Filing Fees SHAWN M. RIDLEY [SBN 144311] Pursuant to Government 2 RIDLEY♦MASTER Code section 6103 1900 O’Farrell Street, Suite 280 3 San Mateo, CA 94403 Telephone: (650) 365-7715 4 Facsimile: (650) 364-5297 Email: sridley@hrmrlaw.com 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 CITY OF SEASIDE 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY 10 11 HEDY WAINSCOAT, Case No. 23CV003953 1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280 12 RIDLEY♦MASTER Plaintiff, Assigned For All Purposes To TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715 The Honorable Thomas W. Wills, Dept. 15 vs. SAN MATEO, CA 94403 13 DEFENDANT CITY OF SEASIDE’S 14 CITY OF SEASIDE; CITY OF SAND CITY ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT and DOES 1 to 10, 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 COMES NOW defendant CITY OF SEASIDE (“the City”) and hereby answers the 19 unverified Complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff HEDY WAINSCOAT (“Plaintiff”), and admits, 20 denies and alleges as follows: 21 GENERAL DENIAL 22 23 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d), the City denies, 24 generally and specifically, each and every material allegation, statement, matter and purported 25 cause of action contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint. The City further denies, generally and 26 specifically, that Plaintiff has been damaged in the manner or sums alleged, or in any way at all, by 27 reason of any acts or omissions of the City. 28 /// ________________ DEFENDANT CITY OF SEASIDE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; Case No. 23CV003953 1 1 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 1. As a first and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that the 3 Complaint fails to state a cause of action against the City. 4 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5 2. As a second and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City denies any 6 wrongdoing, negligence or liability on its part but, should it be determined that the City is liable to 7 Plaintiff, then the City alleges that Plaintiff was also legally at fault, and possibly others as well, 8 and thus any recovery that might otherwise be rendered against the City must be reduced by that 9 percentage which reflects the comparative fault of others. 10 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 3. As a third and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that 1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280 12 RIDLEY♦MASTER Plaintiff acted with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding her injuries and TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715 SAN MATEO, CA 94403 13 that said matters for which Plaintiff assumed the risk proximately contributed to and proximately 14 caused her injuries, if any. 15 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 4. As a fourth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that 17 Plaintiff has failed to mitigate the alleged damages, if any, which she claims to have sustained, and 18 her recovery, if any, should be barred or diminished accordingly. 19 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 5. As a fifth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that 21 this action is barred by virtue of the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, including, but not 22 limited to Government Code §§815, 815.2, 815.4, 818, 818.2, 818.4, 818.6, 818.8, 820.2, 820.4, 23 820.6, 820.8, 821, 821.2, 821.4, 821.8, 822.2, 830, 830.2, 830.4, 830.5, 830.6, 830.8, 831, 831.3, 24 831.4, 831.7, 835, 835.2, 835.4, and 840.6. 25 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 6. As a sixth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that 27 this action is barred by virtue of the provisions of the Statute of Limitations and, in particular, the 28 ________________ DEFENDANT CITY OF SEASIDE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; Case No. 23CV003953 2 1 provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 313 through 349.4 including, but not 2 limited to Sections 337.1, 337.15, 338, 338(j), 339, 340 and 342. 3 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 7. As a seventh and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that 5 Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by virtue of her failure to comply with Government Code 6 §§900 et seq. and particularly, Government Code §§ 901, 905, 910, 911.2, 911.4, 945.6 and 946.6. 7 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 8. As an eighth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges by 9 virtue of Plaintiff’s affirmative conduct, she is estopped from making any claim against the City by 10 reason of the doctrine of estoppel. 11 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280 12 RIDLEY♦MASTER 9. As a ninth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715 SAN MATEO, CA 94403 13 the causes of action are frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation and therefore the City is 14 entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1038. 15 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 10. As a tenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that 17 because the Complaint is couched in conclusory terms, the City cannot fully anticipate all 18 affirmative defenses that may be applicable to the within action. Accordingly, the City reserves the 19 right to add additional affirmative defenses as discovery progresses. 20 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 11. As an eleventh and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges 22 that the condition on which Plaintiff was injured was open and obvious, negating any potential duty 23 to warn by the City. 24 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 12. As a twelfth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges that 26 to the extent the condition on which Plaintiff was injured can be considered a defect, it is of such a 27 trivial nature that the City cannot be held liable to Plaintiff for her injuries occasioned by said 28 ________________ DEFENDANT CITY OF SEASIDE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; Case No. 23CV003953 3 1 defect. 2 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 13. As a thirteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges 4 that it had neither actual nor constructive notice of the condition alleged by Plaintiff to be a 5 dangerous condition of public property. 6 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 14. As a fourteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges 8 that it neither owned, controlled nor maintained the condition alleged by Plaintiff to be a dangerous 9 condition of public property. 10 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 15. As a fifteenth and separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, the City alleges 1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280 12 RIDLEY♦MASTER that it neither created nor caused to exist the condition alleged by Plaintiff to be a dangerous TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715 SAN MATEO, CA 94403 13 condition of public property. 14 WHEREFORE, defendant CITY OF SEASIDE prays that Plaintiff take nothing by her 15 Complaint, for costs of suit incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as to the Court 16 may deem reasonable and proper. 17 DATED: April 11, 2024 18 RIDLEY♦MASTER 19 20 21 22 By:______________________________________ Shawn M. Ridley 23 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF SEASIDE 24 25 26 27 28 ________________ DEFENDANT CITY OF SEASIDE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; Case No. 23CV003953 4 1 Hedy Wainscoat v. City of Seaside, et al./Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 23CV003953 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO: 4 I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age 5 of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1900 O’Farrell Street, Suite 280, San Mateo, CA 94403. On the date set forth below I served the DEFENDANT 6 CITY OF SEASIDE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT on the following person(s) in this action: 7 Neil P. Berman ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 8 Rucka Oboyle Lombardo & McKenna HEDY WAINSCOAT 9 245 W. Laurel Drive Salinas, CA 93906 10 Telephone: (831) 443-1051 Fax: (831) 443-6419 11 Email: sergio@rolmlaw.com 1900 OFARRELL STREET, SUITE 280 12 RIDLEY♦MASTER BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE, ONLY—Based on (1) a court order; (2) agreement of the parties herein to accept TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715 SAN MATEO, CA 94403 13 electronic service, or (3) CCP §1010.6, I caused the above-described document(s) to be sent electronically, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served, at the email address(es) shown on the above Service List. 14 (VIA MAIL -- CCP §§ 1013(a), 2015.5) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as above, and placing each for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar 15 with my firm's business practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service and correspondence placed for collection and mailing would be deposited in the U.S. Postal Service at San Mateo, California, 16 with postage thereon fully prepaid, that same day in the ordinary course of business. 17 (VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY -- CCP §§ 1011, 2015.5) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as above, and causing each envelope(s) to be hand delivered on that day by , in the ordinary course of my firm's business practice. 18 (VIA FACSIMILE -- CCP §§ 1013(e), 2015.5, CRC 2008) By arranging for facsimile transmission from facsimile number 19 650/364-5297 to the above-listed facsimile number(s) prior to 5:00 p.m. I am readily familiar with my firm's business practice of collection and processing of correspondence via facsimile transmission(s) and any such correspondence would 20 be transmitted in the ordinary course of business. The facsimile transmission(s) was reported as complete and without error, and a copy of the transmission report is attached. 21 (VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL/COURIER -- CCP §§ 1013(c), 2015.5) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as above, and placing each for collection by overnight mail service or overnight courier service. I 22 am familiar with my firm's business practice of collection and processing of correspondence for overnight mail or overnight courier service, and my correspondence placed for collection for overnight delivery would, in the ordinary course of 23 business, be delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the overnight mail carrier to receive documents, with delivery fees paid or provided for, that same day, for delivery on the following business day. 24 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose 25 direction the service was made. Executed on April 11, 2024, at San Mateo, California. 26 27 28 Lorene Spinelli ________________ DEFENDANT CITY OF SEASIDE’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; Case No. 23CV003953 5