Preview
PLp.050
[ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY ‘STATE BAR NUMBER: 103321 FOR COURT USE ONLY
Name: Jay A. Hieatt
Firm NAME: Hall Hieatt Connely & Bowen LLP
STREET ADDRESS: 444 Higuera Street, Third Floor
city: San Luis Obispo STATE: CA. ZIP CODE:9340]
TELEPHONE NO: (805) 544-3830 FAXNO:(805) 544-5329
EMAIL ADDRESS: hieatt@hhcb-slo.com
ATTORNEY FOR (name): KERN COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERN.
STREET ADDRESS: 1215 Truxtun Avenue
MAILING ADRESS 1215 Truxtun Avenue
CITY AND ZIP CODE: Bakersfield 93301
BRANCH NAME: Metropolitan Division - Justice Bldg.
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: SHERI HAFFERMAN,
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: KERN COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
ASE NUMBER:
GENERAL DENIAL BCV-23-104072
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
If you want to file a general denial, you MUST use this form if the amount asked for in the compiaint or the value of the property
involved is $1,000 or less.
You MAY use this form for a general denial if
1. The complaint is not verified; or
2. The complaint is verified and the case is a limited civil case (the amount in controversy is $35,000 or less),
BUT NOT if the complaint involves a claim for more than $1,000 that has been assigned to a third party for collection.
(See Code of Civil Procedure sections 85-86, 90-100, 431.30, and 431.40.)
1 DEFENDANT (nameé):Kern County Hospital Authority erroneously sued as KERN MEDICAL CENTER AND DR. BRYAN NACHTIGALL
generally denies each and every allegation of plaintiff's complaint.
2 DEFENDANT states the following FACTS as separate affirmative defenses to plaintiffs complaint (attach additional
pages if necessary):
SEE ATTACHED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
f of
y
bl
Date: April 5004
Jay A. Hieatt
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) / phe XO (SIGNA IURE|OF DERENDANT
OR ATTORNEY)
If you have a claim for damages or other relief against the plaintfi, the a quire you to state your claim in a special pleading
called a cross-complaint or you may lose your tight to bring the’ lai (See Code' of Civil Procedure sections 426.10-426.40.)
The original of this General Denial must be filed with the clerk of is cirt wit of that a copy Was served on each plaintiffs
attorney and on each plaintiff not represented by an attorney. There are tw we ays to sel this General Denial: by personal
delivery or by mail. It may be served by anyone at least 18 years of age-EXCEPT you or any other party to this legal action. Be sure
that whoever serves the General Denial fills out and signs a proof of service. You may use the applicable Judicial Council form (such
as form POS-029, POS-030, or POS-040) for the proof of service.
Page 1 of 1
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 431.30, 431.49
Judicial Council of California GENERAL DENIAL wwvw.courts,ca.gov
PLD-050 [Rev, January 1, 2024]
Westlaw Doc & Form Builder
20404.33487 | AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant, KERN COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, erroneously sued as KERN
MEDICAL CENTER AND DR. BRYANT NACHTIGALL hereby submit the following
affirmative defenses to the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff, SHERI HAFFERMANN:
1 This answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was herself careless and negligent in
and about the matters alleged in the First Amended Complaint filed herein; that said carelessness and
negligence on Plaintiff's own part contributed to the happening of the incident and to the injuries,
loss, and damage complained of, if any there were; that should Plaintiff recover damages, this
answering Defendant is entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced, or eliminated to the
10 extent that Plaintiff's negligence caused or contributed to her injuries, loss, and damage, if any.
11 2. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
12 AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that the cause of the incident upon
13 which this lawsuit is based was due to the negligence and/or strict liability of other persons or
14 entities for whom this answering Defendant is not responsible.
15 3 AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
16 AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that each cause of action of said First
17 Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this
18 answering Defendant.
19 4 AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
20 AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff acted with full
21 knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding her injuries and assumed the risk of the
22 matters causing her injuries, and that said matters of which Plaintiff assumed the risk contributed to
23 and caused her alleged injuries.
24 5 AS A FURTHER SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
25 AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that any damage or loss sustained by
26 Plaintiff as a result of the events alleged in the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT was caused by the
27 failure of Plaintiff to use reasonable means to mitigate any damages sustained.
28 6 AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
GENERAL DENIAL/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that any recovery by Plaintiff pursuant
to the First Amended Complaint is limited to $350,000 by the provisions of Civil Code §3333.2.
7 AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that any recovery by Plaintiff pursuant
to the First Amended Complaint is controlled by the provisions of C.C.P. §667.7
8 AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that any recovery by Plaintiff pursuant
to the First Amended Complaint is governed, controlled, and limited by the provisions of Civil
Code §1431, et seq.
10 9 AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
11 AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that this First Amended Complaint
12 has been filed and maintained in bad faith as set forth in C.C.P. § 128.7 entitling this/these answering
13 Defendant to payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees.
14 10. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
15 AMENDED COMPLAINT, it is asserted that the conduct of this answering Defendant was not a
16 substantial factor in bringing about the Plaintiff's alleged injuries.
17 ll. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
18 AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that because the First Amended
19 Complaint herein is couched on conclusionary terms, this answering Defendant cannot fully
20 anticipate all affirmative defenses that may be applicable to the within action. Accordingly, the right
21 to assert additional affirmative defenses, if and to the extent that such affirmative defenses are
22 applicable, is hereby reserved.
23 12. At all times mentioned in the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, plaintiff knew, or
24 in the exercise of ordinary care was charged with the knowledge, that she was submitting herself to
25 the medical technique, treatment, and/or medication with the full knowledge of the risks attendant
26 thereto. Accordingly, plaintiff freely, voluntarily, and expressly assumed and consented to all
27 reasonably known risks attendant to the medical technique, treatment, and/or medication, barring
28 plaintiff's recovery.
GENERAL DENIAL/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
13. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff has failed to state
facts sufficient to support a cause of action because the Plaintiff has failed to plead any statutory
liability against this answering Defendant pursuant to Government Code §815 and 815.2(b).
14. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability based
upon its exercise of reasonable diligence in the discharge of its duties. Government Code §815.6.
15. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that if discovery reveals that this
10 action has been instituted and/or maintained in bad faith, this answering Defendant will be entitled
11 to defense costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees and the expense of services of
12 experts, advisors and consultants in the defense of this matter pursuant to C.C.P. §§103 8, 128.5.
13 16. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
14 AMENDED COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff's FIRST AMENDED
15 COMPLAINT, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred because of Plaintiff's
16 failure to comply with applicable claims provisions of the California Government Code, Chapter 1,
17 commencing with Section 900, and Chapter 2, commencing with Section 910.
18 17. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
19 AMENDED COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges that Defendant is immune from any and all liability
20 for any injury caused by the act or omission of any third persons pursuant to Government Code
21 Sections 820.8 and 815.2(b).
22 18. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
23 AMENDED COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges that to the extent that the allegations of the Plaintiff's
24 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT attempt to enlarge upon the facts and/or contentions set forth in
25 the claim, if any, filed by Plaintiff, then said First Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action
26 and violates the provisions of California Government Code, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
27 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910), and this answering Defendant hereby reserves
28 the right to strike said allegations and to object to any evidence directed to proof of said allegations.
GENERAL DENIAL/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES:
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
19. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
is barred pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code Sections 815.2, 815.4, 818,
818.8, 820, 820.2, 820.8, 822.2, 840, 840.6, 950.2.
WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays as follows:
1 That judgment be rendered in favor of this answering Defendant and against Plaintiff,
2 That Plaintiff take nothing by her FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;
3 That this answering Defendant be awarded her costs of suit; and
For any and all other remedies the Court deems appropriate in the interests of justice.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GENERAL DENIAL/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
PROOF OF SERVICE
[C.C.P. §§1013, 2015.5]
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§1013(a)(3) and 2015.5, I declare:
Iam a resident of the State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and I am not
a party to the within entitled action. I am employed by the Law Firm of Hall Hieatt Connely &
Bowen LLP, and my business address is 444 Higuera Street, Third Floor, San Luis Obispo, California.
On April , 2024, I served the within GENERAL DENIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES on the interested parties as follows:
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Hoyt E. Hart Il, Esq. Kyle W. Jones, Esq.
Attorney at Law Law Offices of Kyle W. Jones
P.O. Box 675670 1620 Mill Rock Way, Suite 100
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Bakersfield, CA 93311
10 Tel: (858) 756-1636 Tel: (661) 833-1090
Fax: (858) 756-1407 Fax: (661) 412-4861
11 hoyth rodi net kylejones@kwjoneslaw.com
leslie@kwjoneslaw.com leslie@kwjoneslaw.com
12
By Mail. I caused each envelope addressed to the office of the person(s) listed above, with
13 postage thereon fully prepaid as first class mail, to be collected for same day deposit
according to the firm's practice and procedure to be placed in the United States Mail at San
14 Luis Obispo, California.
15 By Personal Service. I caused such document(s) to be delivered by hand to the office of the
person(s) listed above.
16
By Overnight Delivery. I caused such document(s) to be delivered by OnTrac
17 Overnight/Federal Express courier service to the office of the person(s) listed above.
18 By Facsimile Transmission. I caused such document(s) to be delivered by facsimile
transmission to the facsimile number(s) of the person(s) listed above and that transmission
19 was reported as complete and without error.
20 By Email or Electronic Transmission: Based on a Court order or an agreement of the
parties to accept service by email or electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be
21 sent from email address gwagner@hhcb-slo.com to the persons at the email addresses listed
above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic
22 message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
23 Federal. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at
whose direction the service was made.
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
25 is true and correct and that this document was executed on APRIL _/O_, 2024, at San Luis Obispo,
California.
26
27 MW) ag—
GRACEN H. WAGNER
28
GENERAL DENIAL
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Preview
PLp.050 [ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY ‘STATE BAR NUMBER: 103321 FOR COURT USE ONLY Name: Jay A. Hieatt Firm NAME: Hall Hieatt Connely & Bowen LLP STREET ADDRESS: 444 Higuera Street, Third Floor city: San Luis Obispo STATE: CA. ZIP CODE:9340] TELEPHONE NO: (805) 544-3830 FAXNO:(805) 544-5329 EMAIL ADDRESS: hieatt@hhcb-slo.com ATTORNEY FOR (name): KERN COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERN. STREET ADDRESS: 1215 Truxtun Avenue MAILING ADRESS 1215 Truxtun Avenue CITY AND ZIP CODE: Bakersfield 93301 BRANCH NAME: Metropolitan Division - Justice Bldg. PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: SHERI HAFFERMAN, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: KERN COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY ASE NUMBER: GENERAL DENIAL BCV-23-104072 TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT If you want to file a general denial, you MUST use this form if the amount asked for in the compiaint or the value of the property involved is $1,000 or less. You MAY use this form for a general denial if 1. The complaint is not verified; or 2. The complaint is verified and the case is a limited civil case (the amount in controversy is $35,000 or less), BUT NOT if the complaint involves a claim for more than $1,000 that has been assigned to a third party for collection. (See Code of Civil Procedure sections 85-86, 90-100, 431.30, and 431.40.) 1 DEFENDANT (nameé):Kern County Hospital Authority erroneously sued as KERN MEDICAL CENTER AND DR. BRYAN NACHTIGALL generally denies each and every allegation of plaintiff's complaint. 2 DEFENDANT states the following FACTS as separate affirmative defenses to plaintiffs complaint (attach additional pages if necessary): SEE ATTACHED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES f of y bl Date: April 5004 Jay A. Hieatt (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) / phe XO (SIGNA IURE|OF DERENDANT OR ATTORNEY) If you have a claim for damages or other relief against the plaintfi, the a quire you to state your claim in a special pleading called a cross-complaint or you may lose your tight to bring the’ lai (See Code' of Civil Procedure sections 426.10-426.40.) The original of this General Denial must be filed with the clerk of is cirt wit of that a copy Was served on each plaintiffs attorney and on each plaintiff not represented by an attorney. There are tw we ays to sel this General Denial: by personal delivery or by mail. It may be served by anyone at least 18 years of age-EXCEPT you or any other party to this legal action. Be sure that whoever serves the General Denial fills out and signs a proof of service. You may use the applicable Judicial Council form (such as form POS-029, POS-030, or POS-040) for the proof of service. Page 1 of 1 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 431.30, 431.49 Judicial Council of California GENERAL DENIAL wwvw.courts,ca.gov PLD-050 [Rev, January 1, 2024] Westlaw Doc & Form Builder 20404.33487 | AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant, KERN COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, erroneously sued as KERN MEDICAL CENTER AND DR. BRYANT NACHTIGALL hereby submit the following affirmative defenses to the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff, SHERI HAFFERMANN: 1 This answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was herself careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the First Amended Complaint filed herein; that said carelessness and negligence on Plaintiff's own part contributed to the happening of the incident and to the injuries, loss, and damage complained of, if any there were; that should Plaintiff recover damages, this answering Defendant is entitled to have the amount thereof abated, reduced, or eliminated to the 10 extent that Plaintiff's negligence caused or contributed to her injuries, loss, and damage, if any. 11 2. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST 12 AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that the cause of the incident upon 13 which this lawsuit is based was due to the negligence and/or strict liability of other persons or 14 entities for whom this answering Defendant is not responsible. 15 3 AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST 16 AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that each cause of action of said First 17 Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this 18 answering Defendant. 19 4 AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST 20 AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff acted with full 21 knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding her injuries and assumed the risk of the 22 matters causing her injuries, and that said matters of which Plaintiff assumed the risk contributed to 23 and caused her alleged injuries. 24 5 AS A FURTHER SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST 25 AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that any damage or loss sustained by 26 Plaintiff as a result of the events alleged in the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT was caused by the 27 failure of Plaintiff to use reasonable means to mitigate any damages sustained. 28 6 AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST GENERAL DENIAL/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that any recovery by Plaintiff pursuant to the First Amended Complaint is limited to $350,000 by the provisions of Civil Code §3333.2. 7 AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that any recovery by Plaintiff pursuant to the First Amended Complaint is controlled by the provisions of C.C.P. §667.7 8 AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that any recovery by Plaintiff pursuant to the First Amended Complaint is governed, controlled, and limited by the provisions of Civil Code §1431, et seq. 10 9 AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST 11 AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that this First Amended Complaint 12 has been filed and maintained in bad faith as set forth in C.C.P. § 128.7 entitling this/these answering 13 Defendant to payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees. 14 10. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST 15 AMENDED COMPLAINT, it is asserted that the conduct of this answering Defendant was not a 16 substantial factor in bringing about the Plaintiff's alleged injuries. 17 ll. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST 18 AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that because the First Amended 19 Complaint herein is couched on conclusionary terms, this answering Defendant cannot fully 20 anticipate all affirmative defenses that may be applicable to the within action. Accordingly, the right 21 to assert additional affirmative defenses, if and to the extent that such affirmative defenses are 22 applicable, is hereby reserved. 23 12. At all times mentioned in the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, plaintiff knew, or 24 in the exercise of ordinary care was charged with the knowledge, that she was submitting herself to 25 the medical technique, treatment, and/or medication with the full knowledge of the risks attendant 26 thereto. Accordingly, plaintiff freely, voluntarily, and expressly assumed and consented to all 27 reasonably known risks attendant to the medical technique, treatment, and/or medication, barring 28 plaintiff's recovery. GENERAL DENIAL/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 13. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action because the Plaintiff has failed to plead any statutory liability against this answering Defendant pursuant to Government Code §815 and 815.2(b). 14. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability based upon its exercise of reasonable diligence in the discharge of its duties. Government Code §815.6. 15. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that if discovery reveals that this 10 action has been instituted and/or maintained in bad faith, this answering Defendant will be entitled 11 to defense costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees and the expense of services of 12 experts, advisors and consultants in the defense of this matter pursuant to C.C.P. §§103 8, 128.5. 13 16. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST 14 AMENDED COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff's FIRST AMENDED 15 COMPLAINT, and each and every cause of action asserted therein, is barred because of Plaintiff's 16 failure to comply with applicable claims provisions of the California Government Code, Chapter 1, 17 commencing with Section 900, and Chapter 2, commencing with Section 910. 18 17. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST 19 AMENDED COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges that Defendant is immune from any and all liability 20 for any injury caused by the act or omission of any third persons pursuant to Government Code 21 Sections 820.8 and 815.2(b). 22 18. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST 23 AMENDED COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges that to the extent that the allegations of the Plaintiff's 24 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT attempt to enlarge upon the facts and/or contentions set forth in 25 the claim, if any, filed by Plaintiff, then said First Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action 26 and violates the provisions of California Government Code, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 27 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910), and this answering Defendant hereby reserves 28 the right to strike said allegations and to object to any evidence directed to proof of said allegations. GENERAL DENIAL/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES: TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 19. AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT is barred pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code Sections 815.2, 815.4, 818, 818.8, 820, 820.2, 820.8, 822.2, 840, 840.6, 950.2. WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays as follows: 1 That judgment be rendered in favor of this answering Defendant and against Plaintiff, 2 That Plaintiff take nothing by her FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; 3 That this answering Defendant be awarded her costs of suit; and For any and all other remedies the Court deems appropriate in the interests of justice. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GENERAL DENIAL/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE [C.C.P. §§1013, 2015.5] Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§1013(a)(3) and 2015.5, I declare: Iam a resident of the State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and I am not a party to the within entitled action. I am employed by the Law Firm of Hall Hieatt Connely & Bowen LLP, and my business address is 444 Higuera Street, Third Floor, San Luis Obispo, California. On April , 2024, I served the within GENERAL DENIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES on the interested parties as follows: Attorneys for Plaintiff: Attorneys for Plaintiff: Hoyt E. Hart Il, Esq. Kyle W. Jones, Esq. Attorney at Law Law Offices of Kyle W. Jones P.O. Box 675670 1620 Mill Rock Way, Suite 100 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Bakersfield, CA 93311 10 Tel: (858) 756-1636 Tel: (661) 833-1090 Fax: (858) 756-1407 Fax: (661) 412-4861 11 hoyth rodi net kylejones@kwjoneslaw.com leslie@kwjoneslaw.com leslie@kwjoneslaw.com 12 By Mail. I caused each envelope addressed to the office of the person(s) listed above, with 13 postage thereon fully prepaid as first class mail, to be collected for same day deposit according to the firm's practice and procedure to be placed in the United States Mail at San 14 Luis Obispo, California. 15 By Personal Service. I caused such document(s) to be delivered by hand to the office of the person(s) listed above. 16 By Overnight Delivery. I caused such document(s) to be delivered by OnTrac 17 Overnight/Federal Express courier service to the office of the person(s) listed above. 18 By Facsimile Transmission. I caused such document(s) to be delivered by facsimile transmission to the facsimile number(s) of the person(s) listed above and that transmission 19 was reported as complete and without error. 20 By Email or Electronic Transmission: Based on a Court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by email or electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be 21 sent from email address gwagner@hhcb-slo.com to the persons at the email addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic 22 message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 23 Federal. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 25 is true and correct and that this document was executed on APRIL _/O_, 2024, at San Luis Obispo, California. 26 27 MW) ag— GRACEN H. WAGNER 28 GENERAL DENIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES