Preview
1 John F. Klopfenstein, Esq. SB#164905
Law Office of John F. Klopfenstein
9 West Gabilan Street, Suite 6
Salinas, CA. 93901
Telephone: (831) 751-3947
Fax: (831) 751-3982
E-mail: jJohn.klopfenstein@yahoo.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Kim Mendoza
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
11 KIM MENDOZA, Case No.: 23CV004094
12 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
13 VS. PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM THE
REQIREMENT TO PRESENT A CLAIM
14 NATIVIDAD MEDICAL CENTER, AND
DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, Date: May 31, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.
16 Defendants. Dept: “15”
17
Pursuant to California Evidence Code sections 452(a), 452(d) and 453 and
18 California Rules of]
Court 3.1306(c), Plaintiff, Kim Mendoza respectfully requests the Court to take
1
judicial notice of the
following document, true and correct copies are attached hereto as exhibit as describe
d below:
20
1. Defendants Answer in the instant action filed with the Monterey County Superior
21
Court on or about February 1, 2024. A true and correct copy of Defendants Answer
is attached hereto
22 as Exhibit A. The Defendants Answer and information contained therein is a record of any
court of
23 |this state which this Court may take judicial notice pursuant to Evjdenck Code section 452(d).
24 Dated: May 20, 2024 Respectful Subm| Hed
25
BY:
te
26
Joh: in F. lopfenstein, Esq.
27 Attorwey for Plaintiff
Kim ndoza
28
EXHIBIT A
ANDREW B. KREEFT (SBN 126673) Exempt from Filing Fees (Gov. Code § 6103)
BRADLEY J. LEVANG (SBN 226922)
FENTON & KELLER
2801 Monterey-Salinas Highway
Post Office Box 791
Monterey, California 93942-0791
Telephone: (831) 373-1241
Facsimile: (831) 373-7219
Email: akreeft@fentonkeller.com
Email: blevang@fentonkeller.com
Attorneys for Defendant
COUNTY OF MONTEREY (erroneously sued as
NATIVIDAD MEDICAL CENTER)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
1
12 KIM MENDOZA, CASE NO.: 23CV004094
13 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
14 Vv
15 NATIVIDAD MEDICAL CENTER, AND Date of Filing: December 18, 2023
DOES | THROUGH 23, inclusive,
16 Trial Date: None Set
Defendants.
17
18
Defendant COUNTY OF MONTEREY (erroneously sued as NATIVIDAD MEDICAL
19
CENTER) (“Defendant”) responds to Plaintiff KIM MONDOZA’S (‘Plaintiff’) unverified
20
Complaint for Damages (the “Complaint”) as follows:
21
GENERAL DENIAL
22
Pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d),
2B
Defendant denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the allegations
24
contained in the Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, and each and every part
25
thereof, and further specifically denies that any damage, whether in the amount set forth in the
26
Complaint, and each cause of action therein, or in any other sum, or at all, has been caused by
27;
reason of any act or omission on the part of Defendant or on the part of any of Defendant’s
28
FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1}
ATTORNEYSAT LAW
Monterey ‘ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094
agents, servants, or employees.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Without admitting any of the allegations of the unverified Complaint and without
admitting or acknowledging that Defendant bears any burden of proof as to any of them,
Defendant asserts the following separate affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs entire unverified
Complaint. Defendant intends to rely upon such other and further affirmative defenses as may
become available during pretrial proceedings in this action and reserves the right to amend this
Answer to assert any such defenses.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
11 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
12 cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
13 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
15 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
16 waiver.
17 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
19 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
20 laches.
21 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
23 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of
24 estoppel.
25 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
27 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of
28 unclean hands.
FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} -2-
ATTORNEYS At Law
Monrexey
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause
of action
therein, Defendant alleges that the acts, or omissions to act, of Defendant, and/or its agents,
servants or employees (which allegation is made for the purposes of this pleading
and shall not
constitute an admission), were not a substantial cause / factor in bringing about
Plaintiff's alleged
injuries and damages and were not a substantial cause / factor of any alleged
injury or damage set
forth by Plaintiff, if any there were.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
10 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff consented to the conduct alleged in Plaintiff
's Complaint.
11 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause
of action
13 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
an award of attorneys’
14 fees may be granted.
15 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause
of action
17 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff
has failed to mitigate or attempt to mitigate damages, if in
18 fact any damages have been or will be sustained, and any recovery
by Plaintiff must be
19 diminished or barred by reason thereof.
20 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause
of action
22 therein, Defendant alleges that at all times mentioned in Plaintiff's Complaint,
Plaintiff had an
23 affirmative duty to use reasonable care and diligence to minimize her damages
and by her own
24 carelessness and negligence in and about the matters referenced in Plaintiff's
Complaint and
25 further failure to exercise ordinary care or any care as required in such matters,
Plaintiff caused
26 and contributed to the unnecessary enhancement of her damages, if any there were.
27 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause
of action
FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} = Bu
ATTORNEYS Ai Law
Monteery
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094
therein, Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff suffered damages, such damages were caused by the
wrongful or negligent conduct of another and/or third parties for whose actions Defendant is not
liable.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
therein, Defendant alleges that the provisions of the “Fair Responsibility Act of 1986”
(commonly known as Proposition 51, Civil Code sections 1431, 1431.1, 1431.2, 1431.3, 1431.4,
and 1431.5) are applicable to this action, to the extent Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any
there were or are, were proximately caused or contributed to by the carelessness, negligence, or
10 fault of persons or entities other than Defendant.
11 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
13 therein, Defendant alleges that if decisions involving Plaintiff were motivated by both
14 discriminatory or retaliatory and non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory reasons (which allegation
15 is made only for the purposes of this pleading and shall not constitute an admission), Defendant
16 would have made the same decision regardless of any actions which may have constituted
17 discrimination or retaliation, if any there were.
18 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
20 therein, Defendant alleges that a public entity is not subject to punitive or exemplary damages as
21 provided by California Government Code § 818.
22 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
24 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the
25 Workers’ Compensation Act as set forth in the California Labor Code.
26 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
28 therein, Defendant alleges that its actions and conduct (which allegation is made for the purposes
FENTON & KELLER
ATTORNEYS AT Law
{ABK-01521000;1} -4-
Monteney
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094
of this pleading and shall not constitute an admission) were privileged,
reasonable, and justified
as a matter of, and taken due to, business necessity.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Compla
int and each cause of action
therein, Defendant alleges that the alleged conduct of which Plaintif
f complains was not based on
Plaintiff's age, sex, gender, and/or membership in any categor
y protected by the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, Govt. Code § 12940 et seq., but was based on one or more
legitimate non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and
each cause of action
11 therein, Defendant alleges that its actions and conduct of which
Plaintiff complains (which
12 allegation is made for the purposes of this pleading and shall not constitu
te an admission) were
13 not based on Plaintiff's request for reasonable accommodations or
engagement in protected
14 activities, but were based on one or more legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non: retaliatory
15 reasons.
16 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and
each cause of action
18 therein, Defendant alleges that it engaged in the interactive
process with Plaintiff as required by
19 the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
20 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and
each cause of action
22 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was not able to perform the essentia
l functions of her job
23 even with reasonable accommodations.
24 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and
each and every cause
26 of action therein is barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant
did not engage in any conduct
27 that was pervasive and/or severe such that it altered the conditi
ons of Plaintiff's employment to
28 create a hostile working environment.
FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} 2I5Ts
ATIOKNEYS AT LAW
MONTEREY
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of
action
therein, Defendant alleges that its actions and conduct of which Plaintiff complains (which
allegation is made for the purposes of this pleading and shall not constitute an admission)
were
justified because of undue hardship.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint and each and every cause of action therein is barred, in whole or in
part,
because Plaintiffis not a protected individual under the Fair Employment and Housing Act
as she
10 does not have any sincerely-held religious beliefs applicable to this action.
11 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
13 therein, Defendant alleges that plaintiff's claims are barred because at all relevant times,
14 Defendant took reasonable steps to prevent and correct workplace discrimination relating to age,
15 sex, gender and/or any category protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act,
16 Govt. Code § 12940 et seq.; that Plaintiff unreasonably failed to use the preventive and corrective
17 measures that Defendant provided; and the reasonable use of those measures
would have avoided
18 the damages alleged by Plaintiff.
19 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
21 therein, Defendant alleges that any and all conduct of which Plaintiff complains and which is
22 attributed to Defendant (which allegation is made for the purpose of this pleading and shall
not
23 constitute an admission) was a just and proper exercise of management discretion
and was taken
24 for fair and honest reasons and regulated by good faith under the circumstances then existing.
25 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
27 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's causes of action for violation of her rights are barred
by
28 the immunity from liability for discretionary acts and omissions provided by
California
FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} -6-
ATTORNEYS AT Law
Monterey
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094
Government Code §§ 815.2, 820.2, and 950.2.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs causes of action for violation of her rights are barred by
the immunity from liability provided by California Government Code § 818.2.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs causes of action for violation of her rights are barred by
the immunity from liability for injury caused by acts or omissions of others provided by
10 California Government Code §§ 815.2, 820.8 and Civil Code § 1431.2.
11 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12! As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
13 therein, Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability as provided by California Government
14 Code
§ 815.
15 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
17 therein, Defendant alleges upon likely evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
18 further investigation and discovery, if, at or about the time and place referenced in Plaintiff's
19 Complaint, Plaintiff was caused to suffer any injury or damage, which Defendant denies, any
20 such injuries or damages were proximately and legally caused and contributed to by the
Zi negligence and fault of Plaintiff, and said negligence and fault of Plaintiff reduces, pro rata, any
22 recovery otherwise available to Plaintiff.
23 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
25 therein, Defendant alleges that the conduct alleged by Plaintiff
was not severe or pervasive.
26 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action
28 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's motivation or reason for engaging in the conduct
FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} -7-
ATTORNEYS AT Law
Monterey
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094
alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint (which allegation is made for the purpose
s of this pleading and
shall not constitute an admission), and each purported cause of action alleged
therein, did not
violate the public policy of the State of California.
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint
and each cause of
action therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's discharge was justified by after-acquired
evidence.
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiffs Complaint and
to each Cause
10 of Action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that each cause of action
set forth in the Complaint is
11 barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including, without
limitation, California Code of
12 Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 337, 337a, 337.15, 338(2), 338(3),
338(4), 339, 340, and/or 343;
13 and California Government Code §§ 91 1.2, 945.6, and 12960.
14 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint and
to each cause
16 of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintif
f suffered any of the
17 damages alleged, such damages were not caused by Defendant but by the
acts or omissions of
18 Plaintiff, its agents, and or others.
19 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint and
to each cause
21 of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges the damages, if any, claimed
by Plaintiff, were not
22 reasonably foreseeable and were not foreseen by Defendant to be the reasonab
le consequences of
23 any alleged breach by Defendant of any alleged agreement entered into by
Defendant.
24 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint and to each
cause
26 of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges the Complaint, and each
and every cause of action
27 thereof, is barred, or recovery should be reduced, pursuant to the
doctrine of avoidable
28 consequences.
FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} 2iGie
ATTORNEYS AT Law
Monterey
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094
THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint and to
each cause
of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the injuries and damages allegedl
y incurred by
Plaintiff were not the result of any actions, omissions or other conduct of Defendan
t.
THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As for a twenty-seventh separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complai
nt,
and to each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability
as provided
by California Government Code § 815.
FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 As for a twenty-eighth separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complain
t,
11 and to each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that its employees
are immune from
12 individual liability, as public employees, for failing to enforce any law
or enactment pursuant to
13 Government Code §§ 820.4 and 821.
14 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 As for a forty-fourth separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint
and
16 each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that the causes of action for the
alleged violations
17 of Plaintiff's rights are barred by Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Governm
ent Claims Act,
18 California Government Code, §§810 et seq.
19 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 As for a thirty-fourth separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff
's Complaint,
21 and to each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff's termination
was motivated
22 by both discriminatory or retaliatory and non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory
reasons (which
23 allegation is made for the purposes of this pleading and shall not constitute an
admission) this
24 answering Defendant would have made the same decision to terminate Plaintiff
regardless of any
25 actions which may have constituted discrimination, retaliation or harassment, if
any there were.
26 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 As and for a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and
to each and
28 every cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs charge of
FENTON& KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} -9-
ATTORNEYS AT Law
Monreaey
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094
_
discrimination and harassment identify specific factual incidents which occurred more than
one
year before the Plaintiff filed her administrative claim with the California Civil Rights
Department, and therefore is not a timely claim as required by California Government Code
section 12960(d), therefore, Plaintiff has failed to pursue or exhaust her prerequisite
administrative and legal remedies available to her prior to filing suit.
ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant currently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief
as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant expressly
reserves its right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates they
10 would be appropriate.
ll DEFENDANT’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
12 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays judgment against Plaintiff as follows:
13 1 That Plaintiff take nothing by way of her Complaint, and that judgment be
14 awarded against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant.
15 2 That Plaintiffs Complaint and each claim for relief therein, be dismissed with
16 prejudice;
17 3 For an award of attorney fees and costs as authorized by law; and
18 4 For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
19 Dated: February 1, 2024 FENTON & KELLER
20
21
By:__/s/ Andrew B. Kreeft
22; Andrew B. Kreeft, Esq.
Bradley J. Levang, Esq.
23 Attorneys for Defendant
COUNTY OF MONTEREY (erroneously
24 sued as NATIVIDAD MEDICAL
CENTER)
25
26
27
28
FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} -10-
ArrorNevs At Law
Monrexey
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Kaya Von Berg, declare:
I am a citizen of the United States and em ployed in Monterey County,
over the age of eighteen years and no t a party to the within-entitled California. I am
is 2801 Monterey-Salinas Highway, Post Office Box 791, Monter
action. My business address
ey, California 93942. On
February 1, 2024, I served a copy of th 1 within document(s):
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
x] (BY EMAIL) by transmitting via e-mail or electronic transmi
ssion the
document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the e-mail address
(es) set forth
below.
Attorneys for Plaintiff KIM MENDOZA
10 John F. Klopfenstein, Esq.
Law Office of John F. Klopfenstein
11 9 West Gabilan Street, Suite 6
Salinas, California 93901
12,
Tel: (831) 751-3947
13 Email: john.klopfenstein@yahoo.com
14 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(e), this docume
nt will only be served
electronically to the persons at the electronic notification
15 addresses listed above. I am readily
familiar with the business’s practice for filing electron ically,
and the document would be
electronically served that same day in the ordinary course
16 o} f business following ordinary business
practices.
17
If service by U.S. Postal Service is indicated above, I am readily
familiar with the firm's
18 practice of collection and processin; 'g correspondence for mailing. Under
that practice it would be
deposited with the U.S. Postal Se rvice on that same day with postage
thereon fully prepaid in the
19 ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the
party served, service is presumed
invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is
20 more than one day after date of deposit
for mailing in affidavit,
21
I declare that I am em ployed in the office of a member of the bar of this
direction the service was mad ic. court at whose
22
Executed on February 1, 2024, at Monterey, California.
23
24
25
Kaye
Vom Berg
Kaya Von Berg
26
27
28
FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1}
ATTORNEYSAt Law -ll-
Mowteey
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094
PROOF OF SERVICE
Iam readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection
processing correspondence for mailing and e -mailing.
Further, I declare that I am over the age of 18 years of age
and my business address is 9 West Gabilan Street, Suite 6, Salinas,
California 93901, County of Monterey.
On May 20, 2024, I sent the following document (s):”Plaintiff’s
10
Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff s Petition
1 for
Relief of Claim Requirements “to the electronic mail address
12 as set
forth below on this date before
13 11:59:59 p.m. pursuant to and
consistent with California Code
14 of Civil Procedure sections
15 1010.6
(2), (a
(4), )
(5), and 1010, 6(e) from the email address of John
16 F. Klopfenstein: john. klopfenstein@yahoo.com to the e -mail address
17 of Defense
Preview
1 John F. Klopfenstein, Esq. SB#164905 Law Office of John F. Klopfenstein 9 West Gabilan Street, Suite 6 Salinas, CA. 93901 Telephone: (831) 751-3947 Fax: (831) 751-3982 E-mail: jJohn.klopfenstein@yahoo.com Attorney for Plaintiff Kim Mendoza SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY 10 11 KIM MENDOZA, Case No.: 23CV004094 12 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S 13 VS. PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM THE REQIREMENT TO PRESENT A CLAIM 14 NATIVIDAD MEDICAL CENTER, AND DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, Date: May 31, 2024 Time: 8:30 a.m. 16 Defendants. Dept: “15” 17 Pursuant to California Evidence Code sections 452(a), 452(d) and 453 and 18 California Rules of] Court 3.1306(c), Plaintiff, Kim Mendoza respectfully requests the Court to take 1 judicial notice of the following document, true and correct copies are attached hereto as exhibit as describe d below: 20 1. Defendants Answer in the instant action filed with the Monterey County Superior 21 Court on or about February 1, 2024. A true and correct copy of Defendants Answer is attached hereto 22 as Exhibit A. The Defendants Answer and information contained therein is a record of any court of 23 |this state which this Court may take judicial notice pursuant to Evjdenck Code section 452(d). 24 Dated: May 20, 2024 Respectful Subm| Hed 25 BY: te 26 Joh: in F. lopfenstein, Esq. 27 Attorwey for Plaintiff Kim ndoza 28 EXHIBIT A ANDREW B. KREEFT (SBN 126673) Exempt from Filing Fees (Gov. Code § 6103) BRADLEY J. LEVANG (SBN 226922) FENTON & KELLER 2801 Monterey-Salinas Highway Post Office Box 791 Monterey, California 93942-0791 Telephone: (831) 373-1241 Facsimile: (831) 373-7219 Email: akreeft@fentonkeller.com Email: blevang@fentonkeller.com Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF MONTEREY (erroneously sued as NATIVIDAD MEDICAL CENTER) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY 1 12 KIM MENDOZA, CASE NO.: 23CV004094 13 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 14 Vv 15 NATIVIDAD MEDICAL CENTER, AND Date of Filing: December 18, 2023 DOES | THROUGH 23, inclusive, 16 Trial Date: None Set Defendants. 17 18 Defendant COUNTY OF MONTEREY (erroneously sued as NATIVIDAD MEDICAL 19 CENTER) (“Defendant”) responds to Plaintiff KIM MONDOZA’S (‘Plaintiff’) unverified 20 Complaint for Damages (the “Complaint”) as follows: 21 GENERAL DENIAL 22 Pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), 2B Defendant denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the allegations 24 contained in the Complaint, and each and every cause of action therein, and each and every part 25 thereof, and further specifically denies that any damage, whether in the amount set forth in the 26 Complaint, and each cause of action therein, or in any other sum, or at all, has been caused by 27; reason of any act or omission on the part of Defendant or on the part of any of Defendant’s 28 FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} ATTORNEYSAT LAW Monterey ‘ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094 agents, servants, or employees. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Without admitting any of the allegations of the unverified Complaint and without admitting or acknowledging that Defendant bears any burden of proof as to any of them, Defendant asserts the following separate affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs entire unverified Complaint. Defendant intends to rely upon such other and further affirmative defenses as may become available during pretrial proceedings in this action and reserves the right to amend this Answer to assert any such defenses. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 11 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a 12 cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 13 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 15 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of 16 waiver. 17 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 19 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of 20 laches. 21 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 23 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of 24 estoppel. 25 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 27 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of 28 unclean hands. FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} -2- ATTORNEYS At Law Monrexey ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that the acts, or omissions to act, of Defendant, and/or its agents, servants or employees (which allegation is made for the purposes of this pleading and shall not constitute an admission), were not a substantial cause / factor in bringing about Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages and were not a substantial cause / factor of any alleged injury or damage set forth by Plaintiff, if any there were. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 10 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff consented to the conduct alleged in Plaintiff 's Complaint. 11 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 13 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which an award of attorneys’ 14 fees may be granted. 15 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 17 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has failed to mitigate or attempt to mitigate damages, if in 18 fact any damages have been or will be sustained, and any recovery by Plaintiff must be 19 diminished or barred by reason thereof. 20 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 22 therein, Defendant alleges that at all times mentioned in Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff had an 23 affirmative duty to use reasonable care and diligence to minimize her damages and by her own 24 carelessness and negligence in and about the matters referenced in Plaintiff's Complaint and 25 further failure to exercise ordinary care or any care as required in such matters, Plaintiff caused 26 and contributed to the unnecessary enhancement of her damages, if any there were. 27 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} = Bu ATTORNEYS Ai Law Monteery ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094 therein, Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff suffered damages, such damages were caused by the wrongful or negligent conduct of another and/or third parties for whose actions Defendant is not liable. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that the provisions of the “Fair Responsibility Act of 1986” (commonly known as Proposition 51, Civil Code sections 1431, 1431.1, 1431.2, 1431.3, 1431.4, and 1431.5) are applicable to this action, to the extent Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any there were or are, were proximately caused or contributed to by the carelessness, negligence, or 10 fault of persons or entities other than Defendant. 11 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 13 therein, Defendant alleges that if decisions involving Plaintiff were motivated by both 14 discriminatory or retaliatory and non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory reasons (which allegation 15 is made only for the purposes of this pleading and shall not constitute an admission), Defendant 16 would have made the same decision regardless of any actions which may have constituted 17 discrimination or retaliation, if any there were. 18 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 20 therein, Defendant alleges that a public entity is not subject to punitive or exemplary damages as 21 provided by California Government Code § 818. 22 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 24 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the 25 Workers’ Compensation Act as set forth in the California Labor Code. 26 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 28 therein, Defendant alleges that its actions and conduct (which allegation is made for the purposes FENTON & KELLER ATTORNEYS AT Law {ABK-01521000;1} -4- Monteney ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094 of this pleading and shall not constitute an admission) were privileged, reasonable, and justified as a matter of, and taken due to, business necessity. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Compla int and each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that the alleged conduct of which Plaintif f complains was not based on Plaintiff's age, sex, gender, and/or membership in any categor y protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Govt. Code § 12940 et seq., but was based on one or more legitimate non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 11 therein, Defendant alleges that its actions and conduct of which Plaintiff complains (which 12 allegation is made for the purposes of this pleading and shall not constitu te an admission) were 13 not based on Plaintiff's request for reasonable accommodations or engagement in protected 14 activities, but were based on one or more legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non: retaliatory 15 reasons. 16 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 18 therein, Defendant alleges that it engaged in the interactive process with Plaintiff as required by 19 the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. 20 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 22 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was not able to perform the essentia l functions of her job 23 even with reasonable accommodations. 24 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each and every cause 26 of action therein is barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant did not engage in any conduct 27 that was pervasive and/or severe such that it altered the conditi ons of Plaintiff's employment to 28 create a hostile working environment. FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} 2I5Ts ATIOKNEYS AT LAW MONTEREY ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that its actions and conduct of which Plaintiff complains (which allegation is made for the purposes of this pleading and shall not constitute an admission) were justified because of undue hardship. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint and each and every cause of action therein is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffis not a protected individual under the Fair Employment and Housing Act as she 10 does not have any sincerely-held religious beliefs applicable to this action. 11 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 13 therein, Defendant alleges that plaintiff's claims are barred because at all relevant times, 14 Defendant took reasonable steps to prevent and correct workplace discrimination relating to age, 15 sex, gender and/or any category protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, 16 Govt. Code § 12940 et seq.; that Plaintiff unreasonably failed to use the preventive and corrective 17 measures that Defendant provided; and the reasonable use of those measures would have avoided 18 the damages alleged by Plaintiff. 19 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 21 therein, Defendant alleges that any and all conduct of which Plaintiff complains and which is 22 attributed to Defendant (which allegation is made for the purpose of this pleading and shall not 23 constitute an admission) was a just and proper exercise of management discretion and was taken 24 for fair and honest reasons and regulated by good faith under the circumstances then existing. 25 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 27 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's causes of action for violation of her rights are barred by 28 the immunity from liability for discretionary acts and omissions provided by California FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} -6- ATTORNEYS AT Law Monterey ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094 Government Code §§ 815.2, 820.2, and 950.2. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs causes of action for violation of her rights are barred by the immunity from liability provided by California Government Code § 818.2. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs causes of action for violation of her rights are barred by the immunity from liability for injury caused by acts or omissions of others provided by 10 California Government Code §§ 815.2, 820.8 and Civil Code § 1431.2. 11 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12! As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 13 therein, Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability as provided by California Government 14 Code § 815. 15 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 17 therein, Defendant alleges upon likely evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for 18 further investigation and discovery, if, at or about the time and place referenced in Plaintiff's 19 Complaint, Plaintiff was caused to suffer any injury or damage, which Defendant denies, any 20 such injuries or damages were proximately and legally caused and contributed to by the Zi negligence and fault of Plaintiff, and said negligence and fault of Plaintiff reduces, pro rata, any 22 recovery otherwise available to Plaintiff. 23 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 25 therein, Defendant alleges that the conduct alleged by Plaintiff was not severe or pervasive. 26 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint and each cause of action 28 therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's motivation or reason for engaging in the conduct FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} -7- ATTORNEYS AT Law Monterey ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094 alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint (which allegation is made for the purpose s of this pleading and shall not constitute an admission), and each purported cause of action alleged therein, did not violate the public policy of the State of California. THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint and each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's discharge was justified by after-acquired evidence. THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiffs Complaint and to each Cause 10 of Action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that each cause of action set forth in the Complaint is 11 barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including, without limitation, California Code of 12 Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 337, 337a, 337.15, 338(2), 338(3), 338(4), 339, 340, and/or 343; 13 and California Government Code §§ 91 1.2, 945.6, and 12960. 14 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint and to each cause 16 of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that to the extent Plaintif f suffered any of the 17 damages alleged, such damages were not caused by Defendant but by the acts or omissions of 18 Plaintiff, its agents, and or others. 19 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint and to each cause 21 of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges the damages, if any, claimed by Plaintiff, were not 22 reasonably foreseeable and were not foreseen by Defendant to be the reasonab le consequences of 23 any alleged breach by Defendant of any alleged agreement entered into by Defendant. 24 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint and to each cause 26 of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges the Complaint, and each and every cause of action 27 thereof, is barred, or recovery should be reduced, pursuant to the doctrine of avoidable 28 consequences. FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} 2iGie ATTORNEYS AT Law Monterey ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint and to each cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the injuries and damages allegedl y incurred by Plaintiff were not the result of any actions, omissions or other conduct of Defendan t. THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As for a twenty-seventh separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complai nt, and to each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability as provided by California Government Code § 815. FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 As for a twenty-eighth separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complain t, 11 and to each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that its employees are immune from 12 individual liability, as public employees, for failing to enforce any law or enactment pursuant to 13 Government Code §§ 820.4 and 821. 14 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15 As for a forty-fourth separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff's Complaint and 16 each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that the causes of action for the alleged violations 17 of Plaintiff's rights are barred by Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Governm ent Claims Act, 18 California Government Code, §§810 et seq. 19 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 As for a thirty-fourth separate and distinct affirmative defense to Plaintiff 's Complaint, 21 and to each cause of action therein, Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff's termination was motivated 22 by both discriminatory or retaliatory and non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory reasons (which 23 allegation is made for the purposes of this pleading and shall not constitute an admission) this 24 answering Defendant would have made the same decision to terminate Plaintiff regardless of any 25 actions which may have constituted discrimination, retaliation or harassment, if any there were. 26 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 As and for a further, separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to each and 28 every cause of action contained therein, Defendants allege that Plaintiffs charge of FENTON& KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} -9- ATTORNEYS AT Law Monreaey ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094 _ discrimination and harassment identify specific factual incidents which occurred more than one year before the Plaintiff filed her administrative claim with the California Civil Rights Department, and therefore is not a timely claim as required by California Government Code section 12960(d), therefore, Plaintiff has failed to pursue or exhaust her prerequisite administrative and legal remedies available to her prior to filing suit. ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant currently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant expressly reserves its right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates they 10 would be appropriate. ll DEFENDANT’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF 12 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays judgment against Plaintiff as follows: 13 1 That Plaintiff take nothing by way of her Complaint, and that judgment be 14 awarded against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant. 15 2 That Plaintiffs Complaint and each claim for relief therein, be dismissed with 16 prejudice; 17 3 For an award of attorney fees and costs as authorized by law; and 18 4 For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 19 Dated: February 1, 2024 FENTON & KELLER 20 21 By:__/s/ Andrew B. Kreeft 22; Andrew B. Kreeft, Esq. Bradley J. Levang, Esq. 23 Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF MONTEREY (erroneously 24 sued as NATIVIDAD MEDICAL CENTER) 25 26 27 28 FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} -10- ArrorNevs At Law Monrexey ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Kaya Von Berg, declare: I am a citizen of the United States and em ployed in Monterey County, over the age of eighteen years and no t a party to the within-entitled California. I am is 2801 Monterey-Salinas Highway, Post Office Box 791, Monter action. My business address ey, California 93942. On February 1, 2024, I served a copy of th 1 within document(s): ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT x] (BY EMAIL) by transmitting via e-mail or electronic transmi ssion the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the e-mail address (es) set forth below. Attorneys for Plaintiff KIM MENDOZA 10 John F. Klopfenstein, Esq. Law Office of John F. Klopfenstein 11 9 West Gabilan Street, Suite 6 Salinas, California 93901 12, Tel: (831) 751-3947 13 Email: john.klopfenstein@yahoo.com 14 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(e), this docume nt will only be served electronically to the persons at the electronic notification 15 addresses listed above. I am readily familiar with the business’s practice for filing electron ically, and the document would be electronically served that same day in the ordinary course 16 o} f business following ordinary business practices. 17 If service by U.S. Postal Service is indicated above, I am readily familiar with the firm's 18 practice of collection and processin; 'g correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Se rvice on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the 19 ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is 20 more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit, 21 I declare that I am em ployed in the office of a member of the bar of this direction the service was mad ic. court at whose 22 Executed on February 1, 2024, at Monterey, California. 23 24 25 Kaye Vom Berg Kaya Von Berg 26 27 28 FENTON & KELLER {ABK-01521000;1} ATTORNEYSAt Law -ll- Mowteey ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT / CASE NO.: 23CV004094 PROOF OF SERVICE Iam readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection processing correspondence for mailing and e -mailing. Further, I declare that I am over the age of 18 years of age and my business address is 9 West Gabilan Street, Suite 6, Salinas, California 93901, County of Monterey. On May 20, 2024, I sent the following document (s):”Plaintiff’s 10 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff s Petition 1 for Relief of Claim Requirements “to the electronic mail address 12 as set forth below on this date before 13 11:59:59 p.m. pursuant to and consistent with California Code 14 of Civil Procedure sections 15 1010.6 (2), (a (4), ) (5), and 1010, 6(e) from the email address of John 16 F. Klopfenstein: john. klopfenstein@yahoo.com to the e -mail address 17 of Defense