Preview
1 Jeffrey F. Oneal (SBN 129072)
Christopher T. Yamada (SBN 233973)
2 RANKIN | ONEAL
96 No. Third Street, Suite 560
3 San Jose, California 95112
Telephone: (408) 293-0463
4 Email: jeffrey@rankinstock.com
christopher@rankinstock.com
5
Attorneys for Defendant PAJARO VALLEY
6 WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Exempt from filing fees pursuant to
7 Gov. Code § 6103
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ – UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10 CHIYEKO SHIKUMA, INDIVIDUALLY AND Case No.: 24CV00101
AS TRUSTEE OF THE MARITAL TRUST
11 UNDER THE SHIKUMA 1987 REVOCABLE DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER
TRUST U/D/T DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO
12 AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE FAMILY TRUST PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
UNDER THE SHIKUMA 1987 REVOCABLE
13 TRUST U/D/T DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1987
MARIA NAVARRO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
14 TRUSTEE OF THE NAVARRO SURVIVING
SPOUSE'S TRUST DATED JANUARY 21, 1977, Complaint filed: January 10, 2024
15 CHAPALA BERRY FARMS, INC., A Trial date: TBA
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, JOHN BASOR
16 AND JELE B. BASOR, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS TRUSTEES OF THE BASOR FAMILY
17 TRUST DATED JUNE 28, 2003, BRIAN
MURAKAMI AND CIONE S. MURAKAMI,
18 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE
MURAKAMI FAMILY TRUST U/A/D MARCH
19 5, 2004, GLENN C, NOMA AND PAMELA LYN
NOMA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEES
20 OF THE GLENN AND PAMELA NOMA 1999
REVOCABLE TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 16,
21 1999, DUANE MURAKAMI, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE DUANE
22 MURAKAMI TRUST DATED JANUARY 21,
2021, CARY MURAKAMI, INDIVIDUALLY
23 AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE 1996 CARY S.
MURAKAMI TRUST U/D/T DATED JUNE 25,
24 1996, DENNIS IKEGAMI AND SUSAN JOY
IKEGAMI AKA SUSAN JOY KAITA IKEGAMI,
25 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AS TRUSTEES OF
THE DENNIS IKEGAMI AND SUSAN IKEGAMI
26 2017 REVOCABLE TRUST EXECUTED ON
NOVEMBER 22, 2017, LESTER IKEGAMI AND
27 PATRICIA IKEGAMI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
TRUSTEES OF THE LESTER AND PATRICIA
28
1
Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
1 A. IKEGAMI 2002 TRUST DATED MARCH 15,
2002, VINCENT ITATANI AND CHERYL L.
2 ITATANI, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS
TRUSTEES OF THE ITATANI FAMILY TRUST
3 DATED MAY 2, 2015, OSAMU TED
MATSUSHITA AND LAURIE KAITA
4 MATSUSHITA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
TRUSTEES OF THE MATSUSHITA LIVING
5 TRUST ESTABLISHED NOVEMBER 16, 2016,
DOMATILA TAPIA NAREZ, INDIVIDUALLY
6 AND DBA MIMI'S ORGANIC FARM, JESUS
ROCHA, CALIFORNIA GIANT, INC., A
7 CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, SCURICH
BERRY FARMS, INC., A CALIFORNIA
8 CORPORATION, AG. LAND INC., A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
9
Plaintiffs,
10
vs.
11
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, SANTA CRUZ
12 COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER
CONSERVATION 25 DISTRICT, PAJARO
13 VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY
AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE,;
14
Defendants.
15
16 COMES NOW Defendant PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY
17 (hereinafter “this Answering Defendant”) and answering the First Amended Complaint for Inverse
18 Condemnation, Breach of Mandatory Duty, Nuisance, Trespass, negligence and Dangerous Condition of
19 Public Property (“Complaint”) on file herein admits, denies, and alleges as follows:
20 GENERAL DENIAL
21 This Answering Defendant denies generally and specifically, each and every material allegation
22 of the Complaint under Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30.
23 This Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiffs have sustained damages in any sum or amount,
24 or otherwise, or at all, due to any act or omission of this Answering Defendant.
25 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
26 AS A FIRST, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO
27 EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges
28 that said Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Answering
2
Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
1 Defendant.
2 AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON
3 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
4 Answering Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs fail to plead a cause of action against this Answering
5 Defendant because it has not pled any statutory basis for said cause of action.
6 AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON
7 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
8 Answering Defendant asserts Plaintiffs’ actions are barred by the principles of waiver, laches, unclean
9 hands, and/or estoppel.
10 AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON
11 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
12 Answering Defendant asserts that if Plaintiffs have sustained any compensable injuries, losses or
13 damages, this Answering Defendant’s conduct or failure to act was not the sole proximate cause of the
14 alleged injury, losses or damages.
15 AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON
16 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
17 Answering Defendant asserts that if Plaintiffs have sustained any compensable injuries or damages and
18 if this Answering Defendant should have liability to Plaintiffs therefore, such liability for non-economic
19 injury or damages, if any, shall be several only and shall not be joint and this Answering Defendant’s
20 liability for non-economic damages, if any, is limited to that percentage of those injuries or damages
21 which are in direct proportion to this Answering Defendant’s percentage of fault in accordance with
22 California Civil Code sections 1431.1 through 1431.5, et al., and 1431.2(a).
23 AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE
24 HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this Answering
25 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs were careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the
26 Complaint, and that said carelessness and negligence on said Plaintiffs’ own part proximately
27 contributed to the happening of the incident and to the injuries, loss and damage complained of, if any
28 there were; that should Plaintiff recover damages, this Answering Defendant is entitled to have the
3
Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
1 amount thereof abated, reduced or eliminated to the extent that Plaintiffs’ negligence caused or
2 contributed to its injuries, if any.
3 AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON
4 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
5 Answering Defendant alleges that said injuries sustained by Plaintiffs were either wholly or in part
6 negligently caused by persons, firms, corporations or entities other than this Answering Defendant and
7 said negligence is either imputed to Plaintiffs by reason of the relationship to Plaintiffs and/or said
8 negligence comparatively reduces the percentage of negligence, if any, by this Answering Defendant.
9 AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON
10 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
11 Answering Defendant alleges persons, firms, corporations or entities other than this Answering
12 Defendant failed to exercise due care by violating a statute, ordinance or regulation such that his or her
13 or its negligence is presumed under Evidence Code section 669.
14 AS A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON
15 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
16 Answering Defendant alleges that any recovery under the Complaint against this Answering Defendant
17 is barred because the alleged damages (if any) were caused by actions or inactions of other persons,
18 firms, corporations or entities.
19 AS A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON
20 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
21 Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs acted with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances
22 surrounding their injuries and assumed the risk of the matters causing the injuries, and that said matters
23 of which Plaintiffs assumed the risk proximately contributed to and proximately caused their injuries, if
24 any.
25 AS AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT
26 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
27 Answering Defendant alleges that at all times and places mentioned in the Complaint herein, Plaintiffs
28 failed to mitigate the amount of their damages. The damages claimed by Plaintiffs could have been
4
Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
1 mitigated by due diligence on Plaintiffs’ part or by one acting under similar circumstances. Plaintiffs’
2 failure to mitigate is a bar to recovery.
3 AS A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON
4 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
5 Answering Defendant alleges Plaintiffs’ action is barred by Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their judicial
6 remedies, inter alia by pursuing a timely claim for administrative mandate or other appropriate
7 administrative relief.
8 AS A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT
9 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
10 Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ action is barred as against the this Answering Defendant
11 under the provisions of California Government Code sections 818.4, 820.4, 821, 821.2, 821.4, 821.6,
12 830, 830.2, 831, 831.8, 835, 835.2, 835.4 and 840 through 840.6, which preclude any liability on the
13 part of this Answering Defendant.
14 AS A FOURTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT
15 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
16 Answering Defendant alleges Plaintiffs’ action is barred as against the this Answering Defendant as it is
17 entitled to absolute, qualified, or conditional immunity from liability including, but not limited to,
18 immunity from common law claims not actionable by statute against the this Answering Defendant.
19 AS A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON
20 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
21 Answering Defendant alleges it is entitled to a reduction of any judgment against it, if any, that includes
22 any recovery for any injuries, losses or damages for which a collateral source payment has been paid or
23 is payable to or on behalf of Plaintiffs, pursuant to Government Code section 985.
24 AS A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT
25 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN,
26 this Answering Defendant asserts that any recovery under the Complaint against this Answering
27 Defendant is barred by sections 800 through 996.6 of the Government Code.
28 AS A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
5
Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
1 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION
2 CONTAINED THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ action is barred by the
3 applicable statute of limitations, specifically including, but not limited to, California Code of Civil
4 Procedure sections 318, 319, 335, 335.1, 338(b), 338(j), 340, 342, 1094.5, and 1094.6(a), et seq., and
5 Government Code sections 905.2, 911.2, 911.2(a), 945.6 and 945.8, 65009(c)(1), 66499.37, or any
6 other applicable provision of law.
7 AS AN EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
8 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED
9 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred against this Answering
10 Defendant because this Answering Defendant is immune from liability pursuant, but not limited to,
11 Government Code § 830.6 (design immunity).
12 AS A NINETEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT
13 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
14 Answering Defendant asserts that it is immune from liability and that any recovery under the Complaint
15 against this Answering Defendant is barred by Government Code section 815.
16 AS A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT
17 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
18 Answering Defendant alleges that it is not liable for an injury caused by the act or omission of another
19 person. (Government Code sections 815.2 and 820.8.)
20 AS A TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT
21 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
22 Answering Defendant alleges that the Plaintiffs brought this action without a good faith belief that there
23 existed a justiciable controversy and without reasonable cause, such that this Answering Defendant has
24 incurred and will incur the costs of defending itself, to its damage in an amount to be proved at trial;
25 under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5, 1021, 1021.6 and 1038, this Answering Defendant is
26 entitled to recover its attorney’s fees as a cost.
27 AS A TWENTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
28 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED
6
Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
1 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that it is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or
2 omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in an
3 employee, whether or not said discretion was abused. (Government Code sections 815.2 and 820.2. See
4 also Sava v. Fuller (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 281.)
5 AS AN TWENTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
6 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED
7 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges it is immune from liability for nuisance pursuant to Civil
8 Code section 3482.
9 AS AN TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
10 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED
11 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that the acts or omissions, if any there were, of the this
12 Answering Defendant did not amount to a taking or damaging within the meaning of Article I, section
13 19 of the California Constitution or the U.S. Constitution.
14 AS A TWENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
15 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED
16 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ actions are barred because at all material
17 times, the alleged dangerous or defective condition as described in the action was open and obvious to
18 Plaintiffs, and as such bars any recovery in this action or diminishes Plaintiffs’ recovery to the extent
19 that Plaintiffs’ losses, damages, or injuries, if any, are attributable to the existence of the alleged
20 dangerous or defective condition.
21 AS A TWENTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
22 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED
23 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges Plaintiffs’ action is barred because the this Answering
24 Defendant is not responsible for any claimed harm, injury, loss or damages to the extent that the this
25 Answering Defendant’s conduct was, at all relevant times, reasonable and Plaintiffs’ conduct
26 unreasonable.
27 AS A TWENTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
28 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED
7
Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
1 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims for injuries and/or damages they
2 sustained, if any, are barred by Government Code sections 911.2 and 945.4.
3 AS A TWENTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
4 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED
5 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims for injuries and/or damages it
6 sustained, if any, are barred by Government Code section 945.6.
7 AS A TWENTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
8 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED
9 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that it is not liable for an injury proximately caused by its
10 failure to discharge a mandatory duty imposed by enactment that is designed to protect against the risk
11 of a particular injury because it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. (Government Code
12 section 815.6.)
13 AS A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON
14 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
15 Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief that
16 additional and as-yet-unstated defenses may be available and reserves the right to assert such additional
17 defenses as may be indicated by further discovery and investigation.
18 AS A THIRTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT
19 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
20 Answering Defendant alleges it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 831.25
21 in that there was a land failure of unimproved public property caused by a natural condition of the
22 unimproved public property.
23 AS A THIRTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
24 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED
25 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code
26 section 831.4 and 818.6 based on a failure to inspect negligent inspection of property.
27 AS A THIRTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT
28 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
8
Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
1 Answering Defendant alleges it is not liable for Inverse Condemnation in that this Answering Defendant
2 acted reasonably and the property alleged to be owned, maintained or controlled was not a project.
3 AS A THIRTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
4 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED
5 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges Plaintiffs’ Complaint exceeds the scope of the claim and
6 is therefore barred under Government Code section 905, et. seq.
7 AS A THIRTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT
8 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
9 Answering Defendant alleges it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 855.4.
10 AS A THIRTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT
11 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this
12 Answering Defendant alleges it is immune under the California Emergency Services Act. (Government
13 Code 8550, et seq.)
14 AS A THIRTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
15 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED
16 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges the injuries and damages of which Plaintiffs complain
17 were the result of an Act of God or other uncontrollable natural force.
18 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
19 WHEREFORE, this Answering Defendant prays for a judgment in its favor, as follows: that
20 Plaintiffs take nothing by the Complaint on file herein; that this Answering Defendant be hence dismissed
21 with prejudice; that this Answering Defendant be awarded all reasonable and necessary defense costs,
22 including attorneys’ fees and costs, to the extent allowed by statute or contract; and for such other and
23 further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
24
25 Dated: May 22, 2024 RANKIN | ONEAL
26
By _____________________________________
27 Jeffrey F. Oneal
Attorney for Defendant PAJARO VALLEY
28 WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY
9
Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
1 SHIKUMA, et al. v. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, et al.
Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 24CV00101
2 =======================================================================
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
4 I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen
years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 96 North Third Street, Suite 560,
5 San Jose, California 95112. My electronic address is Katherine@rankinstock.com. On the date set
forth below I served the documents described as follows:
6
DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO
7 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
8 on the following person(s) in this action:
9 Joseph G. Haselton Robert K. Johnson
HASELTON, HASELTON & LIDDICOAT, LLP JOHNSON & JAMES, LLP
10 311 Bonita Drive 311 Bonita Drive
Aptos, CA 95073 Aptos, CA 95073
11 Tel: (831) 475-7679 Tel: (831) 688-8989
12 750 Menlo Ave., Ste 200 Email: jjamesllp@aol.com
Menlo Park, CA 94025
13 Tel: (650) 327-1150
14 Email: haseltonesq@gmail.com
15 Attorney for Plaintiffs CHIYEKO SHIKUMA, et al.
16
[X] (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused such document(s) to be served on all counsel
17 of record by electronic service pursuant to CCP §§ 1010.6, 1013, 1013b and CRC 2.251.
18 [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
19
EXECUTED on May 22, 2024, at San Jose, California.
20
21 Katherine Walters
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 Jeffrey F. Oneal (SBN 129072) Christopher T. Yamada (SBN 233973) 2 RANKIN | ONEAL 96 No. Third Street, Suite 560 3 San Jose, California 95112 Telephone: (408) 293-0463 4 Email: jeffrey@rankinstock.com christopher@rankinstock.com 5 Attorneys for Defendant PAJARO VALLEY 6 WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY Exempt from filing fees pursuant to 7 Gov. Code § 6103 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ – UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 CHIYEKO SHIKUMA, INDIVIDUALLY AND Case No.: 24CV00101 AS TRUSTEE OF THE MARITAL TRUST 11 UNDER THE SHIKUMA 1987 REVOCABLE DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER TRUST U/D/T DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO 12 AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE FAMILY TRUST PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT UNDER THE SHIKUMA 1987 REVOCABLE 13 TRUST U/D/T DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 MARIA NAVARRO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 14 TRUSTEE OF THE NAVARRO SURVIVING SPOUSE'S TRUST DATED JANUARY 21, 1977, Complaint filed: January 10, 2024 15 CHAPALA BERRY FARMS, INC., A Trial date: TBA CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, JOHN BASOR 16 AND JELE B. BASOR, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE BASOR FAMILY 17 TRUST DATED JUNE 28, 2003, BRIAN MURAKAMI AND CIONE S. MURAKAMI, 18 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE MURAKAMI FAMILY TRUST U/A/D MARCH 19 5, 2004, GLENN C, NOMA AND PAMELA LYN NOMA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEES 20 OF THE GLENN AND PAMELA NOMA 1999 REVOCABLE TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 16, 21 1999, DUANE MURAKAMI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE DUANE 22 MURAKAMI TRUST DATED JANUARY 21, 2021, CARY MURAKAMI, INDIVIDUALLY 23 AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE 1996 CARY S. MURAKAMI TRUST U/D/T DATED JUNE 25, 24 1996, DENNIS IKEGAMI AND SUSAN JOY IKEGAMI AKA SUSAN JOY KAITA IKEGAMI, 25 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AS TRUSTEES OF THE DENNIS IKEGAMI AND SUSAN IKEGAMI 26 2017 REVOCABLE TRUST EXECUTED ON NOVEMBER 22, 2017, LESTER IKEGAMI AND 27 PATRICIA IKEGAMI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE LESTER AND PATRICIA 28 1 Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT 1 A. IKEGAMI 2002 TRUST DATED MARCH 15, 2002, VINCENT ITATANI AND CHERYL L. 2 ITATANI, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE ITATANI FAMILY TRUST 3 DATED MAY 2, 2015, OSAMU TED MATSUSHITA AND LAURIE KAITA 4 MATSUSHITA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE MATSUSHITA LIVING 5 TRUST ESTABLISHED NOVEMBER 16, 2016, DOMATILA TAPIA NAREZ, INDIVIDUALLY 6 AND DBA MIMI'S ORGANIC FARM, JESUS ROCHA, CALIFORNIA GIANT, INC., A 7 CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, SCURICH BERRY FARMS, INC., A CALIFORNIA 8 CORPORATION, AG. LAND INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 9 Plaintiffs, 10 vs. 11 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, SANTA CRUZ 12 COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 25 DISTRICT, PAJARO 13 VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE,; 14 Defendants. 15 16 COMES NOW Defendant PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY 17 (hereinafter “this Answering Defendant”) and answering the First Amended Complaint for Inverse 18 Condemnation, Breach of Mandatory Duty, Nuisance, Trespass, negligence and Dangerous Condition of 19 Public Property (“Complaint”) on file herein admits, denies, and alleges as follows: 20 GENERAL DENIAL 21 This Answering Defendant denies generally and specifically, each and every material allegation 22 of the Complaint under Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30. 23 This Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiffs have sustained damages in any sum or amount, 24 or otherwise, or at all, due to any act or omission of this Answering Defendant. 25 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 26 AS A FIRST, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO 27 EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges 28 that said Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this Answering 2 Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT 1 Defendant. 2 AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON 3 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 4 Answering Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs fail to plead a cause of action against this Answering 5 Defendant because it has not pled any statutory basis for said cause of action. 6 AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON 7 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 8 Answering Defendant asserts Plaintiffs’ actions are barred by the principles of waiver, laches, unclean 9 hands, and/or estoppel. 10 AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON 11 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 12 Answering Defendant asserts that if Plaintiffs have sustained any compensable injuries, losses or 13 damages, this Answering Defendant’s conduct or failure to act was not the sole proximate cause of the 14 alleged injury, losses or damages. 15 AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON 16 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 17 Answering Defendant asserts that if Plaintiffs have sustained any compensable injuries or damages and 18 if this Answering Defendant should have liability to Plaintiffs therefore, such liability for non-economic 19 injury or damages, if any, shall be several only and shall not be joint and this Answering Defendant’s 20 liability for non-economic damages, if any, is limited to that percentage of those injuries or damages 21 which are in direct proportion to this Answering Defendant’s percentage of fault in accordance with 22 California Civil Code sections 1431.1 through 1431.5, et al., and 1431.2(a). 23 AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON FILE 24 HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this Answering 25 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs were careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the 26 Complaint, and that said carelessness and negligence on said Plaintiffs’ own part proximately 27 contributed to the happening of the incident and to the injuries, loss and damage complained of, if any 28 there were; that should Plaintiff recover damages, this Answering Defendant is entitled to have the 3 Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT 1 amount thereof abated, reduced or eliminated to the extent that Plaintiffs’ negligence caused or 2 contributed to its injuries, if any. 3 AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON 4 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 5 Answering Defendant alleges that said injuries sustained by Plaintiffs were either wholly or in part 6 negligently caused by persons, firms, corporations or entities other than this Answering Defendant and 7 said negligence is either imputed to Plaintiffs by reason of the relationship to Plaintiffs and/or said 8 negligence comparatively reduces the percentage of negligence, if any, by this Answering Defendant. 9 AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON 10 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 11 Answering Defendant alleges persons, firms, corporations or entities other than this Answering 12 Defendant failed to exercise due care by violating a statute, ordinance or regulation such that his or her 13 or its negligence is presumed under Evidence Code section 669. 14 AS A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON 15 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 16 Answering Defendant alleges that any recovery under the Complaint against this Answering Defendant 17 is barred because the alleged damages (if any) were caused by actions or inactions of other persons, 18 firms, corporations or entities. 19 AS A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON 20 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 21 Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs acted with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances 22 surrounding their injuries and assumed the risk of the matters causing the injuries, and that said matters 23 of which Plaintiffs assumed the risk proximately contributed to and proximately caused their injuries, if 24 any. 25 AS AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT 26 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 27 Answering Defendant alleges that at all times and places mentioned in the Complaint herein, Plaintiffs 28 failed to mitigate the amount of their damages. The damages claimed by Plaintiffs could have been 4 Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT 1 mitigated by due diligence on Plaintiffs’ part or by one acting under similar circumstances. Plaintiffs’ 2 failure to mitigate is a bar to recovery. 3 AS A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON 4 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 5 Answering Defendant alleges Plaintiffs’ action is barred by Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their judicial 6 remedies, inter alia by pursuing a timely claim for administrative mandate or other appropriate 7 administrative relief. 8 AS A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT 9 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 10 Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ action is barred as against the this Answering Defendant 11 under the provisions of California Government Code sections 818.4, 820.4, 821, 821.2, 821.4, 821.6, 12 830, 830.2, 831, 831.8, 835, 835.2, 835.4 and 840 through 840.6, which preclude any liability on the 13 part of this Answering Defendant. 14 AS A FOURTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT 15 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 16 Answering Defendant alleges Plaintiffs’ action is barred as against the this Answering Defendant as it is 17 entitled to absolute, qualified, or conditional immunity from liability including, but not limited to, 18 immunity from common law claims not actionable by statute against the this Answering Defendant. 19 AS A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON 20 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 21 Answering Defendant alleges it is entitled to a reduction of any judgment against it, if any, that includes 22 any recovery for any injuries, losses or damages for which a collateral source payment has been paid or 23 is payable to or on behalf of Plaintiffs, pursuant to Government Code section 985. 24 AS A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT 25 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, 26 this Answering Defendant asserts that any recovery under the Complaint against this Answering 27 Defendant is barred by sections 800 through 996.6 of the Government Code. 28 AS A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 5 Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT 1 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION 2 CONTAINED THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ action is barred by the 3 applicable statute of limitations, specifically including, but not limited to, California Code of Civil 4 Procedure sections 318, 319, 335, 335.1, 338(b), 338(j), 340, 342, 1094.5, and 1094.6(a), et seq., and 5 Government Code sections 905.2, 911.2, 911.2(a), 945.6 and 945.8, 65009(c)(1), 66499.37, or any 6 other applicable provision of law. 7 AS AN EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 8 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED 9 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred against this Answering 10 Defendant because this Answering Defendant is immune from liability pursuant, but not limited to, 11 Government Code § 830.6 (design immunity). 12 AS A NINETEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT 13 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 14 Answering Defendant asserts that it is immune from liability and that any recovery under the Complaint 15 against this Answering Defendant is barred by Government Code section 815. 16 AS A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT 17 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 18 Answering Defendant alleges that it is not liable for an injury caused by the act or omission of another 19 person. (Government Code sections 815.2 and 820.8.) 20 AS A TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT 21 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 22 Answering Defendant alleges that the Plaintiffs brought this action without a good faith belief that there 23 existed a justiciable controversy and without reasonable cause, such that this Answering Defendant has 24 incurred and will incur the costs of defending itself, to its damage in an amount to be proved at trial; 25 under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5, 1021, 1021.6 and 1038, this Answering Defendant is 26 entitled to recover its attorney’s fees as a cost. 27 AS A TWENTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 28 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED 6 Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT 1 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that it is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or 2 omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in an 3 employee, whether or not said discretion was abused. (Government Code sections 815.2 and 820.2. See 4 also Sava v. Fuller (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 281.) 5 AS AN TWENTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 6 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED 7 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges it is immune from liability for nuisance pursuant to Civil 8 Code section 3482. 9 AS AN TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 10 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED 11 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that the acts or omissions, if any there were, of the this 12 Answering Defendant did not amount to a taking or damaging within the meaning of Article I, section 13 19 of the California Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. 14 AS A TWENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 15 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED 16 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ actions are barred because at all material 17 times, the alleged dangerous or defective condition as described in the action was open and obvious to 18 Plaintiffs, and as such bars any recovery in this action or diminishes Plaintiffs’ recovery to the extent 19 that Plaintiffs’ losses, damages, or injuries, if any, are attributable to the existence of the alleged 20 dangerous or defective condition. 21 AS A TWENTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 22 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED 23 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges Plaintiffs’ action is barred because the this Answering 24 Defendant is not responsible for any claimed harm, injury, loss or damages to the extent that the this 25 Answering Defendant’s conduct was, at all relevant times, reasonable and Plaintiffs’ conduct 26 unreasonable. 27 AS A TWENTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 28 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED 7 Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT 1 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims for injuries and/or damages they 2 sustained, if any, are barred by Government Code sections 911.2 and 945.4. 3 AS A TWENTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 4 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED 5 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims for injuries and/or damages it 6 sustained, if any, are barred by Government Code section 945.6. 7 AS A TWENTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 8 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED 9 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges that it is not liable for an injury proximately caused by its 10 failure to discharge a mandatory duty imposed by enactment that is designed to protect against the risk 11 of a particular injury because it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. (Government Code 12 section 815.6.) 13 AS A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT ON 14 FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 15 Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief that 16 additional and as-yet-unstated defenses may be available and reserves the right to assert such additional 17 defenses as may be indicated by further discovery and investigation. 18 AS A THIRTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT 19 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 20 Answering Defendant alleges it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 831.25 21 in that there was a land failure of unimproved public property caused by a natural condition of the 22 unimproved public property. 23 AS A THIRTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 24 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED 25 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code 26 section 831.4 and 818.6 based on a failure to inspect negligent inspection of property. 27 AS A THIRTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT 28 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 8 Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT 1 Answering Defendant alleges it is not liable for Inverse Condemnation in that this Answering Defendant 2 acted reasonably and the property alleged to be owned, maintained or controlled was not a project. 3 AS A THIRTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 4 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED 5 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges Plaintiffs’ Complaint exceeds the scope of the claim and 6 is therefore barred under Government Code section 905, et. seq. 7 AS A THIRTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT 8 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 9 Answering Defendant alleges it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 855.4. 10 AS A THIRTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT 11 ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED THEREIN, this 12 Answering Defendant alleges it is immune under the California Emergency Services Act. (Government 13 Code 8550, et seq.) 14 AS A THIRTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE 15 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINED 16 THEREIN, this Answering Defendant alleges the injuries and damages of which Plaintiffs complain 17 were the result of an Act of God or other uncontrollable natural force. 18 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 19 WHEREFORE, this Answering Defendant prays for a judgment in its favor, as follows: that 20 Plaintiffs take nothing by the Complaint on file herein; that this Answering Defendant be hence dismissed 21 with prejudice; that this Answering Defendant be awarded all reasonable and necessary defense costs, 22 including attorneys’ fees and costs, to the extent allowed by statute or contract; and for such other and 23 further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 24 25 Dated: May 22, 2024 RANKIN | ONEAL 26 By _____________________________________ 27 Jeffrey F. Oneal Attorney for Defendant PAJARO VALLEY 28 WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY 9 Case No. 24CV00101 – DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT 1 SHIKUMA, et al. v. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, et al. Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 24CV00101 2 ======================================================================= 3 PROOF OF SERVICE 4 I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 96 North Third Street, Suite 560, 5 San Jose, California 95112. My electronic address is Katherine@rankinstock.com. On the date set forth below I served the documents described as follows: 6 DEFENDANT PAJARO VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S ANSWER TO 7 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT 8 on the following person(s) in this action: 9 Joseph G. Haselton Robert K. Johnson HASELTON, HASELTON & LIDDICOAT, LLP JOHNSON & JAMES, LLP 10 311 Bonita Drive 311 Bonita Drive Aptos, CA 95073 Aptos, CA 95073 11 Tel: (831) 475-7679 Tel: (831) 688-8989 12 750 Menlo Ave., Ste 200 Email: jjamesllp@aol.com Menlo Park, CA 94025 13 Tel: (650) 327-1150 14 Email: haseltonesq@gmail.com 15 Attorney for Plaintiffs CHIYEKO SHIKUMA, et al. 16 [X] (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused such document(s) to be served on all counsel 17 of record by electronic service pursuant to CCP §§ 1010.6, 1013, 1013b and CRC 2.251. 18 [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 19 EXECUTED on May 22, 2024, at San Jose, California. 20 21 Katherine Walters 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE