Preview
TION
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jul-11-2012 2:39 pm
Case Number: CGC-12-520844
Filing Date: Jul-11-2012 2:37
Filed by: RONNIE OTERO
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03683105
ANSWER
BUNDY CHANOCK VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al
001003683105
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.b
ya
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
JOANNE HOEPER, State Bar #114961
Chief Trial Deputy
KAREN E. KIRBY, State Bar #146432
Deputy City Attorney
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, 6" Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3891
Facsimile: (415) 554-3837
Attomeys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
BUNDY CHANOCK, Case No. CGC-12-520844
Plaintiff,
DEFENDANT CHRISTINE LeBLANC'S
vs. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH; OMI
FAMILY CENTER; CHRISTINE LeBLANC,
PH.D.; MARK G. KOETTING, PH.D., and
DOES 1-40, inclusive,
Defendants.
Date Action Filed: May 17, 2012
Trial Date: NONE
Defendant CHRISTINE LeBLANC, responds to the unverified Complaint of Plaintiff BUNDY
CHANOCK ("Plaintiff") as follows:
DENIAL
Pursuant to section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant denies each
and every allegation in the complaint.
Ml
MlRB wow
SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1ST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
against Defendant.
2ND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that plaintiff failed to comply with the California Tort Claims Act of the
California Government Code and therefore all claims of the plaintiff are barred.
3RD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's purported causes of action are limited to those factual allegations and theories of
recovery set forth in plaintiff's written government tort claim, if any, and that to the extent that the
third amended complaint attempts to enlarge or expand upon those allegations and theories, the third
amended complaint fails to state a cause of action and is barred pursuant to Government Code §§905,
910, 911.2, 945.5, 950.2 and related provisions.
4TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act of the California
Government Code (Government Code §810 et seq.) as a measure of the duty of the City and County of
San Francisco and its employees.
5TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that plaintiff's decedent was negligent in and about the activities alleged in
the complaint; that said negligence contributed and was a proximate cause of plaintiff's alleged injuries
and damages, if any, or was the sole cause thereof; and that if plaintiff is entitled to recover damages
against Defendant, then Defendant prays that the recovery be diminished in proportion to the degree of
fault attributable to plaintiff.
6TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
By reason of plaintiff's decedent's acts and omissions, plaintiff is estopped from seeking any
'|| recovery from Defendant by reason of the allegations set forth in the complaint.
7TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The complaint and each cause of action are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
28TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that the complaint and each and every cause of action therein are barred
because plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.
9TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant denies that plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or sums, or otherwise, or at all,
by reason of any act or omission by Defendant.
10TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that the complaint and each and every cause of action therein is barred by
the statute of limitations as set forth in CCP § 335 et seq. and related statutes.
11TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that the fault of persons or entities other than Defendant contributed to and
proximately caused the occurrence, and that under the principles formulated in the case of American
Motorcycle Association v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578, San Francisco is entitled to a
reduction or elimination of its ultimate liability in this action by the percentage of fault assigned to
such third person or entity, to be established by special verdict or other procedure.
12TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that the medical care provided to plaintiff's decedent at the City’s facilities
and by the City's employees was at all times and in all respects within the standard of care applicable
to plaintiff's decedent's medical complaints and condition.
13TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that the complaint is barred by the following provisions of the California
Tort Claims Act: Government Code Sections 815; 815(b); 815.2; 815.3; 815.4; 815.6; 816; 818;
818.2; 818.4; 818.5; 818.6; 818.7; 818.8; 818.9; 820; 820(b); 820.2; 820.21; 820.25; 820.4; 820.6;
820.8; 820.9; 821; 821.2; 821.4; 821.5; 821.6; 821.8; 822; 822.2; 823; 825; 825.4; 825.6; 827; 830;
830.1; 830.2; 830.4; 830.5; 830.6; 830.8; 830.9; 831; 831.2; 831.21; 831.25; 831.3; 831.4; 831.5;
831.6; 831.7; 831.8; 835; 835.2; 835.4; 840; 840.2; 840.4; 840.6; 844; 844.6; 845; 845.2; 845.4; 845.6;
845.8; 846; 850; 850.2; 850.4; 850.6; 850.8; 854; 854.2; 854.3; 854.4; 854.5; 854.8; 855; 855.2; 855.4;n wn
x
855.6; 855.8; 856; 856.2; 856.4; 856.6; 860; 860.2; 860.4; 862; 865; 866; 867; 895; 895.2; 895.4;
895.6; 895.8.
14TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that each and every cause of action allegedly set forth therein is entitled to
the full benefits and protections provided under section 1431.1, et seq., of the Civil Code, otherwise
entitled The Fair Responsibility Act of 1986.
15TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that the injuries and damages complained of by plaintiff, if any there were,
were wholly or in part directly caused by the negligence and/or willful and intentional acts of persons
or entities other than the defendant, and said negligence is either imputed to plaintiff by reason of the
relationship between plaintiff and said person or entities, and/or comparatively reduces the proportion
of alleged negligence and corresponding alleged liability of the defendant.
16TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that in the event they are found to be negligent (which supposition is denied
and merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative defense), the defendant may elect to introduce
evidence of any amount paid or payable as a benefit to plaintiff pursuant to Civil Code §3333.1.
17TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that in the event it is found to be negligent (which supposition is denied and
merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative defense), the damages for non-economic losses, if
any, shall not exceed the amount specified in Civil Code §3333.2.
18TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that in the event it is found to be negligent (which supposition is denied and
merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative defense), the defendant may elect to have future
damages, if any, in excess of the amount specified in Code of Civil Procedure §667.7, paid in whole or
in part, as specified in Code of Civil Procedure §667.7.Bw oN
19TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that it is entitled to the benefits, defenses, rights, immunities and provisions
set forth and contained in Business & Professions Code §6146 and Code of Civil Procedure §§364 and
365.
20TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges upon information and belief that a certain sum has been or will be paid to
plaintiff as compensation for the same damages he seeks against this defendant and, therefore, said
defendant is entitled to a set-off in said amount against any judgment or recovery plaintiff may recover
against defendant.
21ST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that plaintiff, has failed to minimize or mitigate each of her damages, if any.
22ND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that the injuries complained of herein were caused by the natural course of
plaintiff's decedent's disease or condition, or were the natural or expected results of reasonable
treatment rendered for this disease or condition, and plaintiff's claims herein are barred by California
Civil Code §1714.8.
23RD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 815.2
in that City employees are immune from liability and/or the alleged acts and omissions complained of
by plaintiff in the complaint would not give rise to a cause of action against said employees.
24TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 815.6
in that they exercised reasonable diligence at all times referred to in plaintiff's complaint.
25TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 820.2
in that the acts, omissions and conduct complained of by plaintiff was the result of the exercise of
discretion vested in City employees.26TH Affirmative Defense
Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 855.6
in that the acts, omissions and conduct complained of by plaintiff concern mental or physical
examination of plaintiff's decedent concerning whether plaintiff's decedent had a disease or physical or
mental condition that would constitute a hazard to plaintiff's decedent's health or safety.
27TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 856.4
for any alleged failure to admit plaintiff's decedent to a public medical facility.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4
Dated: July 11, 2012
That plaintiff takes nothing from Defendants;
That the complaint be dismissed with prejudice;
That Defendant recover costs of suit herein, including attorneys' fees; and
For such other relief as is just and proper.
DENNIS J. HERRERA.
City Attorney
JOANNE HOEPER
Chief Trial Deputy
KAREN E. KIRBY
Deputy City Afforney
1 fo
By: / Yen.
KAREN E. KIRBY
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOPROOF OF SERVICE
I, COLLEEN M. GARRETT, declare as follows:
Iam a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above-
entitled action. I am employed at the City Attorney’s Office of San Francisco, Fox Plaza Building,
1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.
On July 11, 2012, I served the following document(s):
DEFENDANT CHRISTINE LeBLANC 'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
on the following persons at the locations specified:
John E. Winer, Esq.
Shawn D. Tillis, Esq.
WINER & McKENNA, LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 600
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: 510/433-1000
Facsimile: 510/433-1001
Attorneys for Plaintiff BUNDY CHANOCK
in the manner indicated below:
m BY UNITED STATES MAIL: Following ordinary business practices, I sealed true and correct copies of
the above documents in addressed envelope(s) and placed them at my workplace for collection and mailing with
the United States Postal Service. I am readily familiar with the practices of the San Francisco City Attorney's
Office for collecting and processing mail. In the ordinary course of business, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed
for collection would be deposited, postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service that same day.
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed July 11, 2012, at San Francisco, California.
COLLEEN M. GA)
Preview
TION SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jul-11-2012 2:39 pm Case Number: CGC-12-520844 Filing Date: Jul-11-2012 2:37 Filed by: RONNIE OTERO Juke Box: 001 Image: 03683105 ANSWER BUNDY CHANOCK VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al 001003683105 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.b ya DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney JOANNE HOEPER, State Bar #114961 Chief Trial Deputy KAREN E. KIRBY, State Bar #146432 Deputy City Attorney Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, 6" Floor San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-3891 Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 Attomeys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION BUNDY CHANOCK, Case No. CGC-12-520844 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CHRISTINE LeBLANC'S vs. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH; OMI FAMILY CENTER; CHRISTINE LeBLANC, PH.D.; MARK G. KOETTING, PH.D., and DOES 1-40, inclusive, Defendants. Date Action Filed: May 17, 2012 Trial Date: NONE Defendant CHRISTINE LeBLANC, responds to the unverified Complaint of Plaintiff BUNDY CHANOCK ("Plaintiff") as follows: DENIAL Pursuant to section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant denies each and every allegation in the complaint. Ml MlRB wow SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1ST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. 2ND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that plaintiff failed to comply with the California Tort Claims Act of the California Government Code and therefore all claims of the plaintiff are barred. 3RD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's purported causes of action are limited to those factual allegations and theories of recovery set forth in plaintiff's written government tort claim, if any, and that to the extent that the third amended complaint attempts to enlarge or expand upon those allegations and theories, the third amended complaint fails to state a cause of action and is barred pursuant to Government Code §§905, 910, 911.2, 945.5, 950.2 and related provisions. 4TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act of the California Government Code (Government Code §810 et seq.) as a measure of the duty of the City and County of San Francisco and its employees. 5TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that plaintiff's decedent was negligent in and about the activities alleged in the complaint; that said negligence contributed and was a proximate cause of plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, if any, or was the sole cause thereof; and that if plaintiff is entitled to recover damages against Defendant, then Defendant prays that the recovery be diminished in proportion to the degree of fault attributable to plaintiff. 6TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE By reason of plaintiff's decedent's acts and omissions, plaintiff is estopped from seeking any '|| recovery from Defendant by reason of the allegations set forth in the complaint. 7TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The complaint and each cause of action are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. 28TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the complaint and each and every cause of action therein are barred because plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages. 9TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant denies that plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or sums, or otherwise, or at all, by reason of any act or omission by Defendant. 10TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the complaint and each and every cause of action therein is barred by the statute of limitations as set forth in CCP § 335 et seq. and related statutes. 11TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the fault of persons or entities other than Defendant contributed to and proximately caused the occurrence, and that under the principles formulated in the case of American Motorcycle Association v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578, San Francisco is entitled to a reduction or elimination of its ultimate liability in this action by the percentage of fault assigned to such third person or entity, to be established by special verdict or other procedure. 12TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the medical care provided to plaintiff's decedent at the City’s facilities and by the City's employees was at all times and in all respects within the standard of care applicable to plaintiff's decedent's medical complaints and condition. 13TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the complaint is barred by the following provisions of the California Tort Claims Act: Government Code Sections 815; 815(b); 815.2; 815.3; 815.4; 815.6; 816; 818; 818.2; 818.4; 818.5; 818.6; 818.7; 818.8; 818.9; 820; 820(b); 820.2; 820.21; 820.25; 820.4; 820.6; 820.8; 820.9; 821; 821.2; 821.4; 821.5; 821.6; 821.8; 822; 822.2; 823; 825; 825.4; 825.6; 827; 830; 830.1; 830.2; 830.4; 830.5; 830.6; 830.8; 830.9; 831; 831.2; 831.21; 831.25; 831.3; 831.4; 831.5; 831.6; 831.7; 831.8; 835; 835.2; 835.4; 840; 840.2; 840.4; 840.6; 844; 844.6; 845; 845.2; 845.4; 845.6; 845.8; 846; 850; 850.2; 850.4; 850.6; 850.8; 854; 854.2; 854.3; 854.4; 854.5; 854.8; 855; 855.2; 855.4;n wn x 855.6; 855.8; 856; 856.2; 856.4; 856.6; 860; 860.2; 860.4; 862; 865; 866; 867; 895; 895.2; 895.4; 895.6; 895.8. 14TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that each and every cause of action allegedly set forth therein is entitled to the full benefits and protections provided under section 1431.1, et seq., of the Civil Code, otherwise entitled The Fair Responsibility Act of 1986. 15TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the injuries and damages complained of by plaintiff, if any there were, were wholly or in part directly caused by the negligence and/or willful and intentional acts of persons or entities other than the defendant, and said negligence is either imputed to plaintiff by reason of the relationship between plaintiff and said person or entities, and/or comparatively reduces the proportion of alleged negligence and corresponding alleged liability of the defendant. 16TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that in the event they are found to be negligent (which supposition is denied and merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative defense), the defendant may elect to introduce evidence of any amount paid or payable as a benefit to plaintiff pursuant to Civil Code §3333.1. 17TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that in the event it is found to be negligent (which supposition is denied and merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative defense), the damages for non-economic losses, if any, shall not exceed the amount specified in Civil Code §3333.2. 18TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that in the event it is found to be negligent (which supposition is denied and merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative defense), the defendant may elect to have future damages, if any, in excess of the amount specified in Code of Civil Procedure §667.7, paid in whole or in part, as specified in Code of Civil Procedure §667.7.Bw oN 19TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that it is entitled to the benefits, defenses, rights, immunities and provisions set forth and contained in Business & Professions Code §6146 and Code of Civil Procedure §§364 and 365. 20TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges upon information and belief that a certain sum has been or will be paid to plaintiff as compensation for the same damages he seeks against this defendant and, therefore, said defendant is entitled to a set-off in said amount against any judgment or recovery plaintiff may recover against defendant. 21ST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that plaintiff, has failed to minimize or mitigate each of her damages, if any. 22ND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that the injuries complained of herein were caused by the natural course of plaintiff's decedent's disease or condition, or were the natural or expected results of reasonable treatment rendered for this disease or condition, and plaintiff's claims herein are barred by California Civil Code §1714.8. 23RD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 815.2 in that City employees are immune from liability and/or the alleged acts and omissions complained of by plaintiff in the complaint would not give rise to a cause of action against said employees. 24TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 815.6 in that they exercised reasonable diligence at all times referred to in plaintiff's complaint. 25TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 820.2 in that the acts, omissions and conduct complained of by plaintiff was the result of the exercise of discretion vested in City employees.26TH Affirmative Defense Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 855.6 in that the acts, omissions and conduct complained of by plaintiff concern mental or physical examination of plaintiff's decedent concerning whether plaintiff's decedent had a disease or physical or mental condition that would constitute a hazard to plaintiff's decedent's health or safety. 27TH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 856.4 for any alleged failure to admit plaintiff's decedent to a public medical facility. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4 Dated: July 11, 2012 That plaintiff takes nothing from Defendants; That the complaint be dismissed with prejudice; That Defendant recover costs of suit herein, including attorneys' fees; and For such other relief as is just and proper. DENNIS J. HERRERA. City Attorney JOANNE HOEPER Chief Trial Deputy KAREN E. KIRBY Deputy City Afforney 1 fo By: / Yen. KAREN E. KIRBY Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOPROOF OF SERVICE I, COLLEEN M. GARRETT, declare as follows: Iam a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above- entitled action. I am employed at the City Attorney’s Office of San Francisco, Fox Plaza Building, 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. On July 11, 2012, I served the following document(s): DEFENDANT CHRISTINE LeBLANC 'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the following persons at the locations specified: John E. Winer, Esq. Shawn D. Tillis, Esq. WINER & McKENNA, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: 510/433-1000 Facsimile: 510/433-1001 Attorneys for Plaintiff BUNDY CHANOCK in the manner indicated below: m BY UNITED STATES MAIL: Following ordinary business practices, I sealed true and correct copies of the above documents in addressed envelope(s) and placed them at my workplace for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service. I am readily familiar with the practices of the San Francisco City Attorney's Office for collecting and processing mail. In the ordinary course of business, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed for collection would be deposited, postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service that same day. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed July 11, 2012, at San Francisco, California. COLLEEN M. GA)