Answer: T'JADE JACKSON VS. CITY AND C0UNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Instructions:

a Arcee etenamemisemone tenet eet mere tra MATA RTE ARAMA REIS Ee

MOA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Aug-10-2012 2:48 pm

Case Number: CGC-12-520772
Filing Date: Aug-10-2012 2:48
Filed by: MICHAEL RAYRAY

Juke Box: 001 Image: 03721044
ANSWER

001003721044 .

Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

T'JADE JACKSON VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et alo

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney AML
JOANNE HOEPER, State Bar #114961 2012 AUG 1G Ai
Chief Trial Deputy A Fos
DAVID W. AMMONS, State Bar #187168 : A?

Deputy City Attorney

Fox Plaza

1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor

San Francisco, California 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3954
Facsimile: (415) 554-3837

E-Mail: david.ammons@sfgov.org

Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

T'ADE JACKSON, Case No. CGC-12-520772

Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
vs.
Date Action Filed: May 14, 2012
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN Trial Date: None Set
FRANCISCO, DAVID EBARLE, ROBERT
RUBESHAW,

Defendant.

Defendant City and County of San Francisco, a municipal corporation (the “City” or
“defendant’), responds to plaintiffs unverified complaint as follows:
Pursuant to sections 431.30 and 446(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the City
denies each and every allegation in the complaint.
SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense
(Failure to State a Claim)

Defendant alleges that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action

1

Jackson, et al. v. CCSF, et al.; Sup. Ct. No. CGC-12-520772 nAtit'h2012\130013100790629.doe
Def. CCSF's Answer to Complaint

5against this defendant.
Second Affirmative Defense
(Failure To Comply With Tort Claims Act)

Defendant alleges that plaintiff fails to set forth facts sufficient to state a cause of action due to

a failure to comply with the requirements of the California Government Code.
Third Affirmative Defense
(Statute of Limitations)

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.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
(immunity)

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.

Fifth Affirmative Defense
(Assumption of the Risk)

Defendant alleges that plaintiff had full knowledge of the risks involved in the activity in
which plaintiff was engaged at the time of the incident set forth in the complaint herein; that the
plaintiff voluntarily assumed all the risks incident to the activity engaged in at the time and place
mentioned in said complaint; and that the loss or damage, if any, sustained by the plaintiff was caused
by said risks that were accepted and voluntarily assumed by the plaintiff.

Sixth Affirmative Defense
(Comparative Negligence)

Defendant alleges by way of a plea of comparative negligence that plaintiff was negligent in
and about the matters and activities alleged in the complaint; that said negligence contributed to 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 this defendant, then defendant prays that the

2
Jackson, et al. v. CCSF, et al.; Sup. Ct. No. CGC-12-520772 nKH2012\130013400790629.doc
Def. CCSF's Answer to Complaint