Preview
1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
2 KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER, State Bar #173180 ELECTRONICALLY
Chief Labor Attorney FILED
3 BORIS REZNIKOV, State Bar #261776 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Deputy City Attorney
4 Fox Plaza 07/27/2020
1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor Clerk of the Court
BY: EDWARD SANTOS
5 San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Deputy Clerk
Telephone: (415) 554-4296
6 Facsimile: (415) 554-4248
E-Mail: boris.reznikov@sfcityatty.org
7
8 Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
13 YULANDA WILLIAMS, Case No. CGC-19-576323
14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO’S ANSWER TO FIRST
15 vs. AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16 CITY AND COUNTY OF Date Action Filed: May 29, 2019
SAN FRANCISCO, and DOES 1-40, Trial Date: Not Set
17 inclusive,
18 Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1
CCSF’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT n:\labor\li2019\200323\01457383.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-576323
1 Defendant City and County of San Francisco (the “City”) hereby responds to Plaintiff Yulanda
2 Williams’ (“Williams”) First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) as follows:
3 GENERAL DENIAL
4 Pursuant to Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the City hereby
5 answers Williams’ unverified Complaint filed on April 15, 2020. The City generally and specifically
6 denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint. Without limiting the generality of the
7 foregoing, the City also denies that Williams has been injured or has suffered any damages by reason
8 of any act or omission on the part of the City or its agents, servants, or employees. The City further
9 denies that Williams is entitled to any relief requested in the Complaint, or to any relief in any amount
10 or of any kind whatsoever. In asserting the separate and additional defenses below, the City does not
11 concede that it has the burden of persuasion or the burden of proof for any of the defenses.
12 ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
13 Due to the vague allegations in the Complaint, the City cannot fully anticipate all defenses that
14 may apply to this litigation. Accordingly, the City reserves the right to assert additional defenses as
15 warranted.
16 FIRST ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
17 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Williams has failed to state facts
18 sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the City.
19 SECOND ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
20 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Williams has failed to satisfy the
21 prerequisites to suit and has not adequately or timely exhausted her administrative, judicial, or
22 contractual remedies.
23 THIRD ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
24 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations.
25 FOURTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
26 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because in every employment action
27 challenged by her Complaint, the City acted in good faith at all times based solely on legitimate
28 2
CCSF’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT n:\labor\li2019\200323\01457383.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-576323
1 business reasons wholly unrelated to any discriminatory, retaliatory, or statutorily impermissible
2 factors.
3 FIFTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
4 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the City, at all applicable times, had
5 in place policies prohibiting discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, including discrimination,
6 retaliation, and harassment on the basis of race, age, or gender, and exercised reasonable care to
7 implement and enforce those policies to prevent and promptly correct any wrongful or inappropriate
8 conduct. To the extent any acts or omissions were based on discriminatory, retaliatory, or harassing
9 reasons or animus or any other wrongful or improper reason (which the City denies), the City
10 promptly took all reasonable and necessary steps to remedy any discrimination, retaliation,
11 harassment, or any other alleged wrongful or inappropriate conduct.
12 SIXTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
13 Williams’ claims for damages are barred, in whole or in part, from recovery of damages
14 because it would result in unjust enrichment.
15 SEVENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
16 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because her own actions and course of
17 conduct constitute a waiver of her claims in the Complaint and each of its purported causes of action.
18 EIGHTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
19 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel.
20 NINTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
21 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.
22 TENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
23 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.
24 ELEVENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
25 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the after-acquired evidence doctrine.
26
27
28 3
CCSF’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT n:\labor\li2019\200323\01457383.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-576323
1 TWELFTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
2 Williams’ claims for damages are barred, in whole or in part, by Williams’ failure to mitigate
3 her alleged damages.
4 THIRTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
5 Williams’ claims for damages are barred, in whole or in part, by the avoidable consequences
6 doctrine because the City exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any improper
7 behavior alleged by Williams, and Williams unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventative
8 or corrective opportunities provided by the City or to otherwise avoid harm to herself.
9 FOURTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
10 Any and all claims by Williams based in part or in whole upon any alleged physical or
11 emotional injury or distress arising in the course and scope of employment are barred because
12 Williams’ sole and exclusive remedy, if any, for such injuries is governed by the California Worker's
13 Compensation Act (See Labor Code Section 3600, et seq.).
14 FIFTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
15 If Williams is entitled to any recovery, the City is entitled to set off any prior recoveries,
16 compensation, or benefits Williams may have received in connection with the injuries or claims
17 identified in this case or any collateral sources, including, but not limited to, having Williams’
18 recovery reduced as provided in Government Code Section 985.
19 SIXTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
20 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because if employees of the City committed
21 any of the unlawful or tortious acts alleged, they were acting outside the scope of their employment.
22 SEVENTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
23 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the City's actions were privileged or
24 justified under applicable law.
25
26
27
28 4
CCSF’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT n:\labor\li2019\200323\01457383.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-576323
1 EIGHTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
2 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Williams or other third parties were at
3 fault and their actions and course of conduct caused or contributed to the damages sought in this
4 Complaint.
5 NINETEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
6 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because all employment standards applied or
7 actions taken by the City with respect to Williams were job-related and consistent with business
8 necessity.
9 TWENTIETH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
10 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the various immunities conferred to the
11 City and public employees in the California Government Code and any other provision of law.
12 TWENTY-FIRST ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
13 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Williams failed to fully comply with
14 the claims filing requirements under applicable law, including, but not limited to, the California
15 Government Claims Act, as provided by Government Code Section 910, et seq.
16 TWENTY-SECOND ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
17 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because current law prohibits her claims
18 against the City.
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 5
CCSF’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT n:\labor\li2019\200323\01457383.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-576323
1 WHEREFORE, the City prays for judgment as follows:
2 1. That Williams take nothing from the City;
3 2. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;
4 3. That the City recover costs of suit herein; and
5 4. For such other relief as is just and proper.
6
7 Dated: July 27, 2020 DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
8 KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER
Chief Labor Attorney
9 BORIS REZNIKOV
Deputy City Attorney
10
11
12 By:
BORIS REZNIKOV
13
Attorneys for Defendant
14 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 6
CCSF’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT n:\labor\li2019\200323\01457383.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-576323
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2 I, WANDA TAI YU, declare as follows:
3 I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above-
4 entitled action. I am employed at the City Attorney’s Office of San Francisco, Fox Plaza Building,
5 1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.
6 On July 27, 2020, I served the following document(s):
7 • DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S ANSWER TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
8
on the following persons at the locations specified:
9
DeWitt M. Lacy Attorney for Plaintiff
10 The Law Offices of John L. Burris
9701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
11 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-0210
Email: dewitt.lacy@johnburrislaw.com
12
in the manner indicated below:
13
BY UNITED STATES MAIL: Following ordinary business practices, I sealed true and correct copies of
14 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
15 Office for collecting and processing mail. In the ordinary course of business, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed
16 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic
service, I caused the documents to be sent to the person(s) at the electronic service address(es) listed above. Such
17 document(s) were transmitted via electronic mail from the electronic address: wanda.takao@sfcityatty.org in
portable document format ("PDF") Adobe Acrobat or in Word document format.
18
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the
19
foregoing is true and correct.
20
Executed July 27, 2020, at San Francisco, California.
21
22
23 WANDA TAI YU
24
25
26
27
28 7
CCSF’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT n:\labor\li2019\200323\01457383.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-576323
Preview
1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney 2 KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER, State Bar #173180 ELECTRONICALLY Chief Labor Attorney FILED 3 BORIS REZNIKOV, State Bar #261776 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Deputy City Attorney 4 Fox Plaza 07/27/2020 1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor Clerk of the Court BY: EDWARD SANTOS 5 San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Deputy Clerk Telephone: (415) 554-4296 6 Facsimile: (415) 554-4248 E-Mail: boris.reznikov@sfcityatty.org 7 8 Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 12 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 13 YULANDA WILLIAMS, Case No. CGC-19-576323 14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S ANSWER TO FIRST 15 vs. AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 16 CITY AND COUNTY OF Date Action Filed: May 29, 2019 SAN FRANCISCO, and DOES 1-40, Trial Date: Not Set 17 inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 CCSF’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT n:\labor\li2019\200323\01457383.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-576323 1 Defendant City and County of San Francisco (the “City”) hereby responds to Plaintiff Yulanda 2 Williams’ (“Williams”) First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) as follows: 3 GENERAL DENIAL 4 Pursuant to Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the City hereby 5 answers Williams’ unverified Complaint filed on April 15, 2020. The City generally and specifically 6 denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint. Without limiting the generality of the 7 foregoing, the City also denies that Williams has been injured or has suffered any damages by reason 8 of any act or omission on the part of the City or its agents, servants, or employees. The City further 9 denies that Williams is entitled to any relief requested in the Complaint, or to any relief in any amount 10 or of any kind whatsoever. In asserting the separate and additional defenses below, the City does not 11 concede that it has the burden of persuasion or the burden of proof for any of the defenses. 12 ADDITIONAL DEFENSES 13 Due to the vague allegations in the Complaint, the City cannot fully anticipate all defenses that 14 may apply to this litigation. Accordingly, the City reserves the right to assert additional defenses as 15 warranted. 16 FIRST ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 17 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Williams has failed to state facts 18 sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the City. 19 SECOND ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 20 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Williams has failed to satisfy the 21 prerequisites to suit and has not adequately or timely exhausted her administrative, judicial, or 22 contractual remedies. 23 THIRD ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 24 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations. 25 FOURTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 26 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because in every employment action 27 challenged by her Complaint, the City acted in good faith at all times based solely on legitimate 28 2 CCSF’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT n:\labor\li2019\200323\01457383.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-576323 1 business reasons wholly unrelated to any discriminatory, retaliatory, or statutorily impermissible 2 factors. 3 FIFTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 4 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the City, at all applicable times, had 5 in place policies prohibiting discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, including discrimination, 6 retaliation, and harassment on the basis of race, age, or gender, and exercised reasonable care to 7 implement and enforce those policies to prevent and promptly correct any wrongful or inappropriate 8 conduct. To the extent any acts or omissions were based on discriminatory, retaliatory, or harassing 9 reasons or animus or any other wrongful or improper reason (which the City denies), the City 10 promptly took all reasonable and necessary steps to remedy any discrimination, retaliation, 11 harassment, or any other alleged wrongful or inappropriate conduct. 12 SIXTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 13 Williams’ claims for damages are barred, in whole or in part, from recovery of damages 14 because it would result in unjust enrichment. 15 SEVENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 16 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because her own actions and course of 17 conduct constitute a waiver of her claims in the Complaint and each of its purported causes of action. 18 EIGHTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 19 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel. 20 NINTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 21 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. 22 TENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 23 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands. 24 ELEVENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 25 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the after-acquired evidence doctrine. 26 27 28 3 CCSF’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT n:\labor\li2019\200323\01457383.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-576323 1 TWELFTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 2 Williams’ claims for damages are barred, in whole or in part, by Williams’ failure to mitigate 3 her alleged damages. 4 THIRTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 5 Williams’ claims for damages are barred, in whole or in part, by the avoidable consequences 6 doctrine because the City exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any improper 7 behavior alleged by Williams, and Williams unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventative 8 or corrective opportunities provided by the City or to otherwise avoid harm to herself. 9 FOURTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 10 Any and all claims by Williams based in part or in whole upon any alleged physical or 11 emotional injury or distress arising in the course and scope of employment are barred because 12 Williams’ sole and exclusive remedy, if any, for such injuries is governed by the California Worker's 13 Compensation Act (See Labor Code Section 3600, et seq.). 14 FIFTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 15 If Williams is entitled to any recovery, the City is entitled to set off any prior recoveries, 16 compensation, or benefits Williams may have received in connection with the injuries or claims 17 identified in this case or any collateral sources, including, but not limited to, having Williams’ 18 recovery reduced as provided in Government Code Section 985. 19 SIXTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 20 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because if employees of the City committed 21 any of the unlawful or tortious acts alleged, they were acting outside the scope of their employment. 22 SEVENTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 23 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the City's actions were privileged or 24 justified under applicable law. 25 26 27 28 4 CCSF’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT n:\labor\li2019\200323\01457383.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-576323 1 EIGHTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 2 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Williams or other third parties were at 3 fault and their actions and course of conduct caused or contributed to the damages sought in this 4 Complaint. 5 NINETEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 6 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because all employment standards applied or 7 actions taken by the City with respect to Williams were job-related and consistent with business 8 necessity. 9 TWENTIETH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 10 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the various immunities conferred to the 11 City and public employees in the California Government Code and any other provision of law. 12 TWENTY-FIRST ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 13 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Williams failed to fully comply with 14 the claims filing requirements under applicable law, including, but not limited to, the California 15 Government Claims Act, as provided by Government Code Section 910, et seq. 16 TWENTY-SECOND ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 17 Williams’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because current law prohibits her claims 18 against the City. 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 5 CCSF’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT n:\labor\li2019\200323\01457383.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-576323 1 WHEREFORE, the City prays for judgment as follows: 2 1. That Williams take nothing from the City; 3 2. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; 4 3. That the City recover costs of suit herein; and 5 4. For such other relief as is just and proper. 6 7 Dated: July 27, 2020 DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney 8 KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER Chief Labor Attorney 9 BORIS REZNIKOV Deputy City Attorney 10 11 12 By: BORIS REZNIKOV 13 Attorneys for Defendant 14 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 CCSF’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT n:\labor\li2019\200323\01457383.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-576323 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 I, WANDA TAI YU, declare as follows: 3 I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above- 4 entitled action. I am employed at the City Attorney’s Office of San Francisco, Fox Plaza Building, 5 1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. 6 On July 27, 2020, I served the following document(s): 7 • DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 8 on the following persons at the locations specified: 9 DeWitt M. Lacy Attorney for Plaintiff 10 The Law Offices of John L. Burris 9701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 11 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-0210 Email: dewitt.lacy@johnburrislaw.com 12 in the manner indicated below: 13 BY UNITED STATES MAIL: Following ordinary business practices, I sealed true and correct copies of 14 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 15 Office for collecting and processing mail. In the ordinary course of business, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed 16 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the documents to be sent to the person(s) at the electronic service address(es) listed above. Such 17 document(s) were transmitted via electronic mail from the electronic address: wanda.takao@sfcityatty.org in portable document format ("PDF") Adobe Acrobat or in Word document format. 18 I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the 19 foregoing is true and correct. 20 Executed July 27, 2020, at San Francisco, California. 21 22 23 WANDA TAI YU 24 25 26 27 28 7 CCSF’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT n:\labor\li2019\200323\01457383.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-576323