Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
11 Rachel Van Mullem, County Counsel
Christopher E. Dawood, Dep. (SBN 281054) 11/30/2021 2:21 PM
2 County of Santa Barbara By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy
105 E. Anapamu St., Suite 201
3 Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950 / Fax: (805) 568-2983
4 cdawood@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
5 Attorneys for Defendant
County of Santa Barbara
6
7
8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant To Gov. Code 6C § 6103
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
11 ANACAPA DIVISION
12 REBECCA FRASER; MARCEL FRASER, Case No: 21CV03390
13
Plaintiffs, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA’S BARBARA'S
14 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST
v. AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
15 NEGLIGENCE; DANGEROUS
CONDITION OF PUBLIC
16 PROPERTY; LOSS OF
CONSORTIUM
17 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, CITY OF
SANTA BARBARA; STATE OF
18 CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; and DOES 1-100,
19 Assigned Judge: Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
Defendants. Dept: SB5
20
21 Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ("COUNTY") (“COUNTY”) answers the unverified
22 (“Complaint”) for Negligence; Dangerous Condition
First Amended Complaint for Damages ("Complaint")
23 of Public Property; Loss of Consortium of PLAINTIFFS Rebecca Fraser and Marcel Fraser
24 (“PLAINTIFFS”) on file herein as follows:
("PLAINTIFFS")
25 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendant COUNTY denies each
26 and every allegation and every cause of action contained in the original unverified Complaint
COUNTY COUNSEL
27 insofar as said allegations refer to Defendant COUNTY and further deny that as a direct or
County of Santa Barbara L
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28 proximate result of any acts or omissions on the part of Defendant COUNTY, that
1.
1.
COUNTY’S ANSWER TO FIRST
COUNTY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
11 PLAINTIFFS have been damaged in the sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum or sums, or
2 at all.
3 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO ENTIRE COMPLAINT
4 Without admitting any allegation in the Complaint, the COUNTY asserts each of the
5 following as separate affirmative defenses, expressly reserving its right to assert additional
6 defenses on the basis of later-discovered information.
7 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (Failure to State Cause of Action)
9 1. The Complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
10 against COUNTY. (Code Civ. Proc. §430.10(e).)
11 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 (Contributory Negligence)
13 2. Regardless of the nature of the condition, neither the condition nor any alleged
14 acts of the COUNTY were the proximate cause of PLAINTFFS' PLAINTFFS’ injury. At all times mentioned
15 in the complaint, PLAINTIFFS acted negligently, carelessly, or recklessly such as to either
16 directly or proximately cause and/or contribute to the happening of the accident. Therefore,
17 any recovery by PLAINTIFFS must either be barred completely or diminished by an amount
18 proportionate to the degree of PLAINTFFS'
PLAINTFFS’ negligence.
19 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 (Third Party Negligence)
21 3. The negligence of third parties was either the sole proximate cause or a
22 PLAINTFFS’ injury, and any recovery by PLAINTIFFS
contributing proximate cause of the PLAINTFFS'
23 must either be barred completely or diminished by an amount proportionate to the degree of the
24 third parties' negligence.
25 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 (Failure to Mitigate Damages)
COUNTY COUNSEL
27
County of Santa Barbara L 4. PLAINTFFS’ injury, loss or damages, if any, were aggravated by PLAINTFFS'
PLAINTFFS' PLAINTFFS’
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28 failure to use reasonable diligence to mitigate same.
2.
2.
COUNTY’S ANSWER TO FIRST
COUNTY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
11 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (No Dangerous Condition)
3 5. If the injury sued upon was proximately caused by the alleged defective
4 condition described in the Complaint, which the COUNTY specifically denies, that condition
5 was not dangerous, but rather was of such a minor, trivial or insignificant nature in view of the
6 surrounding circumstances that it did not create a substantial risk of injury when the subject
7 property was used with due care in the manner in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it
8 would be used and the COUNTY is not liable pursuant to Government Code section 830.2.
9 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 (Discretionary Immunity)
11 6. If the injury sued upon was proximately caused by the act or omission of the
12 COUNTY, which the COUNTY specifically denies, the said act or omission was the result of
13 the exercise of the discretion vested in the COUNTY and the COUNTY is not liable pursuant
14 to Government Code section 820.2.
15 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 (Permit Immunity)
17 7. If PLAINTFFS’
PLAINTFFS' injuries, if any, were proximately caused by the issuance,
18 denial, suspension or revocation of, or by the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke
19 any permit, license, certificate, approval, order or similar authorization, all of which the
20 COUNTY specifically denies, the COUNTY was authorized by enactment to determine
21 whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended or revoked and the
22 COUNTY is not liable pursuant to Government Code section 818.4.
23 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Inspection Immunity)
25 8. If PLAINTFFS’
PLAINTFFS' injuries, if any, were proximately caused by the COUNTY's COUNTY’s
26 failure to make an inspection COUNTY’s
of any property other than the COUNTY's for the purpose of
COUNTY COUNSEL
27 determining whether
County of Santa Barbara L the property complied with or violated any enactment or contained or
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28 constituted a hazard to health or safety, all of which the COUNTY denies, the COUNTY is not
3.
3.
COUNTY’S ANSWER TO FIRST
COUNTY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
11 liable pursuant to Government Code section 818.6.
2 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 (Notice)
4 9. The COUNTY is not liable under Government Code section 835 subdivision (b)
5 for harm caused by the alleged dangerous condition because it did not have actual or
6 constructive notice of the dangerous condition a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken
7 measures to protect against it.
8 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 (Reasonable Creation)
10 10. The COUNTY is not liable under Government Code section 835.4(a) for harm
11 caused by the alleged dangerous condition because any act or omission of its employee(s) that
12 created it was reasonable.
13 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Reasonable Omission)
15 11. The COUNTY is not liable under Government Code section 835.4(b) for harm
16 caused by the alleged dangerous condition because the action it took to protect against risk of
17 injury created by the condition or its failure to take such action was reasonable.
18 TWELVTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Collateral Source)
20 12. COUNTY is entitled to a reduction of any judgment against it that includes
21 damages for which a collateral source payment has been paid or is payable to or on behalf of
22 PLAINTIFFS. (Govt. Code § 985.)
23 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 (Comparative Fault)
25 13. Defendants other than the COUNTY caused or contributed to the damages
26 PLAINTIFFS claims to have suffered. Therefore, any award made in favor of the PLAINTIFFS
COUNTY COUNSEL
27 must
County of Santa Barbara L be divided between the defendants so that each pays only his, her or its fair share in
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28 relationship to his, her or its amount of fault.
4.
4.
COUNTY’S ANSWER TO FIRST
COUNTY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
11 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Reservation)
3 14. The COUNTY has not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable affirmative
4 defenses and reserves the right to assert and rely on such other applicable affirmative defenses
5 as may become available or apparent during discovery proceedings and/or trial in this matter.
6 ///
7 ///
8 ///
9 WHEREFORE, Defendant COUNTY prays judgment as follows:
10 1. That PLAINTIFFS take nothing by their Complaint;
11 2. That judgment be rendered in favor of the COUNTY; and
12 3. For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
13
Dated: November 30, 2021 RACHEL VAN MULLEM
14 COUNTY COUNSEL
Christopher
Digitally signed by: Christopher E.
Dawood
DN: CN = Christopher E. Dawood
15 E. Dawood
email = cdawood@co.santa-barbara.
ca.us C = US O = County of Santa
Barbara OU = County Counsel
By: ____________________
Date: 2021.11.30 14:04:13 -08'00'
16 Christopher E. Dawood
Deputy County Counsel
17 Attorneys for Defendant
County of Santa Barbara
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COUNTY COUNSEL
27
County of Santa Barbara L
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28
55..
COUNTY’S ANSWER TO FIRST
COUNTY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
PROOF OF SERVICE
(C.C.P. §§ 1013(a), 2015.5)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 105 East
Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California.
On November 30, 2021, I served a true copy of the within COUNTY OF SANTA
BARBARA’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
BARBARA'S PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
NEGLIGENCE; DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY; LOSS OF
CONSORTIUM on the Interested Parties in said action by:
VI by electronic mail. I delivered such paperwork via electronic mail on the interested parties
in this action from myee@co.santa-barbara.ca.us to the below electronic mail addresses:
1X1 by mail. I am familiar with the practice of the Office of Santa Barbara County Counsel for the
collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In
accordance with the ordinary course of business, the above-mentioned documents would have been
deposited with the United States Postal Service on November 30, 2021, after having been deposited
and processed for postage with the County of Santa Barbara Central Mail Room.
Chad M. Prentice
Samantha Baldwin
MAHO & PRENTICE, LLP
629 State Street, Suite 217
Santa Barbara, California 93101
cprentice@sbcawlaw.com
sbaldwin@sbcalaw.com
IZI (State) I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above is true and correct.
Executed on November 30, 2021, at Santa Barbara, California.
Mark Yee
Digitally signed by: Mark Yee
DN: CN = Mark Yee email =
myee@co.santa-barbara.ca.us C
= US O = County Counsel
Date: 2021.11.30 14:04:38 -08'00'
_________________________
Mark Yee
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 11 Rachel Van Mullem, County Counsel Christopher E. Dawood, Dep. (SBN 281054) 11/30/2021 2:21 PM 2 County of Santa Barbara By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy 105 E. Anapamu St., Suite 201 3 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 / Fax: (805) 568-2983 4 cdawood@co.santa-barbara.ca.us 5 Attorneys for Defendant County of Santa Barbara 6 7 8 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant To Gov. Code 6C § 6103 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 11 ANACAPA DIVISION 12 REBECCA FRASER; MARCEL FRASER, Case No: 21CV03390 13 Plaintiffs, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA’S BARBARA'S 14 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PLAINTIFFS' FIRST v. AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 15 NEGLIGENCE; DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC 16 PROPERTY; LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 17 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, CITY OF SANTA BARBARA; STATE OF 18 CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; and DOES 1-100, 19 Assigned Judge: Hon. Colleen K. Sterne Defendants. Dept: SB5 20 21 Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ("COUNTY") (“COUNTY”) answers the unverified 22 (“Complaint”) for Negligence; Dangerous Condition First Amended Complaint for Damages ("Complaint") 23 of Public Property; Loss of Consortium of PLAINTIFFS Rebecca Fraser and Marcel Fraser 24 (“PLAINTIFFS”) on file herein as follows: ("PLAINTIFFS") 25 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendant COUNTY denies each 26 and every allegation and every cause of action contained in the original unverified Complaint COUNTY COUNSEL 27 insofar as said allegations refer to Defendant COUNTY and further deny that as a direct or County of Santa Barbara L 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 proximate result of any acts or omissions on the part of Defendant COUNTY, that 1. 1. COUNTY’S ANSWER TO FIRST COUNTY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 PLAINTIFFS have been damaged in the sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum or sums, or 2 at all. 3 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO ENTIRE COMPLAINT 4 Without admitting any allegation in the Complaint, the COUNTY asserts each of the 5 following as separate affirmative defenses, expressly reserving its right to assert additional 6 defenses on the basis of later-discovered information. 7 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (Failure to State Cause of Action) 9 1. The Complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action 10 against COUNTY. (Code Civ. Proc. §430.10(e).) 11 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 (Contributory Negligence) 13 2. Regardless of the nature of the condition, neither the condition nor any alleged 14 acts of the COUNTY were the proximate cause of PLAINTFFS' PLAINTFFS’ injury. At all times mentioned 15 in the complaint, PLAINTIFFS acted negligently, carelessly, or recklessly such as to either 16 directly or proximately cause and/or contribute to the happening of the accident. Therefore, 17 any recovery by PLAINTIFFS must either be barred completely or diminished by an amount 18 proportionate to the degree of PLAINTFFS' PLAINTFFS’ negligence. 19 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 (Third Party Negligence) 21 3. The negligence of third parties was either the sole proximate cause or a 22 PLAINTFFS’ injury, and any recovery by PLAINTIFFS contributing proximate cause of the PLAINTFFS' 23 must either be barred completely or diminished by an amount proportionate to the degree of the 24 third parties' negligence. 25 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26 (Failure to Mitigate Damages) COUNTY COUNSEL 27 County of Santa Barbara L 4. PLAINTFFS’ injury, loss or damages, if any, were aggravated by PLAINTFFS' PLAINTFFS' PLAINTFFS’ 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 failure to use reasonable diligence to mitigate same. 2. 2. COUNTY’S ANSWER TO FIRST COUNTY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (No Dangerous Condition) 3 5. If the injury sued upon was proximately caused by the alleged defective 4 condition described in the Complaint, which the COUNTY specifically denies, that condition 5 was not dangerous, but rather was of such a minor, trivial or insignificant nature in view of the 6 surrounding circumstances that it did not create a substantial risk of injury when the subject 7 property was used with due care in the manner in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it 8 would be used and the COUNTY is not liable pursuant to Government Code section 830.2. 9 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 (Discretionary Immunity) 11 6. If the injury sued upon was proximately caused by the act or omission of the 12 COUNTY, which the COUNTY specifically denies, the said act or omission was the result of 13 the exercise of the discretion vested in the COUNTY and the COUNTY is not liable pursuant 14 to Government Code section 820.2. 15 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 (Permit Immunity) 17 7. If PLAINTFFS’ PLAINTFFS' injuries, if any, were proximately caused by the issuance, 18 denial, suspension or revocation of, or by the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke 19 any permit, license, certificate, approval, order or similar authorization, all of which the 20 COUNTY specifically denies, the COUNTY was authorized by enactment to determine 21 whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended or revoked and the 22 COUNTY is not liable pursuant to Government Code section 818.4. 23 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Inspection Immunity) 25 8. If PLAINTFFS’ PLAINTFFS' injuries, if any, were proximately caused by the COUNTY's COUNTY’s 26 failure to make an inspection COUNTY’s of any property other than the COUNTY's for the purpose of COUNTY COUNSEL 27 determining whether County of Santa Barbara L the property complied with or violated any enactment or contained or 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 constituted a hazard to health or safety, all of which the COUNTY denies, the COUNTY is not 3. 3. COUNTY’S ANSWER TO FIRST COUNTY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 liable pursuant to Government Code section 818.6. 2 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 (Notice) 4 9. The COUNTY is not liable under Government Code section 835 subdivision (b) 5 for harm caused by the alleged dangerous condition because it did not have actual or 6 constructive notice of the dangerous condition a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken 7 measures to protect against it. 8 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 (Reasonable Creation) 10 10. The COUNTY is not liable under Government Code section 835.4(a) for harm 11 caused by the alleged dangerous condition because any act or omission of its employee(s) that 12 created it was reasonable. 13 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Reasonable Omission) 15 11. The COUNTY is not liable under Government Code section 835.4(b) for harm 16 caused by the alleged dangerous condition because the action it took to protect against risk of 17 injury created by the condition or its failure to take such action was reasonable. 18 TWELVTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Collateral Source) 20 12. COUNTY is entitled to a reduction of any judgment against it that includes 21 damages for which a collateral source payment has been paid or is payable to or on behalf of 22 PLAINTIFFS. (Govt. Code § 985.) 23 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 (Comparative Fault) 25 13. Defendants other than the COUNTY caused or contributed to the damages 26 PLAINTIFFS claims to have suffered. Therefore, any award made in favor of the PLAINTIFFS COUNTY COUNSEL 27 must County of Santa Barbara L be divided between the defendants so that each pays only his, her or its fair share in 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 relationship to his, her or its amount of fault. 4. 4. COUNTY’S ANSWER TO FIRST COUNTY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Reservation) 3 14. The COUNTY has not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable affirmative 4 defenses and reserves the right to assert and rely on such other applicable affirmative defenses 5 as may become available or apparent during discovery proceedings and/or trial in this matter. 6 /// 7 /// 8 /// 9 WHEREFORE, Defendant COUNTY prays judgment as follows: 10 1. That PLAINTIFFS take nothing by their Complaint; 11 2. That judgment be rendered in favor of the COUNTY; and 12 3. For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 13 Dated: November 30, 2021 RACHEL VAN MULLEM 14 COUNTY COUNSEL Christopher Digitally signed by: Christopher E. Dawood DN: CN = Christopher E. Dawood 15 E. Dawood email = cdawood@co.santa-barbara. ca.us C = US O = County of Santa Barbara OU = County Counsel By: ____________________ Date: 2021.11.30 14:04:13 -08'00' 16 Christopher E. Dawood Deputy County Counsel 17 Attorneys for Defendant County of Santa Barbara 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COUNTY COUNSEL 27 County of Santa Barbara L 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 55.. COUNTY’S ANSWER TO FIRST COUNTY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE (C.C.P. §§ 1013(a), 2015.5) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 105 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California. On November 30, 2021, I served a true copy of the within COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ BARBARA'S PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: NEGLIGENCE; DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY; LOSS OF CONSORTIUM on the Interested Parties in said action by: VI by electronic mail. I delivered such paperwork via electronic mail on the interested parties in this action from myee@co.santa-barbara.ca.us to the below electronic mail addresses: 1X1 by mail. I am familiar with the practice of the Office of Santa Barbara County Counsel for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with the ordinary course of business, the above-mentioned documents would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service on November 30, 2021, after having been deposited and processed for postage with the County of Santa Barbara Central Mail Room. Chad M. Prentice Samantha Baldwin MAHO & PRENTICE, LLP 629 State Street, Suite 217 Santa Barbara, California 93101 cprentice@sbcawlaw.com sbaldwin@sbcalaw.com IZI (State) I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above is true and correct. Executed on November 30, 2021, at Santa Barbara, California. Mark Yee Digitally signed by: Mark Yee DN: CN = Mark Yee email = myee@co.santa-barbara.ca.us C = US O = County Counsel Date: 2021.11.30 14:04:38 -08'00' _________________________ Mark Yee