Preview
2019-06-03 10:24 Oak City Attorney 5102586500 >> Fax Server P 2/6
BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney — SBN 069722
FILED BYCOUNTY
ALAMEDA
FAX
MARIA BEE, Chief Assistant City Attorney ~ SBN 167716
BR
DAVID A. PEREDA, Special Counsel - SBN 237982 June 03, 2019
MICHAEL J. QUIRK, Deputy City Attorney - SBN 283351 CLERK OF
One Frank FL. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor THE SUPERIOR COURT
He
Oakland, California 94612 5 By Shabra lyamu, Deputy
Telephone: (510) 238-3601 Fax: (510) 238-6500 .
HR
Email:mquirk@oaklandcityattorney.org 619007799
33244/2752114
ww
Attorneys for Defendant
DA
CITY OF OAKLAND
(also erroneously sued as
SO
OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT)
«Co
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Oo
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
MILDRED L. OLIVER, Case No. RG19007799
eee
Plaintiff, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
JUDGE RONNI MACLAREN
|
Vv. DEPARTMENT 25
CITY OF OAKLAND, OAKLAND POLICE DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S
DEPARTMENT, AND DOES 1-25, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MILDRED L.
INCLUSIVE ; OLIVER’S UNVERIFIED FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
>
Defendants.
i
2
ROR
Defendant City of Oakland (also erroneously sued as Oakland Police Department)
(“Defendant”) answers the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Mildred L. Oliver
So
(‘Plaintiff’) as follows:
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant denies generally and
specifically each and every allegation contained in the FAC in its entirety, including each and
every purported cause of action contained therein. Defendant denies that Plaintiff has been or
will be damaged, either in the amounts alleged or any amount whatsoever, as a result of any act or
omission of Defendant or of anyone for whom Defendant is responsible. Defendant prays for
judgment as set forth below.
1
CITY OF OAKLAND'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2019-06-03 10:24 Oak City Attorney 5102586500 >> Fax Server P 3/6
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
NS
As separate and distinct affirmative defenses to the FAC, and each cause of action
asserted in the FAC, Defendant alleges as follows:
WwW
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SF
Defendant alleges the FAC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
tt
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
mw
Defendant alleges Plaintiff's action is barred to the extent that Plaintiff has failed to
“SS
comply with California Government Code section 900, e¢ seq, and to the extent that the FAC
fo
exceeds the scope of her claim with respect to both theories of liability and injuries and damages
oO
claimed.
SG
a ea ea ea en
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
HE
Defendant alleges the causes of action alleged in the Complaint are uncertain, ambiguous,
wR
and unintelligible, and thus barred pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
|W
BO
section 430,10(f).
FB
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Hh
Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to avoid, prevent, or mitigate the alleged damages by
DA
unreasonably failing to promptly and fully report alleged incidents of unlawful employment
I
practices to managers having authority and supervision over the individuals who Plaintiff alleges
8B
committed unlawful acts. By reason thereof, Plaintiff deprived Defendant of any opportunity to
bop
promptly stop and correct any alleged unlawful employment practice.
co
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
nm
=
Defendant alleges Plaintiff's causes of action are completely or partially barred on the
Ww
Ww
grounds of the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.
Ne
a
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
tw
b
Defendant alleges Plaintiff's causes of action are completely or partially barred on the
Ww
LA
ground of laches because Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in asserting some or all of the alleged
ty
sm
claims.
Wo
id
oo
2
CITY OF OAKLAND’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2019-06-03 10:25 Oak City Attorney 5102586500 >> Fax Server P 4/6
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges Plaintiff's causes of action are completely or partially barred under the
equitable doctrine of estoppel.
ha
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
fF
Defendant alleges Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the statute of
SHth
limitations, as set forth in California Government Code section 945.6 and California Code of
Civil Procedure section 335 ef seq.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Se
Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to join all parties necessary to a final determination of this
Oo
10 action. (Code Civ, Proc, § 430.10(d).)
1 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 Defendant alleges Plaintiff's causes of action are completely or partially barred because
13 Defendant’s alleged acts and omissions were motivated by factors other than unlawful
14 discrimination, retaliation, or harassment.
15 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 Defendant alleges the Court lacks jurisdiction and Plaintifi’s causes of action are
17 completely or partially barred because Plaintiff failed to exhaust all administrative, quasi-judicial,
18 judicial, and statutory remedies available.
19 TWELTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant alleges this action may be barred and/or Defendant's liability may be limited
21 by after-acquired evidence of Plaintiff's misconduct.
22 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 Defendant alleges Plaintiffs causes of action are completely or partially barred because
24 Defendant is not legally responsible for the acts and/or omissions of those Defendants named
25 herein as Does 1 through 25, inclusive.
26 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 Defendant alleges Plaintiff's causes of action are barred, either in whole or in part, by the
28 exclusive remedies provided by the California Workers’ Compensation Act, California Labor
3
CITY OF OAKLAND’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2019-06-03 10:25 Oak City Attorney 5102586500 >> Fax Server P 5/6
Code section 3600, ef seg., because Plaintiff's alleged injuries arose out of and occurred in the
course and scope of Plaintiff's employment.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
tad
Defendant alleges Plaintiff's causes of action are completely or partially barred to the
fF
extent they were not disclosed in a timely charge presented to the California Department of Fair
SOtw
Employment and Housing or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant may have additional affirmative defenses that can only be discovered by
fF
conducting additional discovery in this litigation. Therefore, Defendant reserves its right to later
Oo
10 assert additional affirmative defenses if further investigation supports such defenses.
ll
WHEREFORE, Defendant City of Oakland prays that:
13 1, Plaintiff take nothing by the First Amended Complaint on file in this action;
14 2. Judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff:
15 3. Defendant be awarded its costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees; and
16 4, For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
17 Dated: June 3, 2019
BARBARA J, PARKER, City Attorney
18 MARIA BEE, Chief Assistant City Attorney
DAVID A. PEREDA, Special Counsel
19 MICHAEL J, QUIRK, Deputy City Attorney
20
21
free r Defendant
22 TY OF OAKLAND
24
25
26
27 Mildred L. Oliver v. City of Oakland, et al,
Our File No, 33244/2752114
28
4
CITY OF OAKLAND’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2019-06-03 10:25 Oak City Attorney 5102586500 >> Fax Server P 6/6
PROOF OF SERVICE
Mildred L. Oliverv. City of Oakland, Oakland Police Department, and Doesl-25, inclusive
Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG19007799
NH
I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of éighteen years, and not a party to
We
the within action. My business address is City Hall, One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor,
Oakland, California 94612, On the date set forth below I served the within documents:
FF
DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MILDRED L.
WD
OLIVER’S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
OD
(1 _ by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s)
NSN
set forth below, or as stated on the attached service list, on this date before 5:00
p.m.
wo
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Oakland, California addressed
Oo
as set forth.
So
—
Cl _séiby causing personal delivery by (name) of the document(s) listed above to the
person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.
—
—
C_sby personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the
address(es) set forth below,
Nw
—
L] _ by causing such envelope to be sent by Federal Express/ Express Mail.
load
Lee]
John Houston Scott
>
_
Lizabeth n, de Vries
Scott Law Firm
ua
—
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 715
San Francisco, CA 94109
an
_
Telephone: (415) 561-9600
Fax: (415) 561-6909
~I
—
Email: john@scottlawfirm.net
Email: liza@scottlawfirm
net
of
=
Attorneys for Plaintiff
sO
=
co]
Ww
Tam readily familiar with the City of Oakland’s practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing, Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal
i
_
Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business.
rie)
hw
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.
Ww
be
Executed on June 3, 2019 at Oakland, California.
ie
b
to
CA
ee Ferrel
th
en
WwW
fe)
Ww
5
CITY OF OAKLAND’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
2019-06-03 10:24 Oak City Attorney 5102586500 >> Fax Server P 2/6 BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney — SBN 069722 FILED BYCOUNTY ALAMEDA FAX MARIA BEE, Chief Assistant City Attorney ~ SBN 167716 BR DAVID A. PEREDA, Special Counsel - SBN 237982 June 03, 2019 MICHAEL J. QUIRK, Deputy City Attorney - SBN 283351 CLERK OF One Frank FL. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor THE SUPERIOR COURT He Oakland, California 94612 5 By Shabra lyamu, Deputy Telephone: (510) 238-3601 Fax: (510) 238-6500 . HR Email:mquirk@oaklandcityattorney.org 619007799 33244/2752114 ww Attorneys for Defendant DA CITY OF OAKLAND (also erroneously sued as SO OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT) «Co SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Oo COUNTY OF ALAMEDA MILDRED L. OLIVER, Case No. RG19007799 eee Plaintiff, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE RONNI MACLAREN | Vv. DEPARTMENT 25 CITY OF OAKLAND, OAKLAND POLICE DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S DEPARTMENT, AND DOES 1-25, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MILDRED L. INCLUSIVE ; OLIVER’S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT > Defendants. i 2 ROR Defendant City of Oakland (also erroneously sued as Oakland Police Department) (“Defendant”) answers the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Mildred L. Oliver So (‘Plaintiff’) as follows: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in the FAC in its entirety, including each and every purported cause of action contained therein. Defendant denies that Plaintiff has been or will be damaged, either in the amounts alleged or any amount whatsoever, as a result of any act or omission of Defendant or of anyone for whom Defendant is responsible. Defendant prays for judgment as set forth below. 1 CITY OF OAKLAND'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2019-06-03 10:24 Oak City Attorney 5102586500 >> Fax Server P 3/6 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NS As separate and distinct affirmative defenses to the FAC, and each cause of action asserted in the FAC, Defendant alleges as follows: WwW FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SF Defendant alleges the FAC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. tt SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE mw Defendant alleges Plaintiff's action is barred to the extent that Plaintiff has failed to “SS comply with California Government Code section 900, e¢ seq, and to the extent that the FAC fo exceeds the scope of her claim with respect to both theories of liability and injuries and damages oO claimed. SG a ea ea ea en THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE HE Defendant alleges the causes of action alleged in the Complaint are uncertain, ambiguous, wR and unintelligible, and thus barred pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure |W BO section 430,10(f). FB FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Hh Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to avoid, prevent, or mitigate the alleged damages by DA unreasonably failing to promptly and fully report alleged incidents of unlawful employment I practices to managers having authority and supervision over the individuals who Plaintiff alleges 8B committed unlawful acts. By reason thereof, Plaintiff deprived Defendant of any opportunity to bop promptly stop and correct any alleged unlawful employment practice. co FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE nm = Defendant alleges Plaintiff's causes of action are completely or partially barred on the Ww Ww grounds of the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. Ne a SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE tw b Defendant alleges Plaintiff's causes of action are completely or partially barred on the Ww LA ground of laches because Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in asserting some or all of the alleged ty sm claims. Wo id oo 2 CITY OF OAKLAND’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2019-06-03 10:25 Oak City Attorney 5102586500 >> Fax Server P 4/6 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges Plaintiff's causes of action are completely or partially barred under the equitable doctrine of estoppel. ha EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE fF Defendant alleges Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the statute of SHth limitations, as set forth in California Government Code section 945.6 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 335 ef seq. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Se Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to join all parties necessary to a final determination of this Oo 10 action. (Code Civ, Proc, § 430.10(d).) 1 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 Defendant alleges Plaintiff's causes of action are completely or partially barred because 13 Defendant’s alleged acts and omissions were motivated by factors other than unlawful 14 discrimination, retaliation, or harassment. 15 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 Defendant alleges the Court lacks jurisdiction and Plaintifi’s causes of action are 17 completely or partially barred because Plaintiff failed to exhaust all administrative, quasi-judicial, 18 judicial, and statutory remedies available. 19 TWELTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant alleges this action may be barred and/or Defendant's liability may be limited 21 by after-acquired evidence of Plaintiff's misconduct. 22 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 Defendant alleges Plaintiffs causes of action are completely or partially barred because 24 Defendant is not legally responsible for the acts and/or omissions of those Defendants named 25 herein as Does 1 through 25, inclusive. 26 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27 Defendant alleges Plaintiff's causes of action are barred, either in whole or in part, by the 28 exclusive remedies provided by the California Workers’ Compensation Act, California Labor 3 CITY OF OAKLAND’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2019-06-03 10:25 Oak City Attorney 5102586500 >> Fax Server P 5/6 Code section 3600, ef seg., because Plaintiff's alleged injuries arose out of and occurred in the course and scope of Plaintiff's employment. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE tad Defendant alleges Plaintiff's causes of action are completely or partially barred to the fF extent they were not disclosed in a timely charge presented to the California Department of Fair SOtw Employment and Housing or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant may have additional affirmative defenses that can only be discovered by fF conducting additional discovery in this litigation. Therefore, Defendant reserves its right to later Oo 10 assert additional affirmative defenses if further investigation supports such defenses. ll WHEREFORE, Defendant City of Oakland prays that: 13 1, Plaintiff take nothing by the First Amended Complaint on file in this action; 14 2. Judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff: 15 3. Defendant be awarded its costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees; and 16 4, For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 17 Dated: June 3, 2019 BARBARA J, PARKER, City Attorney 18 MARIA BEE, Chief Assistant City Attorney DAVID A. PEREDA, Special Counsel 19 MICHAEL J, QUIRK, Deputy City Attorney 20 21 free r Defendant 22 TY OF OAKLAND 24 25 26 27 Mildred L. Oliver v. City of Oakland, et al, Our File No, 33244/2752114 28 4 CITY OF OAKLAND’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2019-06-03 10:25 Oak City Attorney 5102586500 >> Fax Server P 6/6 PROOF OF SERVICE Mildred L. Oliverv. City of Oakland, Oakland Police Department, and Doesl-25, inclusive Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG19007799 NH I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of éighteen years, and not a party to We the within action. My business address is City Hall, One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor, Oakland, California 94612, On the date set forth below I served the within documents: FF DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MILDRED L. WD OLIVER’S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OD (1 _ by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) NSN set forth below, or as stated on the attached service list, on this date before 5:00 p.m. wo by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Oakland, California addressed Oo as set forth. So — Cl _séiby causing personal delivery by (name) of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. — — C_sby personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below, Nw — L] _ by causing such envelope to be sent by Federal Express/ Express Mail. load Lee] John Houston Scott > _ Lizabeth n, de Vries Scott Law Firm ua — 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 715 San Francisco, CA 94109 an _ Telephone: (415) 561-9600 Fax: (415) 561-6909 ~I — Email: john@scottlawfirm.net Email: liza@scottlawfirm net of = Attorneys for Plaintiff sO = co] Ww Tam readily familiar with the City of Oakland’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing, Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal i _ Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. rie) hw I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Ww be Executed on June 3, 2019 at Oakland, California. ie b to CA ee Ferrel th en WwW fe) Ww 5 CITY OF OAKLAND’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT