Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
12
13
STEVEN MCINCHAK
14
Petitioner/Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
17
18
19
20
21
ANSWER OF
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
Action Filed: June 4, 2014
Discovery Cutoff: Not Set
Trial Date: Not Set
Respondents/Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NeWPORT BEACH
1
2
3 defendant, hereby answers the Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint
4 for Declaratory Judgment, Breach of Contract, Defamation and Intentional and Negligent
5 Infliction of Emotional Distress filed in the above-captioned action ("Amended Complaint") by
6 Petitioner/Plaintiff Steven Mclnchak ("Petitioner") as follows:
7
8
9
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In response to the introductory paragraph of the Amended Complaint, the City admits
10 that Petitioner has been employed by the City since 1997 as its Information Systems Network
11 Manager, responsible for managing and supervising the City's entire computer system. The
12 City further admits that on June 5, 2013 the City of Carmel-by-the Sea unilaterally placed
13 Petitioner on paid administrative leave from his position as Information Systems Network
14 Manager without notice or hearing because no such notice or hearing was required. The City is
15 not able to admit or deny whether there was cause for placing Petitioner on paid administrative
16 as the term "without cause" as used in the context of the Amended Complaint is uncertain and
17 indefinite, and while cause was not required to place Petitioner on paid administrative leave,
18 there was cause for doing so. The City further admits that the City has kept Petitioner on paid
19 administrative leave, preventing him from performing his job duties or returning to work since
20 June 6, 2013, a period of nearly 12 months at the time the Amended Complaint was filed. The
21
City further responds that the balance of the allegations set forth in the introductory paragraph
22 constitute legal argument or legal conclusions and the City is not required to admit or deny the
23
same. To the extent the balance of the introductory paragraph contains factual allegations, the
24 City denies the same. The City further denies the implication that any of actions refened to in
25 the introductory paragraph violated any statute or other legal right held by Petitioner.
26
27
28
-2-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
PARTIES
2
3
1. Answering Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits all allegations
therein.
5
6
2. Answering Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits all allegations
therein.
3. Answering Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits all allegations
10 therein.
11
12
13
4. Answering Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits all allegations
therein.
14
15
16 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein, and
17
18
19
COMMON FACTS
20
21
6. Answering Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies that Petitioner
22
"reported directly to the City Administrator until 2013 when he was directed to report instead to
23
the administrative Services Director." The City admits the balance of the allegations contained in
24
Paragraph 6.
25
26
7. Answering Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies that Petitioner
27
was "required to be accessible to the City, its Administrators, its elected officials and employees
28
twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week to solve problems or answer questions about the
-3-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
City's Computer system." The City admits the balance of the allegations contained in Paragraph
7.
3
4
5
8. Answering Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies all allegations
contained therein.
6
7
9. Answering Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies that: (i)
Petitioner "is a permanent, long-term employee of the City of Carmel;" (ii) Petitioner "accrued a
property interest in his employment as a public employee under the Constitution of the State of
10
California, including the right to retain his employment in the absence of just cause for
11
termination;" (iii) Petitioner "was informed that he was required to sign that Agreement as a
12
condition of remaining employed by the City of Carmel"; (iv) Petitioner "received no ...
13
consideration or other benefit in connection with the Employment Agreement;" (v) Petitioner
14
"was compelled to sign ... with no notice or intent to waive his vested rights and under threat
15
that if he did not sign the Employment Agreement his employment would be immediately
16
terminated without cause." The City admits the balance of the allegations contained in Paragraph
17
9, except those that constitute legal argument or legal conclusions which the City is not required
18
19
20
10. Answering Paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that on June 5,
21
2013: "agents of the City of Carmel appeared at Petitioner/Plaintiff's home together with the
22
Chief of Police and three law enforcement officers from the City of Carmel and the Monterey
23
County Sheriff's Department who served upon Petitioner/Plaintiff a search warrant and
24
proceeded to search his residence." The City admits " ... the City of Carmel took possession of
25
Petitioner/Plaintiff's home computer ... [and] ... [c]ity laptop computer and multiple thumb drives
26
and disks, including all back-up disks ... None of the property taken on June 5, 2013 has been
27
returned to Petitioner/Plaintiff." The City denies each and every other allegation contained in
28
Paragraph 10.
-4-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEII'PORT BEACH
11. Answering Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that Karen
2 Mclnchak is not now, and never has been, an employee of the City of Carmel. The City admits
3 that Petitioner's home computer was not returned from June 5, 2013 to the date this action was
4 filed. The City is informed and believes that Petitioner has retrieved his home computer during
5 the pendency of this action. The City is without sufficient knowledge or infonnation to form a
6 belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 11 and on that basis denies each
7 and every remaining allegation.
8
9
12. Answering Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies the allegation
10 that "at the same time on June 5, 2013 agents of the City of Carmel including
11
12 administrative leave pending investigation of criminal charges against him." The City admits
13
that no criminal or other charges have ever been filed against Petitioner and that the Carmel
14 Police Department has not requested the filing of any criminal charges against Petitioner. The
15
City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
16 allegation that "nor any other law enforcement agency has requested the filing of any criminal
17
charges against Petitioner/Plaintiff, Steven Mclnchak," and on that basis denies the foregoing
18
allegation.
19
20
13. Answering Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that to date,
21
Petitioner has not received notice of charges from the City of Carmel. The City further admits (i)
22 that Petitioner was directed to appear at an investigative interview, (ii) that not appearing at said
23
investigative interview would be insubordination, (iii) that an attorney engaged by the City was
24 present with Ms. Paul at the investigative interview. The City admits that Petitioner did not have
25
an opportunity to review, respond to or rebut charges because the interview was investigatory
26
and there were no charges yet alleged to which Petitioner could respond. The City denies that
27
Petitioner was not given the opportunity to respond to the questions about his activity.
28
Petitioner's allegation that "the allegations against Petitioner by the City of Carmel are false" is
-5-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
1 not sufficiently definite to allow The City to form a belief as to the truth of the foregoing
2 allegation and on that basis the City denies the same. The City is without sufficient knowledge
3 or information to form a belief as to the truth of the following allegations, and on that basis the
4 City denies the same: (i) Petitioner "had no knowledge or notice of any allegations against him
5 by the City of Carmel" prior to the search of his home and seizure of his property; and (ii) that
6 any purported "allegations of wrongdoing made by the City of Carmel against [Petitioner] ...
7 have been widely published and republished throughout the community." The City denies each
8 and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 13.
9
10
14. Answering Paragraph 14, the City responds that the following allegation constitutes
11
legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is not required to admit or deny the same: "such
12
false and defamatory allegations, including allegations of criminal conduct, irreparably damaged
13
Petitioner/Plaintiff's reputation in his profession, his employment and his community, violated
14 his privacy, impaired his contract of employment, and violated his liberty interest in his
15
employment, all in violation of his right to due process of law under the Constitution of the State
16
of Califomia, and in violation of Califomia law." The City denies each and every other
17
18
19
15. Answering Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that from the
20 time Petitioner was placed on paid administrative leave on June 5, 2013 to the present, Petitioner
21
has been prevented from performing his job duties and accessing his work computers. The City
22
admits that from the time Petitioner was placed on paid administrative leave on June 5, 2013 to
23
the date this action was filed, Petitioner was prevented from retrieving the personal property
24
seized by the Police pursuant to the search warrant, or accessing his home computer. The City is
25
informed and believes that Petitioner has since retrieved the personal property seized by the
26
Police pursuant to the search warrant, and his home computer, during the pendency of this
27
action. The City further responds that the remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 constitute legal
28
argument or legal conclusion and the City is not required to admit or deny the same.
-6-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
1 Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining allegations constitute factual averments, the City
2 denies the same.
3
4
16. Answering Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that Petitioner
5 is 62 years of age. The City admits that employees of the City of Carmel by-the-Sea over the age
6 of 40 years old have been terminated since March 1, 2013. The City denies that " ... at least seven
7 long-term employees over the age of 40 years who have been terminated, placed on involuntary
8 leave of absence pending an investigation of allegations of misconduct, placed under disciplinary
9 investigation by the City of Carmel or forced to resign since on or about March 1, 2013." The
10
City denies that "the City Administrator and other agents of the City of Carmel have instituted a
11
pattern and practice of discrimination based on age causing a disparate impact on older
12
employees which is continuing in violation of California law." The City denies that Petitioner
13
has been "subjected to disparate treatment because of his age." The City is without sufficient
14 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Petitioner "has
15
never been convicted of any crime of moral turpitude", and on that basis, denies the allegation.
16 With regard to Petitioner's allegations that "a female employee who is more than twenty years
17 younger than Petitioner was convicted of welfare fraud during her employment with the City as
18
its Finance Specialist without suffering any discipline, discharge, involuntary leave of absence or
incorrect; the City denies the same. The City admits that in May 16, 2014 Petitioner filed a
21
Complaint of Discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
22
against the City of Cmmel-by-the-Sea and certain individuals. The City further responds that the
23
remaining allegations of Paragraph 16 constitute legal argument or legal conclusions and the
24
City is not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining
25
26
27
17. Answering Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that on or
28
about December 4, 2013 Petitioner submitted a Notice of Government Claim to the City Clerk of
-7-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
1 the City of Cannel-by-the-Sea. The City admits that on January 9, 2014 the City rejected
2 Petitioner's Government Claim. The City further responds that the remaining allegations of
3 Paragraph 17 constitute legal argument or legal conclusions and the City is not required to admit
4
or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining allegations constitute factual
18. Answering Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
8 allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
9 not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 18 contains
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20. Answering Paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
19
allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
20
not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 20 contains
21
factual allegations, the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to
22
the truth of such allegations and on that basis denies the same.
23
24
21. Answering Paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
25
allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
26
not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 21 contains
27
28
-8-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
22. Answering Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that on June 5,
2 2013 agents of the City of Cmmel placed, and now continue to maintain, Petitioner on paid
3 administrative leave pending an investigation that remains ongoing. The City denies that the City
4 is "without good cause, without investigation and without any evidence of grounds to believe
5 that he is guilty of conduct which warrants disciplinary action." The City further respond that
6 the remaining allegations of Paragraph 22 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the
7 City is not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining
8 allegations constitute factual averments, the City denies the same.
9
10
23. Answering Paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that each
11
and every allegation of Paragraph 23 constitutes legal argument or legal conclusion and the City
12
is not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 23 contains
13
14
15
24. Answering Paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that
16
"Respondents/Defendants have refused, and continued to refuse, to permit him to perform his
17
duties as Information Systems Network Manager for the City of Carmel." The City denies that
18
19
20
allegations of Paragraph 24 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is not
21
required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining allegations
22
23
24
25. Answering Paragraph 25 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
25
allegations set f01ih therein constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is not
26
required to admit or deny the same. To the extent Paragraph 25 contains factual allegations, the
27
28
-9-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
26. Answering Paragraph 26 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
2 allegations set forth in Paragraph 26 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
3 not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 26 contains
4 factual allegations, the City denies the same.
5
6
7
8
9 reference each and every response in paragraphs 1 through 26 as though fully set forth herein.
10
11
28. Answering Paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint, The City responds that the
12
allegations set forth in Paragraph 28 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
13
not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 28 contains
14
15
16
17
18
29. Answering Paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint, the City incorporates by
19
reference each and every response in paragraphs 1 through 28 as though fully set forth herein.
20
21
30. Answering Paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the City
22
is without sufficient knowledge or infonnation to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation
23
that Petitioner "has not engaged in any such conduct, nor has he been charged or convicted of
24
any crime .... " The City admits that Petitioner has not been charged or convicted of any crime.
25
As for the allegation that Petitioner "has not engaged in any such conduct," the City responds
26
that the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
27
28
-10-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BE.-\CH
1 allegation as Petitioner's conduct remains under investigation as of the date of this Answer. The
2
City denies each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 30.
3
4
31. Answering Paragraph 31 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies each and every
32. Answering Paragraph 32 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
8 allegations set forth in Paragraph 32 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
9 not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 26 contains
10
11
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defamation
(Against All Respondents/Defendants)
12
13
14
15
16
17
34. Answering Paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the City
18
without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that
19
The City caused "excessive and unsolicited internal and external publications of defamation of
20
and concerning Petitioner/Plaintiff to third persons and to the community" and on that basis
21
denies the same. The City denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph
22
34.
23
24
35. Answering Paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint, the allegations are uncertain
25
and general, and on that basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or inf01mation to form a
26
belief as to the truth of each and every allegation contained therein, and on that basis denies the
27
same.
28
-11-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYCRS
NEWPORT BEACH
36. Answering Paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint, the allegations are uncertain
2 and general, and on that basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a
3 belief as to the truth of each and every allegation contained therein, and on that basis denies the
4 same.
5
6
37. Answering Paragraph 37 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
7 allegations set forth in Paragraph 37 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
8 not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 37 contains
9
factual allegations, the City responds that the allegations are uncertain and general, and on that
10 basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of
11
12
13
38. Answering Paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
14
allegations set forth in Paragraph 38 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
15
not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 38 contains
16 factual allegations, the City responds that the allegations are uncertain and general, and on that
17 basis is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
18
allegations, and on that basis denies each and every allegation therein.
19
20
39. Answering Paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint, the allegations are uncertain
21
and general, and on that basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a
22
belief as to the truth of each and every allegation contained therein, and on that basis denies the
23
same.
24
25
40. Answering Paragraph 40 of the Amended Complaint, the allegations are uncertain
26
and general, and on that basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a
27
belief as to the truth of each and every allegation contained therein, and on that basis denies the
28
same.
-12-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
41. Answering Paragraph 41 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
2 allegations set forth in Paragraph 41 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
3 not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 41 contains
4 factual allegations, the City responds that the allegations are uncertain and general, and on that
5 basis is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
6 allegations, and on that basis denies each and every allegation therein.
7
8
42. Answering Paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
9 allegations set forth in Paragraph 42 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
10 not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 42 contains
11
factual allegations, the City responds that the allegations are uncertain and general, and on that
12
basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of
13
the allegations, and on that basis denies each and every allegation therein.
14
15
43. Answering Paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
16 allegations set forth in Paragraph 43 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
17
not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 43 contains
18
factual allegations, the City denies each and every allegation therein.
19
20
44. Answering Paragraph 44 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
21
allegations set forth in Paragraph 44 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
22
not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 43 contains
23
factual allegations, the City denies each and every allegation therein.
24
25
II
26
27
II
28
-13-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
Intentional
(Against
2
3
of Emotional Distress
Respondents/Defendants)
4 reference each and every response in paragraphs 1 through 44 as though fully set forth herein.
5
6
46. Answering Paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that on or
7 about June 5, 2013 agents of the City, including Ms. Paul, entered Petitioner's home pursuant to
8 a search wanant. The City further responds that the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph
9 46 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is not required to admit or deny the
10 same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining allegations constitute factual averments, the
11
12
13
47. Answering paragraph 47 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies each and every
14 allegation therein.
15
16
48. Answering Paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
17 allegations set forth in Paragraph 48 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
18 not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 48 contains
19 factual allegations, the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to
20 the truth of the allegations and on that basis denies each and every allegation therein.
21
22
23
24
49. Answering Paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint, the City incorporates by
25
reference each and every response in paragraphs 1 through 48 as though fully set forth herein.
26
27
28
-14-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
50. Answering Paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 50 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
3 not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 50 contains
4
factual allegations, the City denies each and every allegation therein.
5
6
51. Answering Paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
7 allegations set forth in Paragraph 51 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
8 not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 51 contains
9
factual allegations, the City denies each and every allegation therein.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
53. Answering Paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
18
allegations set forth in Paragraph 53 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
19
not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 53 contains
20
factual allegations, the City denies each and every allegation therein.
21
22
54. Answering Paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
23
allegations set forth in Paragraph 54 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
24
not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 54 contains
25
factual allegations, the City denies each and every allegation therein.
26
27
55. Answering Paragraph 55 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
28
allegations set fmih in Paragraph 55 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
-15-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LA\VYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
1 not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 55 contains
2 factual allegations, the City denies each and every allegation therein.
3
4
The City denies each and every allegation and request for relief, including all subparts, set
10
11
As a first and separate affirmative defense, the City is informed and believes and on that
12
basis alleges that the Amended Complaint and all of the purported causes of action therein are
13
barred in whole or in part, by the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
14
15
16
17
Standing
18
19
As a second and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that Petitioner lacks
standing to bring his Amended Complaint and all of the purported causes of action therein.
20
21
22
Waiver
23
24
As a third and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the Amended Complaint
25
and all the purported causes of action therein are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
26
wmver.
27
28
-16-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
1
2
3
As a fourth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that all of Petitioner's
4 purported causes of action, and each of them, are not ripe for adjudication.
5
6
7
Justification and Privilege
As a fifth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the City's actions
10 respecting the subject matters in the Amended Complaint and all the purported causes of action
11
therein were undertaken in good faith, with the absence of discriminatory and/or malicious intent
12 to injure Petitioner, and constitute lawful, proper and justified means to further the purpose of
13 engaging in and continuing the City's affairs.
14
15
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16
17
As a sixth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that to the extent any of the
18
19 City's activities as alleged in the Amended Complaint and all the purpmied causes of action
20 therein were pursuant to state or local law or govemment regulations, Petitioner's claims must
21
fail in that such activities were authorized, appropriate or permitted and therefore cannot form
22
23
24
25
II
26
27 II
28
-17-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
to
2
3
As seventh and separate affirmative defense, the City is informed and believes and on
4 that basis alleges that the Amended Complaint and all the purported causes of action therein are
5 barred in whole or in part, by the failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
6
7
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9
10
As an eighth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the Amended
11
Complaint and all the purported causes of action therein are barred because the City has not
12
interfered with any protectable prope1iy interest alleged in the Amended Complaint.
13
14
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15
No Damages
16
17
As an ninth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the Amended
18
Complaint and all the purported causes of action therein are barred because Petitioner has failed
19
20
21
22
Unclean Hands
23
24
25
As a tenth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the Amended Complaint
and all the purported causes of action therein are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
26
27
28
-18-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
1
2
3
As an eleventh and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the Amended
Complaint and all the purported causes of action therein are baned because the relief sought
Employment At-Will
9
10
As a twelfth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that all of Petitioner's
purpotied causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, on the basis that at all times relevant
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
As a thirteenth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that all of Petitioner's
purported causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, on the basis of other facts and
18
allegations which are either not yet known or whose materiality or relevance are not yet fully
19
20
21
appreciated, and the City reserves the right to amend this answer and to assert additional
defenses.
22
23
II
24
25
II
26
27
II
28
-19-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
2
3
4
5
6
7
3. That judgment be entered in favor of the City;
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant
City of Carmel-by-the Sea
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-20-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
2
3
4
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the State of Califomia, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600, Newpmi
Beach, Califomia 92660-6422. On October 7, 2014, I served the within documents:
ANSWER OF RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
D
16
BY PERSONAL DELIVERY:
by causing personal delivery by
Nationwide Legal, Inc. of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at
the address(es) set forth below.
17
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence
for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
meter date is more than on day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the above
is true and conect.
Executed on October 7, 2014 at Newport Beach, California.
24
25
26
27
1)0
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NE\\'PORT BEACH
PROOF OF SERVICE
DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
1
et
Case1Vo.A1128062
2
3
4
5
6
Michelle A. Welsh
Stoner, Welsh & Schmidt
413 Forest A venue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950-4201
Telephone: (831) 373-1993
Facsimile: (831) 373-1492
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
'")Q
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
SERVICE LIST
DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006