Grant v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate et al

Filing 41

ANSWER to COUNTERCLAIM of Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe by Eric Grant. Attorney Grant, Eric added.(Grant, Eric)

Grant v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate et al

Doc. 41

1 Eric Grant (Bar No. 151064) Attorney at Law 2 8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95826 3 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 4 E-Mail: [e-mail] 5 James J. Banks (Bar No. 119525) Banks & Watson 6 Hall of Justice Building 813 6th Street, Suite 400 7 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-Mail: [e-mail] 9 Counsel for Plaintiff and 10 Counter-Defendant ERIC GRANT

ERIC GRANT, ATTORNEY AT LAW

11 12 13 14 ERIC GRANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. 2:08-cv-00672-FCD-KJM
PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT ERIC GRANT'S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANTS JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: [phone]

) ) 15 Plaintiff, ) ) 16 v. ) ) 17 KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS/BERNICE ) PAUAHI BISHOP ESTATE; J. DOUGLAS ) 18 ING, NAINOA THOMPSON, DIANE J. ) PLOTTS, ROBERT K.U. KIHUNE, and ) 19 CORBETT A.K KALAMA, in their ) capacities as Trustees of the Kamehameha ) 20 Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate; ) JOHN DOE; and JANE DOE, ) 21 ) Defendants. ) 22 ) ) 23 JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, ) ) 24 Counter-Claimants, ) ) 25 v. ) ) 26 KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS/BERNICE ) PAUAHI BISHOP ESTATE, et al., ) 27 ) Counter-Defendants. ) 28 )

Plaintiff Eric Grant's Answer to Counter-Claims of Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe

Dockets.Justia.com

1

In response to the complaint filed by Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Eric Grant ("Grant"),

2 Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe ("the Does") have asserted counter-claims against Grant toge3 ther with their cross-claims against other Defendants ("Doe Counter-Claim," doc. 13, filed Apr. 3, 4 2008). Grant hereby answers those counter-claims as follows: 5 6 7 8 9 2. 1.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Grant admits the allegations in Paragraphs 1-3 of the Doe Counter-Claim.
ANSWER TO THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Counter-Claim Against Grant for Equitable Indemnity) Grant admits the allegations in Paragraphs 4-6 (as incorporated by Paragraph 21) of

10 the Doe Counter-Claim.

ERIC GRANT, ATTORNEY AT LAW

11

3.

Grant admits the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 7 (as incorporated by

8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: [phone]

12 Paragraph 21) of the Doe Counter-Claim. With respect to the remaining allegations in that para13 graph, Grant responds that the document speaks for itself. 14 4. Grant admits the allegations in Paragraph 8 (as incorporated by Paragraph 21) of the

15 Doe Counter-Claim. 16 5. Grant admits the allegations in Paragraph 9 (as incorporated by Paragraph 21) of the

17 Doe Counter-Claim only insofar as they allege that John Goemans disclosed (and the Honolulu 18 Advertiser printed) what Goemans alleged to be the terms of the settlement. Otherwise, Grant de19 nies the allegations in that paragraph. 20 6. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 10 (as incorporated by Paragraph 21)

21 of the Doe Counter-Claim, Grant responds that the document speaks for itself. 22 7. Grant admits the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 11 (as incorporated

23 by Paragraph 21) of the Doe Counter-Claim. Grant is without sufficient information or belief to 24 admit or deny the remaining allegations in that paragraph and on that basis denies such allegations. 25 8. Grant is without sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the allegations in

26 Paragraphs 12-20 (as incorporated by Paragraph 21) of the Doe Counter-Claim and on that basis 27 denies such allegations. 28 9. Grant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 22-24 of the Doe Counter-Claim.
1 Plaintiff Eric Grant's Answer to Counter-Claims of Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe

1 2 3 10.

ANSWER TO FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Counter-Claim Against Grant for Implied Indemnity) Grant incorporates by reference his answers and responses in Paragraphs 1-9 above

4 as though fully set forth herein. 5 6 7 8 12. 11. Grant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 26-28 of the Doe Counter-Claim.
ANSWER TO FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Counter-Claim Against Grant for Express Indemnity) Grant incorporates by reference his answers and responses in Paragraphs 1-11 above

9 as though fully set forth herein. 10 13. Grant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 30-31 of the Doe Counter-Claim.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

ERIC GRANT, ATTORNEY AT LAW

11 12 13 14.

8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: [phone]

(Failure to State a Claim) As a separate affirmative defense, Grant alleges that the Doe Counter-Claim fails to

14 state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 15 16 17 15.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Mitigate) As a separate affirmative defense, Grant is informed and believes, and on such basis

18 alleges, that the Does' injuries, losses, or damages (if any) were aggravated by the Does' failure to 19 use reasonable diligence to mitigate the same, which failure to mitigate bars the Does' recovery to 20 the extent that such injuries, losses, or damages could have been mitigated. 21 22 23 16.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Negligence) As a separate affirmative defense, Grant alleges that the Does (or third parties un-

24 named in the Doe Counter-Claim) were guilty of negligence or other acts or omissions in the mat25 ters in controversy, which conduct proximately caused or contributed to the Does' injuries, losses, 26 or damages (if any), and Grant requests that the Court determine and allocate the percentage of 27 negligence attributable to the Does and third parties. 28 ///
2 Plaintiff Eric Grant's Answer to Counter-Claims of Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe

1 2 3 17.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Estoppel) As a separate affirmative defense, Grant alleges that the Does are estopped by their

4 own conduct from asserting any breach of contract (whether express or implied) by Grant and have 5 themselves breached the terms and conditions of the alleged contract(s). 6 7 8 18.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Waiver) As a separate affirmative defense, Grant alleges that the Does' counter-claims are

9 barred by the doctrine of waiver. 10
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

ERIC GRANT, ATTORNEY AT LAW

11 12 19.

(Impossibility or Impracticability) As a separate affirmative defense, Grant alleges that it was impossible or impracti-

8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: [phone]

13 cable for him to prevent the harm to the Does alleged in their counter-claims. 14 15 16 20.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Uncertainty) As a separate affirmative defense, Grant alleges that the claims alleged in the Doe

17 Counter-Claim fail for uncertainty, as it cannot be ascertained from the face of that pleading what 18 actions or omissions by Grant are the basis of the Does' claims. 19 20 21.
ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Grant alleges that he has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a

21 belief as to whether he may have additional affirmative defenses. Grant reserves the right to assert 22 additional affirmative defenses as discovery indicates they are appropriate. 23 24 25
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Grant prays for judgment on the Does' counter-claims as follows: (a) for a declaration that the Does are not entitled to any kind of indemnity (equitable,

26 implied, or express) from Grant either (1) for any sum the Does may pay to Kamehameha Schools/ 27 Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, or (2) for any costs, expenses, or attorneys' fees the Does have in28 curred or will incur in this or any other action;
3 Plaintiff Eric Grant's Answer to Counter-Claims of Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe

1

(b)

for all reasonable costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees incurred as a result of defend-

2 ing against the Does' counter-claims; 3 4 5 6 (c) (d) for costs of suit herein; and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial of

7 all issues triable of right by a jury. 8 9 10 Dated: April 23, 2008. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Eric Grant ERIC GRANT Counsel for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant ERIC GRANT

ERIC GRANT, ATTORNEY AT LAW

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: [phone]

4 Plaintiff Eric Grant's Answer to Counter-Claims of Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe