Arnold v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 20

ANSWER to 7 First Amended Complaint by County of Sacramento; DEMAND for Jury Trial. Attorney Paul, Jonathan B. added. (Paul, Jonathan) Modified on 10/25/2012 (Marciel, M)

1

Rivera&Associates

2

2 18 0 Har var d Str eet, Suite 3 1 0
Sacr amento , Califor nia 95 815

3

Tel: [phone] Fax: 9 1 6 9 2 2 -1 3 0 3

4

J es s e M . R i vera, C S N 84259
J onat han B. P aul , CS N 21 5884
S h anan L. Hewi t t , CS N 200168
Kel ly A. Yokl ey, C S N 192015

5
6
7
8

Attorneys for Defendant,
County of Sacramento

9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12

CONNIE ARNOLD,

13

Plaintiff,

14
vs.
15
16

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.

17

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:12-cv-01998-LKK-EFB
DEFENDANT COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF CONNIE ARNOLD’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT and DEMAND
FOR JURY TRIAL

18
19

Defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (hereinafter “defendant”) in answering the

20

allegations of the First Amended Complaint (hereinafter “complaint”) hereby admit, deny and

21

allege as follows:

22
23

I. INTRODUCTION
1.

In response to paragraph 1 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

24

SACRAMENTO admits the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) was enacted in 1990.

25

Answering the remaining allegations contained in the paragraph 1, defendant COUNTY OF

26

SACRAMENTO contends the remaining allegations do not constitute averments of fact to which

27

an answer may be required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed required, this answering

28

defendant generally and specifically denies each and every remaining allegations contained in
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

1

said paragraph.

2

2.

In response to paragraph 2, defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO admits

3

that Sylvan Oaks Public Library is located near the corner of Auburn Boulevard and Van Maren

4

Lane in the City of Citrus Heights. In response to the balance of this paragraph, defendant

5

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO denies both generally and specifically, each and every allegation

6

contained therein; too the extent the allegations are directed to the other defendants, defendant

7

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO has no information or belief to enable it to answer said

8

allegations, and for that reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and

9

specifically, each and every allegation contained therein.

10

3.

In response to paragraph 3, defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO generally

11

and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein and on that basis, denies

12

paragraph 3 in its entirety.

13

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14

4.

In response to paragraph 4 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

15

SACRAMENTO contends that said paragraph contain conclusions of law and not averments of

16

fact to which an answer may be required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed required, this

17

answering defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in said

18

paragraph, except to admit that this Court has jurisdiction over federal questions under 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1331.

20

5.

In response to paragraph 4 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

21

SACRAMENTO contends that said paragraph contain conclusions of law and not averments of

22

fact to which an answer may be required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed required, this

23

answering defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in said

24

paragraph, except to admit that venue is proper in the Eastern District of California.

25
26

III. PARTIES
6.

In response to paragraph 6 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

27

SACRAMENTO is without sufficient information to answer the allegations in paragraph 6 and

28

basing its denial on this ground, this answering defendant generally and specifically denies each
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

-2-

1
2

and every allegation contained in said paragraph.
7.

In response to paragraph 7 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

3

SACRAMENTO admits that it is a public entity. In response to the balance of the allegations in

4

this paragraph, defendant contends that said paragraph contain conclusions of law and not

5

averments of fact to which an answer may be required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed

6

required, this answering defendant generally and specifically denies each and every remaining

7

allegation contained in said paragraph.

8
9

8.

In response to paragraph 8 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO has no information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations and for that

10

reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically each and

11

every, all and singular, the allegations contained therein.

12

9.

In response to paragraph 9 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

13

SACRAMENTO, admits that it has ownership of the Sylvan Oaks Library located at 6700

14

Auburn Boulevard, Citrus Heights, California 95621. In response to the balance of the

15

allegations in this paragraph, defendant has no information or belief to enable it to answer said

16

allegations and for that reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and

17

specifically, each and every, all and singular, the allegations contained therein.

18

10.

In response to paragraph 10 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

19

SACRAMENTO has no information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations, and for that

20

reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically, each and

21

every, all and singular, the allegations contained therein.

22

11.

In response to paragraph 11 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

23

SACRAMENTO has no information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations, and for that

24

reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically, each and

25

every, all and singular, the allegations contained therein.

26

12.

In response to paragraph 12 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

27

SACRAMENTO has no information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations, and for that

28

reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically, each and
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

-3-

1

every, all and singular, the allegations contained therein.

2
3

IV. GOVERNMENT CLAIM
13.

In response to paragraph 13, of the complaint, defendant COUNTY

4

OF SACRAMENTO has no information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations, and for

5

that reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically, each and

6

every, all and singular, the allegations contained therein.

7

14.

In response to paragraph 14, of the complaint, defendant COUNTY

8

OF SACRAMENTO has no information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations, and for

9

that reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically, each and

10
11

every, all and singular, the allegations contained therein.
15.

In response to paragraph 15 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY

12

OF SACRAMENTO admits that plaintiff has waived all damages in this matter by not

13

complying with the California Tort Claims Act. In response to the balance of the allegations

14

contained in said paragraph, defendant has no information or belief to enable it to answer said

15

allegations, and for that reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and

16

specifically, each and every, all and singular, remaining allegations contained therein.

17
18

V. FACTS UPON WHICH ALL CLAIMS ARE BASED
16.

In response to paragraph 16, defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO admits

19

that Sylvan Oaks Public Library is located adjacent to Crosswoods Park. In response to the

20

balance of the allegations contained in said paragraph, defendant has no information or belief to

21

enable it to answer said allegations, and for that reason and basing its denial on that ground,

22

denies both generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular, remaining allegations

23

contained therein.

24

17.

In response to paragraph 17, defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO has no

25

information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations, and for that reason and basing its

26

denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular,

27

allegations contained therein.

28

18.

In response to paragraph 16, defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO has no
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

-4-

1

information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations, and for that reason and basing its

2

denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically, each and every, all and singular,

3

allegations contained therein.

4

19.

In response to paragraph 19 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

5

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

6

and on that basis, denies paragraph 19 in its entirety.

7

20.

In response to paragraph 20 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

8

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

9

and on that basis, denies paragraph 20 in its entirety.

10

21.

In response to paragraphs 21 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

11

SACRAMENTO has no information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations, and for that

12

reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically, each and

13

every, all and singular, allegations contained therein.

14

22.

In response to paragraph 22 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

15

SACRAMENTO has no information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations, and for that

16

reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically, each and

17

every, all and singular, allegations contained therein.

18

23.

In response to paragraph 23 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

19

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

20

and on that basis, denies paragraph 23 in its entirety.

21

24.

In response to paragraph 24 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

22

SACRAMENTO has no information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations, and for that

23

reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically, each and

24

every, all and singular, allegations contained therein.

25

25.

In response to paragraph 25 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

26

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

27

and on that basis, denies paragraph 25 in its entirety.

28

26.

In response to paragraph 26 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

-5-

1

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

2

and on that basis, denies paragraph 26 in its entirety.

3

27.

In response to paragraph 27 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

4

SACRAMENTO has no information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations, and for that

5

reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically, each and

6

every, all and singular, allegations contained therein.

7

28.

In response to paragraph 28 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

8

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

9

and on that basis, denies paragraph 28 in its entirety.

10

29.

In response to paragraph 29 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

11

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

12

and on that basis, denies paragraph 29 in its entirety.

13

30.

In response to paragraph 30 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

14

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

15

and on that basis, denies paragraph 30 in its entirety.

16
17

VI. NOTICE
31.

In response to paragraph 31 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

18

SACRAMENTO has no information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations, and for that

19

reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically, each and

20

every, all and singular, allegations contained therein.

21

VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

22

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
VIOLATION OF THE
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT - TITLE II
42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and § 12131 et seq.

23
24
25

32.

In response to paragraph 32 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

26

SACRAMENTO, incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 31 above, as

27

though fully restated herein.

28

33.

In response to paragraph 33 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

-6-

1

SACRAMENTO contends said paragraph contains conclusion of law and not averments of fact

2

to which an answer may be required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed required,

3

defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every

4

allegation contained in said paragraph.

5

34.

In response to paragraph 33 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

6

SACRAMENTO contends said paragraph contains conclusion of law and not averments of fact

7

to which an answer may be required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed required,

8

defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every

9

allegation contained in said paragraph.

10

35.

In response to paragraph 35 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

11

SACRAMENTO admits that it owns the Sylvan Oaks Public Library. In response to the balance

12

of the allegations contained within this paragraph, defendant contends said paragraph contains

13

conclusion of law and not averments of fact to which an answer may be required, but insofar as

14

an answer may be deemed required, defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO generally and

15

specifically denies each and every allegation contained in said paragraph.

16

36.

In response to paragraph 36 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

17

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

18

and on that basis, denies paragraph 36 in its entirety.

19

37.

In response to paragraph 37 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

20

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

21

and on that basis, denies paragraph 37 in its entirety.

22

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
VIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT
29 U.S.C. § 794

23
24

38.

In response to paragraph 38 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

25

SACRAMENTO incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 37 above, as

26

though fully restated herein.

27
28

39.

In response to paragraph 33 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO contends said paragraphs contain conclusion of law and not averments of fact
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

-7-

1

to which an answer may be required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed required,

2

defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every

3

allegation contained in said paragraph.

4

40.

In response to paragraph 40, of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

5

SACRAMENTO admits that it is a governmental entity. In response to the balance of the

6

allegations defendant has no information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations, and for

7

that reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically, each and

8

every, all and singular, allegations contained therein.

9

41.

In response to paragraph 41 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

10

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

11

and on that basis, denies paragraph 41 in its entirety.

12

42.

In response to paragraph 42 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

13

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

14

and on that basis, denies paragraph 42 in its entirety.

15

43.

In response to paragraph 43 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

16

SACRAMENTO admits that plaintiff is waiving damages. In response to the balance of the

17

allegations, defendant generally and specifically denies each and every remaining allegation

18

contained therein.

19

44.

In response to paragraph 44 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

20

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

21

and on that basis, denies paragraph 44 in its entirety.

22

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:
Cal. Gov’t Codes §§ 11135 and 4450 et seq.

23
24

45.

In response to paragraph 45 in the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

25

SACRAMENTO incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 44 above, as

26

though fully restated herein.

27
28

46.

In response to paragraph 46 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

-8-

1
2

and on that basis, denies paragraph 46 in its entirety.
47.

In response to paragraph 47, of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

3

SACRAMENTO admits that it owns the Sylvan Oaks Public Library. In response to the balance

4

of the allegations defendant has no information or belief to enable it to answer said allegations,

5

and for that reason and basing its denial on that ground, denies both generally and specifically,

6

each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein.

7

48.

In response to paragraph 48 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

8

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

9

and on that basis, denies paragraph 48 in its entirety.

10

49.

In response to paragraph 49 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

11

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

12

and on that basis, denies paragraph 49 in its entirety.

13

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CALIFORNIA DISABLED PERSON ACT (“CDPA”)
Cal. Civ. Code § 54 et seq.

14
15
16
17

50.

In response to paragraph 50 of the complaint, defendant incorporates by reference

its responses to paragraphs 1 through 49 above, as though fully restated herein.
51.

In response to paragraph 51 of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

18

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in

19

paragraph 51, and on that basis, denies paragraph 51in its entirety.

20

52.

In response to paragraph 52, of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

21

SACRAMENTO contends that said paragraph contains conclusions of law and not averments of

22

facts to which an answer may be required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed required,

23

defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every

24

allegation contained in said paragraph.

25

53.

In response to paragraph 53, of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

26

SACRAMENTO contends that said paragraph contains conclusions of law and not averments of

27

facts to which an answer may be required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed required,

28

defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

-9-

1
2

allegation contained in said paragraph.
54.

In response to paragraph 54, of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

3

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

4

and on that basis, denies paragraph 54 in its entirety.

5

55.

In response to paragraph 55, of the complaint, defendant COUNTY OF

6

SACRAMENTO generally and specifically denies each and every allegation contained therein

7

and on that basis, denies paragraph 55 in its entirety.

8

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9

In response to the prayer for relief, set forth at page 18 of the complaint, defendant

10

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO contends that no response is required; too the extent to which a

11

response is deemed required, defendant denies that plaintiff is entitled to any form of relief

12

whatsoever.

13
14
15

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant County of Sacramento alleges the following separate and distinct affirmative
defenses to plaintiff’s complaint.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a first affirmative defense, defendant alleges that the complaint in its entirety, through
each separately stated Cause of Action, fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a second affirmative defense, defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s complaint does not
present a case or controversy.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23

As a third affirmative defense, defendant alleges all its actions taken were undertaken in

24

good faith and with reasonable belief that said actions were valid, necessary and constitutionally

25

proper; thus, the answering defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

26

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

27

As a fourth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that this claim is barred by the

28

privileges, immunities and limitations set forth in Government Code §800, et seq., Government
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

- 10 -

1

Code §900, et seq. and C.C.P. §338, et seq.

2
3
4

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a fifth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that defendant’s acts were privileged
under applicable statutes and case law.

5
6
7
8
9

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a sixth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that state law claims are subject to a 90day stay or proceedings under California Civil Code §§ 55.51-55.54.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a seventh affirmative defense, defendant alleges that plaintiff knew, or in the exercise

10

of ordinary care, should have known of the risks, hazards, illnesses and injuries involved in the

11

undertaking in which plaintiff was engaged; but nevertheless, and with full knowledge of these

12

things did fully and voluntarily consent to assume the risks, hazards, illnesses and injuries

13

involved in the undertaking.

14
15

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As an eighth affirmative defense, defendant alleges plaintiff failed to exercises ordinary

16

care for her own safety and well-being and that failure to exercise ordinary care proximately

17

caused and/or contributed to the alleged illness and injury plead in the complaint; consequently,

18

defendant is entitled to the full protection of the law.

19

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20

As a ninth affirmative defense, defendant alleges plaintiff faces no threat of future

21
22
23
24

irreparable harm; therefore, injunctive relief is not available.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a tenth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that this claim is barred by the equitable
doctrine of estoppel, waiver, unclean hands and laches.

25

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

26

As an eleventh affirmative defense, defendant alleges that if plaintiff sustained the

27

damages alleged in the complaint, which defendant denies, plaintiff’s damages were caused in

28

whole or in part by the conduct of third parties for whom defendant is not responsible, by forces
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

- 11 -

1

over which defendant has no control or through acts or omissions on the part of plaintiff and

2

therefore, an act or omission on the part of defendant was not the proximate cause and/or legal

3

cause of the plaintiff’s alleged damages.

4
5

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a twelfth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that the injuries and damages plaintiff

6

complains of, if any, resulted from the acts and or omissions of others and without any fault on

7

the part of this answering defendant.

8
9

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a thirteenth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that the complaint is barred in that

10

the relief sought would place an undue financial and administrative burden on this answering

11

defendant.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a fourteenth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that the complaint is barred in that
the relief sought would require unreasonable modifications to programs and services.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a fifteenth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative and other state remedies.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a sixteenth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that the complaint is barred because

20

defendant is not required to make structural changes in existing facilities where other methods

21

are or would be effective to achieve compliance with applicable law.

22

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23

As a seventeenth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that the complaint is barred in

24

that the relief sought would inappropriately mandate the manner in which defendant allocates

25

public funds in relation to existing programs and services.

26

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

27

As an eighteenth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that the complaint is barred

28

because plaintiff failed to request either reasonable accommodation or auxiliary aids as required
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

- 12 -

1

by law.

2
3
4

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a nineteenth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that plaintiff’s complaint fails to
state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant.

5
6

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a twentieth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that plaintiff has failed to mitigate

7

her damages, and to the extend of this failure to mitigate, any damages awarded to plaintiff

8

should be reduced accordingly.

9
10
11

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a twenty-first affirmative defense, defendant alleges that plaintiff’s claim are barred
pursuant to the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

12
13
14

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a twenty-second affirmative defense, defendant alleges that any alleged discrimination
was not arbitrary or intentional.

15
16

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a twenty-third affirmative defense, defendant asserts that its alleged refusal to allow

17

access was not discriminatory, but was caused by the structure of the facility and by the fact that

18

plaintiff’s special needs prevented her admission to the facility without construction, alteration or

19

modification that is not otherwise required by law under Civil Code section 51(d) and 52(g).

20
21
22

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a twenty-fourth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that plaintiff was not
discriminated against based solely on her disability.

23
24

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a twenty-fifth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that when viewed in its entirety,

25

the subject buildings and facilities are readily accessible to and useable by individuals with

26

disabilities.

27
28

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a twenty-sixth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that defendant is not required to
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

- 13 -

1

take any action that would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its services,

2

programs or activities, or in undue financial and administrative burdens.

3

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4

As a twenty-seventh affirmative defense, defendant alleges that defendant did not receive

5

federal funding in association with programs, activities, services and benefits participated in by

6

plaintiff.

7

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8
9

As a twenty-eighth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that defendant has insufficient
knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as

10

yet unstated, affirmative defenses. Defendant reserved the right to answer with additional

11

affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates it would appropriate.

12

WHEREOF, Defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO prays for judgment as follows:

13

1.

Plaintiff’s action be dismissed;

14

2.

Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief be denied;

15

3.

Plaintiff’s take nothing by way of complaint;

16

4.

Defendant be awarded its costs of suit, including attorney fees; and

17

5.

For such other relief as the Court deems proper.

18
19

Dated: October 24, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

20

RIVERA & ASSOCIATES

21

/s/ Jonathan B. Paul
By:

22

JONATHAN B. PAUL
Attorney for County of Sacramento

23
24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

- 14 -

1
2
3

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants, Defendant COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO demand a jury trial as provided
for in Rule 38, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 201.

4
5

Dated: October 24, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

6

RIVERA & ASSOCIATES

7

/s/ Jonathan B. Paul
By:

8

JONATHAN B. PAUL
Attorney for County of Sacramento

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant County of Sacramento’s Answer to Plaintiff Connie Arnold’s First Amended Complaint
and Demand for Jury Trial

- 15 -