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: 916 -9 22 -1 2 0 0 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 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?