Adamson v. City of San Francisco et al

Filing 11

ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byCity of San Francisco, Daniel Dudley, Christopher O'Brien, Brian Stansbury, Greg Suhr. (Metlitzky, Warren) (Filed on 12/20/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
CHERYL ADAMS, State Bar #164194
Chief Trial Deputy
WARREN METLITZKY, State Bar #220758
Deputy City Attorney
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-5408
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
GREG SUHR in his official capacity,
CHRISTOPHER O’BRIEN, DANIEL DUDLEY
AND BRIAN STANSBURY

10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

LORENZO ADAMSON, an individual,

15

Plaintiff,

16

vs.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Case No. 13-cv-5233 DMR
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal
corporation; GREG SUHR, individually and in
his official capacity as Chief of Police for the
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO;
CHRISTOPHER O’BRIEN, individually and
in his official capacity as a Police Officer for
the CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO; DANIEL
DUDLEY, individually and in his official
capacity as a Police Officer for the CITY OF
SAN FRANCISCO; BRIAN STANSBURY,
individually and in his official capacity as a
Police Officer for the CITY OF SAN
FRANCISCO and DOES 1-50, inclusive; in
their individual and/or official capacities as
police officers for the CITY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
Defendants.

26
27
28
Defts’ Answer to Complaint
Adamson v. CCSF; No. 13-cv-5233 DMR

1

n:\lit9\li2013\131235\00887706.doc

1

Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, GREG SUHR, sued in his official

2

capacity, CHRISTOPHER O’BRIEN, DANIEL DUDLEY and BRIAN STANSBURY (“defendants”)

3

answer plaintiff's Complaint For Damages (“complaint”) as follows:
INTRODUCTION

4
5

1.

The allegations contained in paragraph 1 are prefatory, to which no response is

6

required. To the extent necessary, defendants deny the prefatory allegations contained in paragraph 1.

7

JURISDICTION

8
9
10

2.

The allegations contained in paragraph 2 are conclusions of law to which no response is

required. To the extent that a response is required, defendants responds as follows: Defendants admit
that jurisdiction and venue are proper.
PARTIES

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

3.

Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in paragraph 3.
4.

Defendants admit that the City and County of San Francisco ("the City") is a municipal

corporation, and that the Police Department is a department of the City.
5.

Defendants admit that defendant Greg Suhr is the Chief of Police of the City and was

the Chief of Police at the time of this incident.
6.

Defendants admit that defendant Daniel Dudley is and was at the time of this incident a

San Francisco Police Officer.
7.

Defendants admit that defendant Christopher O’Brien is and was at the time of this

incident a San Francisco Police Officer.
8.

Defendants admit that defendant Brian Stansbury is and was at the time of this incident

a San Francisco Police Officer.

24

9.

25

required.

26

10.

27

The allegations contained in paragraph 9 are conclusions of law to which no response is

The allegations contained in paragraph 10 are conclusions of law to which no response

is required.

28
Defts’ Answer to Complaint
Adamson v. CCSF; No. 13-cv-5233 DMR

2

n:\lit9\li2013\131235\00887706.doc

1

11.

2

is required.

3

12.

4

is required.

5

13.

6

The allegations contained in paragraph 10 are conclusions of law to which no response

is required.

The allegations contained in paragraph 12 are conclusions of law to which no response

The allegations contained in paragraph 13 are conclusions of law to which no response

FACTS

7
14.

8
9
10

Defendants admit that Lorenzo Adamson was operating a vehicle in San Francisco on

May 30, 2013. The individual defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the other allegations contained in paragraph 14.
15.

11

Defendants admit that at hte scene there was a vehicle carrying Adamson and another

12

vehicle carrying the three defendant officers. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to

13

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 15.
16.

14

Defendants admit there was some communication with plaintiff by a San Francisco

15

Police OFficer. Defendants further admit that Officer Stansbury’s badge includes the word

16

“Stansbury.” Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 16.
17.

17
18

Defendants admit that Mr. Adamson left the vehicle. Defendant deny the remainder of

the allegations contained in paragraph 17.

19

18.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 18.

20

19.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 19.

21

20.

Defendants admit that officers took plaintiff’s weapon from him, and that other officers

22

arrived on scene. Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 20.

23

21.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 21.

24

22.

Defendants admit that plaintiff was cited for violations of Penal Code Section 148 and

25

26708 and traffic violations. Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph

26

22.

27

23.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 23.

28
Defts’ Answer to Complaint
Adamson v. CCSF; No. 13-cv-5233 DMR

3

n:\lit9\li2013\131235\00887706.doc

DAMAGES

1
2

24.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 24.

3

25.

Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

4

the allegations contained in paragraph 25, and on that basis deny the allegations.
26.

5
6

Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in paragraph 26, and on that basis deny the allegations.

7

27.

8

The allegations contained in paragraph 27 are conclusions of law to which no response

is required.

9

11

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(42 U.S.C. §1983)
(Against Defendant Officers STANSBURY, DUDLEY, O’BRIEN and DOES 1-25)

12

28.

Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1 through 27 as though set forth

29.

The allegations contained in paragraph 29 are conclusions of law to which no response

10

13

in full.

14
15

is required. To the extent necessary, the allegation are denied.
30.

16
17

The allegations contained in paragraph 30 are conclusions of law to which no response

is required. To the extent necessary, the allegations are denied.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Monell)
(42 U.S.C. §1983)
(Against CITY, CHIEF and DOES 26-50)

18
19
20
21

31.

Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1 through 30 as though set forth

23

32.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 32.

24

33.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 33.

25

34.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 34.

26

35.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 35.

27

36.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 36.

22

in full.

28
Defts’ Answer to Complaint
Adamson v. CCSF; No. 13-cv-5233 DMR

4

n:\lit9\li2013\131235\00887706.doc

37.

1
2

required. To the extent necessary, the allegations are denied.
38.

3
4

The allegations contained in paragraph 3 are conclusions of law to which no response is

The allegations contained in paragraph 38 are conclusions of law to which no response

is required. To the extent necessary, the allegations are denied.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of State Statutory Rights)
(Violation of CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §51.7)
(Against Defendants STANSBURY, DUDLEY, O’BRIEN and DOES 1-25)

5
6
7
39.

Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1 through 38 as though set forth

10

40.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 40.

11

41.

The allegations contained in paragraph 41 are conclusions of law to which no response

8
9

12

in full.

is required. To the extent necessary, the allegations are denied.
42.

13

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 42.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of California Civil Code 52.1)
(Against Defendants STANSBURY, DUDLEY, O’BRIEN and DOES 1-25)

14
15
43.

Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1 through 42 as though set forth

18

44.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 44.

19

45.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 45.

20

46.

The allegations contained in paragraph 46 are conclusions of law to which no response

21

is required.

22

47.

23

is required.

16
17

in full.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Assault and Battery)
(Against Defendants STANSBURY, DUDLEY, O’BRIEN and DOES 1-25)

24
25
48.

28

Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1 through 47 as though set forth

49.

26
27

The allegations contained in paragraph 47 are conclusions of law to which no response

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 49.

in full.

Defts’ Answer to Complaint
Adamson v. CCSF; No. 13-cv-5233 DMR

5

n:\lit9\li2013\131235\00887706.doc

1

50.

2

is required.

3

51.

The allegations contained in paragraph 50 are conclusions of law to which no response

The allegations contained in paragraph 51 are conclusions of law to which no response

4

is required. Defendants further lack sufficient information to respond to plaintiff’s allegations of

5

damage, and on the basis deny the allegations.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
(Against Defendants STANSBURY, DUDLEY, O’BRIEN and DOES 1-25)

6
7
8

52.

Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1 through 51 as though set forth

10

53.

The allegations contained in paragraph 53 are conclusions of law to which no response

11

is required.

12

54.

9

in full.

The allegations contained in paragraph 54 are conclusions of law to which no response

13

is required. Defendants further lack sufficient information to respond to plaintiff’s allegations of

14

damage, and on that basis deny the allegations.

15

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence)
(Against Defendants STANSBURY, DUDLEY, O’BRIEN and DOES 1-25)

16
55.

Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1 through 54 as though set forth

19

56.

The allegations contained in paragraph 56 are conclusions of law to which no response

20

is required.

21

57.

17
18

in full.

The allegations contained in paragraph 54 are conclusions of law to which no response

22

is required. Defendants further lack sufficient information to respond to plaintiff’s allegations of

23

damage, and on that basis deny the allegations.
JURY DEMAND

24
25

58.

Defendants demand a jury trial of all issues so triable.

26
27
28
Defts’ Answer to Complaint
Adamson v. CCSF; No. 13-cv-5233 DMR

6

n:\lit9\li2013\131235\00887706.doc

PRAYER

1
2

1.

With respect to the allegations contained in this paragraph, defendants respond as

3

follows: plaintiff's prayer sets forth plaintiff's legal conclusions and opinions and plaintiff's

4

interpretation of law to which no response is required.

5

2.

With respect to the allegations contained in this paragraph, defendants respond as

6

follows: plaintiff's prayer sets forth plaintiff's legal conclusions and opinions and plaintiff's

7

interpretation of law to which no response is required.

8
9

3.

With respect to the allegations contained in this paragraph, defendants respond as

follows: plaintiff's prayer sets forth plaintiff's legal conclusions and opinions and plaintiff's

10

interpretation of law to which no response is required. Defendants are informed and believe that Mr.

11

Adamson is still alive, and therefore deny plaintiff’s allegation that he is legally entitled to funeral and

12

burial expenses.

13

4.

With respect to the allegations contained in this paragraph, defendants respond as

14

follows: plaintiff’s prayer sets forth plaintiff’s legal conclusions and opinions and plaintiff's

15

interpretation of law to which no response is required.

16

5.

With respect to the allegations contained in this paragraph, defendants respond as

17

follows: plaintiff's prayer sets forth plaintiff's legal conclusions and opinions and plaintiff's

18

interpretation of law to which no response is required.

19

6.

With respect to the allegations contained in this paragraph, defendants respond as

20

follows: plaintiff's prayer sets forth plaintiff's legal conclusions and opinions and plaintiff's

21

interpretation of law to which no response is required.

22

7.

With respect to the allegations contained in this paragraph, defendants respond as

23

follows: plaintiff's prayer sets forth plaintiff's legal conclusions and opinions and plaintiff's

24

interpretation of law to which no response is required.

25

8.

With respect to the allegations contained in this paragraph, defendants respond as

26

follows: plaintiff's prayer sets forth plaintiff's legal conclusions and opinions and plaintiff's

27

interpretation of law to which no response is required.

28
Defts’ Answer to Complaint
Adamson v. CCSF; No. 13-cv-5233 DMR

7

n:\lit9\li2013\131235\00887706.doc

1

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

2

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

3

(Failure to State a Claim)

4
5

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that the
Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim against each defendant.

6

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7

(Statute of Limitations)

8
9

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that the
Complaint and each and every cause of action therein is barred by the statute of limitations as set forth

10

in California Code of Civil Procedure § 335 et seq., California Government Code § 945.6, and other

11

applicable statutes of limitations.

12

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13

(Failure to Mitigate Damages)

14

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that the

15

Complaint and each and every cause of action therein is barred because plaintiff failed to use

16

reasonable diligence to mitigate damages allegedly sustained by them, and said failure bars or reduces

17

the recovery, if any from defendants.

18

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19

(Causation)

20

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that any

21

act or omission on the part of defendants or their agents, was not the legal cause of plaintiff's alleged

22

injuries.

23

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24

(No Damage To Plaintiff)

25

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants deny that

26

plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or sums, or otherwise, or at all, by reason of any act or

27

omission of defendants.

28
Defts’ Answer to Complaint
Adamson v. CCSF; No. 13-cv-5233 DMR

8

n:\lit9\li2013\131235\00887706.doc

1

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2

(Failure to Comply With California Tort Claims Act)

3

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that to

4

the extent plaintiff failed to comply with provisions of the California Tort Claims Act of the California

5

Government Code (Government Code §810 et seq.), plaintiff's Complaint is barred.

6

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7

(Good Faith)

8
9
10

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that
defendants and his agents were at all times material hereto acting with both subjective and objective
good faith, such that any claim for relief that plaintiff may have is barred by law.

11

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12

(Estoppel)

13

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that by

14

reason of plaintiff's own acts and omissions, plaintiff is estopped from seeking any recovery from

15

defendants by reason of the allegations set forth in the Complaint.

16

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17

(Unclean Hands)

18
19

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that the
Complaint and each cause of action therein are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.

20

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21

(Waiver)

22

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that by

23

reason of plaintiff's own acts and omissions, plaintiff has waived any right to recovery from

24

defendants by reason of the allegations set forth in the Complaint.

25

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

26

(Common Law Immunity)

27

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that

28

defendants are immune from any liability therein under the common law doctrine of immunity of
Defts’ Answer to Complaint
Adamson v. CCSF; No. 13-cv-5233 DMR

9

n:\lit9\li2013\131235\00887706.doc

1

officers executing statutes in good faith, which statutes are presumed valid at the time of such

2

execution.

3

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4

(No Constitutional Violation)

5

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that the

6

Complaint fails to state a violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution cited by

7

plaintiff and applicable to this action.

8

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9

(No Discrimination Against Plaintiff)

10

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that they

11

in no way based their decisions and actions at issue herein, or their treatment of plaintiff, on any group

12

or identification to which plaintiff might belong including race, gender, sexual orientation, political

13

affiliation, political beliefs, or any other classification. At all times, defendants and their agents acted

14

properly in valid law enforcement activities.

15

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16

(Qualified/Absolute Immunity)
As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that they

17
18

enjoy qualified immunity, and/or absolute immunity against each and every one of plaintiff's federal

19

claims.

20

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21

(Discretionary Immunity)

22

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that they

23

enjoys discretionary immunity pursuant to California Government Code §820.2 against each and every

24

one of plaintiff's state claims.

25

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

26

(Frivolous Lawsuit)

27
28

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that
plaintiff's maintenance of this action is frivolous, vexatious and unreasonable, thereby entitling
Defts’ Answer to Complaint
Adamson v. CCSF; No. 13-cv-5233 DMR

10

n:\lit9\li2013\131235\00887706.doc

1

defendants to sanctions and appropriate remedies (including without limitation attorney’s fees) against

2

plaintiff.

3

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4

(No Intent to Harm)

5

As a separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint and to each and every allegation

6

contained therein, defendants allege that at all times and places mentioned in the Complaint,

7

defendants acted without malice and with a good faith belief in the propriety of their conduct, and did

8

not intend to harm or deprive plaintiff of any rights under federal or state constitutions, or federal or

9

state statutes.

10

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

11

(Discharge of Duties in Good Faith)

12

As a separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint and to each and every allegation set

13

forth therein, defendants allege that at all times mentioned in the Complaint, defendants performed and

14

discharged in good faith each and every obligation, if any, owed to plaintiff.

15

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16

(Privilege, Justification)

17

As a separate and affirmative defense to the Complaint and to each and every allegation

18

contained therein, defendants allege that their conduct at all times material herein was privileged

19

and/or justified under applicable law.

20

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21

(Supervening Events)

22
23

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that any
injury suffered by plaintiff was caused by supervening events over which defendants had no control.

24

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25

(Comparative Negligence)

26

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege by way

27

of a plea of comparative negligence that plaintiff was negligent in and about the matters and activities

28

alleged in said Complaint; that said negligence contributed to and was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s
Defts’ Answer to Complaint
Adamson v. CCSF; No. 13-cv-5233 DMR

11

n:\lit9\li2013\131235\00887706.doc

1

alleged injuries and damages, if any, or was the sole cause thereof; and that if plaintiff is entitled to

2

recover damages against these defendants by virtue of said Complaint, defendants pray that the

3

recovery be diminished or extinguished by reason of the negligence of the plaintiff in proportion to the

4

degree of fault attributable to plaintiff.

5

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6

(Plaintiff's Recklessness)

7

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that at

8

all times mentioned in plaintiff's Complaint herein, plaintiff acted in a careless, reckless, wanton and

9

negligence manner in and about the matters set forth in the Complaint; that such careless, reckless,

10

wanton and negligent conduct proximately contributed to the injuries and damages, if any, sustained or

11

claimed by plaintiff; that as a consequence, plaintiff's claims are barred.

12

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13

(Fault of Others)

14

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that the

15

fault of persons other than defendants contributed to and proximately caused the occurrence; and that

16

under the principles formulated in the case of American Motorcycle Association v. Superior Court, 20

17

Cal. 3d 578 (1978), defendants pray that the percentage of such contribution be established by special

18

verdict or other procedure, and that defendants’ ultimate liability be reduced to the extent of such

19

contribution.

20

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21

(Statutory Immunity)

22

The City and its employees are immune from all liability alleged in the complaint and each and

23

every cause of action therein pursuant to Government Code Sections 815(b); 815.2(b); 815.4; 818.4;

24

818.6, 818.7; 818.8; 820(b); 820.2; 820.4; 820.6; 820.8; 821; 821.2; 821.4; 821.6; 821.8; 822; 822.2;

25

830.2; 830.4; 830.6; 830.8; 830.9; 831; 831.2; 831.25; 831.3; 831.4; 831.5; 831.6; 831.7; 831.8;

26

835.4; 840.6; 844.6; 845; 845.2; 845.4; 845.6; 845.8; 846; 850; 850.2; 850.4; 854.8; 855; 855.2; 855.4;

27

855.6; 855.8; 856; 856.2; 856.4; California Vehicle Code sections 16004 and 17004.7; California

28

Penal Code sections 142, 148, 409, 834a, 834, 835, 835a, 836, 844, 845, 847, 849, 1531 and 1532;
Defts’ Answer to Complaint
Adamson v. CCSF; No. 13-cv-5233 DMR

12

n:\lit9\li2013\131235\00887706.doc

1

California Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5150, 5113, 5153, 5154, 5173; and Civil Code

2

section 43.5 and related provisions of these code sections and interpretative case law.

3

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4

(Self Defense And Defense Of Others)

5

Defendants allege that if in fact any force was used against plaintiff, said use of force was the

6

lawful exercise of the right of self-defense and defense of the public and privileged and/or justified by

7

law, and any recovery pursuant to said use of force is barred.

8

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9

(Res Judicata and Claim Splitting)

10

The complaint and each and every cause of action therein is barred by res judicata and the case

11

law prohibiting a plaintiff from “splitting” claims or causes of action. Ferraro v. Southern Cal. Gas

12

Co., 102 Cal.App.3d 33, 41 (1980).

13

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14

(Laches)

15

Plaintiff has unnecessarily delayed in protecting the right or rights asserted and have

16

unreasonably delayed in bringing this action, and are therefore guilty of laches and are consequently

17

not entitled to the relief sought.

18

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19

(Assumption Of The Risk)

20

Plaintiff had full knowledge of the risk involved in the activity in which plaintiff was engaged

21

at the time of the occurrence of the incident set forth in the complaint. Plaintiff voluntarily assumed

22

all the risks incident to the activity engaged in at the time and place mentioned in the complaint, and

23

the loss or damage, if any, sustained by plaintiff was caused by those risks.

24

TWENTY NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25

(Criminal Conviction Bars Claims)

26

As and for a separate, distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, defendants allege that all

27

of plaintiff's claims are precluded due to the existence of a criminal conviction inconsistent with the

28

alleged unlawful behavior underlying this suit.
Defts’ Answer to Complaint
Adamson v. CCSF; No. 13-cv-5233 DMR

13

n:\lit9\li2013\131235\00887706.doc

ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1
2

Defendants presently have insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as

3

to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendants reserve the right to

4

assert additional defenses in the event that discovery indicates that they would be appropriate.

5

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows:

6

1.

That plaintiff takes nothing from defendants;

7

2.

That the Complaint against defendants be dismissed with prejudice;

8

3.

That defendants recover their costs of suit herein, including attorneys' fees; and

9

4.

For such other relief as is just and proper:

10
11

Dated: December 20, 2013

12
13
14
15

DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
CHERYL ADAMS
Chief Trial Deputy
WARREN METLITZKY
Deputy City Attorney
By: /s/ Warren Metlitzky
WARREN METLITZKY

16

Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, GREG
SUHR in his official capacity, CHRISTOPHER
O’BRIEN, DANIEL DUDLEY AND BRIAN
STANSBURY

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defts’ Answer to Complaint
Adamson v. CCSF; No. 13-cv-5233 DMR

14

n:\lit9\li2013\131235\00887706.doc