Lu v. Hulme et al

Filing 20

Defendant George Hulme's ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by George Hulme.(Driscoll, Caroline)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11117-MLW

FRIEDRICH LU,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE HULME, in his individual
capacity and in his official capacity,
TRUSTEES OF THE BOSTON PUBLIC
LIBRARY,
Defendants.

DEFENDANT GEORGE HULME’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED
COMPLAINT
Defendant George Hulme (“Hulme” or “Defendant”) hereby answers Plaintiff Friedrich
Lu’s Verified Complaint as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Hulme admits that he is named in his official and individual capacities.
3. To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging that the Hulme is a state actor, Hulme admits that
his official actions are carried out on behalf of the City of Boston. As for the remainder
of the allegations in Paragraph 3, these allegations do not pertain to the Defendant and,
therefore, do not require a response.
4. The allegations contained in Paragraph 4 do not pertain to the Defendant and, therefore,
no answer is required. To the extent, however, that Paragraph 4 can be construed as
alleging facts against the Defendant, they are denied.
5. The allegations in Paragraph 5 do not pertain to the Defendant and, therefore, no answer
is required. To the extent that Paragraph 5 can be construed as alleging facts against the
Defendant, they are denied.
6. Defendant admits that he spoke briefly with the Plaintiff on or about June 13, 2012. As
to the remainder of the allegations against Hulme in Paragraph 6, they are denied as
characterized.

1

7. The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 contain descriptions of some events that were
not witnessed by the Defendant and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent that
Paragraph 7 contains specific allegations against Defendant Hulme, they are denied as
characterized.
8. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 and notes that the BPL is open
for use by all members of the general public.
9. Defendant Hulme admits that official job title was “Manager of Library Buildings:
Shipping, Receiving and Security,” rather than the title stated in Paragraph 9 of the
Complaint. Defendant Hulme further admits that he was a recipient of a 2010 Shattuck
Public Service Award. As to any remaining factual allegations against Defendant Hulme,
they are denied.
10. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 and notes that the BPL is
open for use by all members of the general public, including Plaintiff.
11. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 and notes that the BPL has
published rules for patron use of the library’s facilities.
12. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12. To the extent that the BPL
has limited the amount of items that patrons may bring into the BPL, any such limitation
is based on its “Appropriate Library Use Policy.”
13. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13. To the extent that Plaintiff is
alleging that Defendant denied him access to the BPL and interfered with his
Constitutional rights, such allegations are denied.
14. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14. To the extent that Plaintiff is
alleging that Defendants interfered with his rights under the Massachusetts Civil Rights
Act, M.G.L. c. 12, § 11, such allegations are denied.
15. Paragraph 15 does not set forth any factual allegations and, therefore, does not require a
response. To the extent that Paragraph 15 can be construed as alleging facts against the
Defendant, they are denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

2

Second Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff’s injuries and/or damagers, if any, were proximately caused by his own
negligent or intentional conduct and/or by the conduct of others, not by the conduct of the
Defendant.
Third Affirmative Defense
Defendant, at all times, acted in good faith upon reasonable belief that his actions were in
accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff is by his own acts, omissions or negligence estopped by asserting any claims
against Defendant.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
The Defendant is imune from suit as he was engaged in discretionary functions.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
The Defendant’s acts and conduct were performed according to, and protected by, law
and/or legal process and, therefore, the Plaintiff cannot recover.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
None of the Defendant’s acts or omissions were a proximate cause of injuries or
damages, if any, allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff. Nor were these alleged injuries or damages
cause by any person or entity within the Defendant’s responsibility or control.
Eight Affirmative Defense
The Defendant is immune from suit because his actions are protected by the doctrine of
qualified immunity.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff has not been deprived of any rights secured by either the Constitution, the laws
of the United States or of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Tenth Affimative Defense
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches and/or the statute of limitations.

3

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant, George Hulme, hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,
GEORGE HULME,
By his attorneys:
William F. Sinnott
Corporation Counsel

Dated: June 12, 2013

/s/Caroline O. Driscoll
Caroline O. Driscoll, BBO # 647916
Assistant Corporation Counsel
City of Boston Law Department
Room 615, City Hall
Boston, MA 02201
[e-mail]
[phone]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 12, 2013, I filed this document through the Court’s CM/ECF
system and that a copy will be emailed to Plaintiff Lu as agreed through prior communication.

/s/Caroline O. Driscoll
Caroline O. Driscoll

4