Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01491-JLS-JMA

Document 2

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

MICHAEL J. AGUIRRE, City Attorney ANDREW JONES, Deputy City Attorney California State Bar No. 188375 Office of the City Attorney 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1100 San Diego, California 92101-4100 Telephone: (619) 533-5800 Facsimile: (619) 533-5856

Exempt from fees per Gov't code 6103 To the benefit of the City of San Diego

Attorneys for Defendants City of San Diego, Police Chief William Lansdowne; and Officer M. Czas UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 08cv1491 JLS (JMA) DEFENDANTS CITY OF SAN DIEGO, POLICE CHIEF WILLIAM LANSDOWNE AND OFFICER M. CZAS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

10 OCIE HENDERSON, the Administrator of the ) ) Estate of RAMEL HENDERSON ) 11 ) Plaintiffs, ) 12 ) v. ) 13 ) CITY OF SAN DIEGO; POLICE CHIEF 14 WILLIAM LANSDOWN; POLICE OFFICER ) M. CZAS and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ) 15 all individually and in their official capacities, as ) agents or employees, of the CITY OF SAN ) ) 16 DIEGO, ) Defendants. ) 17 ) ) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1.

Defendants, City of San Diego and Police Chief William Lansdowne (erroneously named William Lansdown), and Police Officer M. Czas, severing themselves from any other party, answer Plaintiffs' Complaint for Damages, as follows: I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT These answering Defendants admit that part of the allegations contained in

Paragraph 1 starting with "This" and ending with "(Does 1 through 50)", (page 2, line1- 4), and paragraphs 2 and 4. 2. This answering Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations contained in

paragraph 1. However, Defendants admit Police Chief William Lansdowne is the supervisory 1
08cv1491 JLS (JMA)

Case 3:08-cv-01491-JLS-JMA

Document 2

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 2 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

officer responsible for the conduct of defendants, and Defendant City of San Diego is the employer of the police personnel who is sued. 3. These answering Defendants have insufficient information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraphs 3, and therefore, deny the same. II. PARTIES 4. These answering Defendants have insufficient information to admit or

deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 13 and 15, and therefore, deny the same. 5. These answering Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraphs 9, 10,

11, 12, and 14 of the complaint, except as to all allegations concerning Does 1 through 50. III FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 6. In answering Paragraphs 16, and 22 of the complaint, defendants have insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore deny the same. 7. The answering Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraphs 17, 18, 21. 8. These answering Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 19, 20,

23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35. IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS COGNIZABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983) EXCESSIVE FORCE 9. In answer to Paragraph 36, these answering Defendants incorporate by reference

each and every admission, denial and allegation of their answer to all of Paragraphs 1 through 35 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 10. These answering Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 37, 38,

39, 40, 41, 43, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47. //// 2
08cv1491 JLS (JMA)

Case 3:08-cv-01491-JLS-JMA

Document 2

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16. 14.

V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST DEFENDANTS LANSDOWNE AND CITY OF SAN DIEGO) FAILURE TO INSTRUCT, SUPERVISE, CONTROL, AND DISCIPLINE 11. In answer to Paragraph 48, these answering Defendants incorporate by reference

each and every admission, denial and allegation of their answer to all of Paragraphs 1 through 47 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 12. These answering Defendants have insufficient information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 59, and there deny the same. 13. These answering Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 50, 51,

52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59. VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) WRONGFUL DEATH In answer to Paragraph 60, these answering Defendants incorporate by reference

each and every admission, denial and allegation of their answer to all of Paragraphs 1 through 59 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 15. These answering Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 61, 62,

63, 64, 65, and 66. VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) SURVIVAL ACTION In answer to Paragraph 67, these answering Defendants incorporate by reference

each and every admission, denial and allegation of their answer to all of Paragraphs 1 through 66 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 17. 70, 71, and 72. //// 3
08cv1491 JLS (JMA)

These answering Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 68, 69,

Case 3:08-cv-01491-JLS-JMA

Document 2

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 4 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21. 18.

VIII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST DEFENDANTS POLICE OFFICE M. CZAS AND DOES) NEGLIGENCE In answer to Paragraph 73, these answering Defendants incorporate by reference

each and every admission, denial and allegation of their answer to all of Paragraphs 1 through 72 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 19. 20. 77, and 78. NEGLIGENCE (AGAINST DEFENDANT LANDSDOWN AND CITY) In answer to Paragraph 79, these answering Defendants incorporate by reference These answering Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraphs 74. These answering Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 75, 76,

each and every admission, denial and allegation of their answer to all of Paragraphs 1 through 78 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 22. 82, 83, and 84. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES As separate, distinct and affirmative defenses to the Complaint on file herein, and to each cause of action, these answering defendants allege as follows: I Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering defendants. II Defendant, City of San Diego, its agents and employees, and the Defendant police officers acted in good faith and with a reasonable belief that his conduct was lawful and necessary. //// 4 These answering Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 80, 81,

08cv1491 JLS (JMA)

Case 3:08-cv-01491-JLS-JMA

Document 2

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 5 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

III Defendant, City of San Diego, is immune from liability in that a public entity is not liable for an injury arising out of its acts or omissions or of a public employee, in the absence of a statute declaring such liability. IV Defendant, City of San Diego, is not liable for an injury arising out of an act or omission of its employees, where the subject employee is immune from liability. V Defendant, City of San Diego, and its agents and employees are not liable for punitive damages. VI Defendant, City of San Diego, its agents and employees, and the Defendant police officers are not liable for injuries resulting from acts or omissions which were an exercise of discretion in the absence of a statute declaring such liability. VII Defendant, City of San Diego, its agents and employees, and the Defendant police officers are not liable while acting within the scope of their duties for injuries resulting from judicial or administrative proceedings. VIII Defendant, City of San Diego, its agents and employees, and the Defendant police officers are not liable for the execution or enforcement of the California Penal Code where due care is exercised. IX Defendant, City of San Diego, its agents and employees, and the Defendant police officers are not liable for violation of the plaintiffs' civil rights in that the alleged wrongful acts were not under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the City of San Diego. //// 5
08cv1491 JLS (JMA)

Case 3:08-cv-01491-JLS-JMA

Document 2

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 6 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 //// ////

X At the time of the contact, the Defendant police officers attempted to persuade the plaintiffs to follow directions and in doing so, only used force necessary for the occasion. XI Plaintiffs themselves were negligent in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint and said carelessness on their own part proximately contributed to the happening of the alleged incident, injuries and damages complained of, if any such exist. XII Defendant, City of San Diego, its agents and employees, and the Defendant police officers were at all times alleged in the Complaint performing duties required by law under conditions required by law. XIII Any and all acts of the defendant, City of San Diego, its agents and employees, and the Defendant police officers at or near the time alleged in the Complaint were reasonable and said defendants had reasonable cause to act in the manner they did. XIV At the time of the initial contact, the Defendant police officers were acting within the scope of their employment and had probable cause to believe the plaintiff was engaging in, or had just engaged in, a prohibited activity. During the contact, the Defendant police officers were acting within the scope of their employment and had probable cause to believe that said plaintiffs had committed a misdemeanor. XV Defendants acted reasonably and within the course and scope of their employment at all times, and is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. WHEREFORE, these answering defendants pray judgment as follows: 1. Plaintiff take nothing by his Complaint;

6

08cv1491 JLS (JMA)

Case 3:08-cv-01491-JLS-JMA

Document 2

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 7 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2. Defendants receive their costs of suit incurred herein; and 3. Such other relief as the court deems proper. Dated: August 18, 2008 MICHAEL J. AGUIRRE, City Attorney

By

/s/ Andrew Jones Andrew Jones Deputy City Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant City of San Diego, Police Chief William Lansdown; and Officer M. Czas

7

08cv1491 JLS (JMA)

Case 3:08-cv-01491-JLS-JMA

Document 2-2

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 1 of 1