Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00639-JLS-LSP

Document 4

Filed 04/17/2008

Page 1 of 5

2 By WILLIAM H. SONGER, Senior Deputy (SBN 153733) 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 355
3 San Diego, California 92101-2469

1 JOHN J. SANSONE, County Counsel County of San Diego

Telephone: (619) 531-4749
4 Facsimile: (619) 531-6005
5 Attorneys for Defendant County of San Diego

6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
10

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. 08-cv-0639 JLS (LSP)

11 KATHLEEN COYN, an individual

12 Plaintiff,
13 v.

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Courtroom: 6

14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, apublic entity; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 15 DEPARTMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, a public agency; and DOES 16 1-25, inclusive
17
18

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

Defendants.

19 Defendant County of San Diego on behalf of itself and its non-suable, erroneously
20 named agency (Department of

the Public Defender) hereby answers Plaintiffs Complaint

21 filed in State Court on February 29,2008 and removed to Federal Court on April 8, 2008

22 as follows:
23
1.
Answering paragraph 1, Defendant admits that plaintiff

Kathleen Coyne is

24 an adult female, as to the remaining allegations in this paragraph, Defendant lacks

25 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining

26 allegations.

27 III 28 III
CASE NO. 08-cv-0639 JLS (LSP)

Case 3:08-cv-00639-JLS-LSP

Document 4

Filed 04/17/2008

Page 2 of 5

1 2. Answering paragraphs 2 and 3, Defendant admits that the County of

2 San Diego is a public entity that operates a Department known as the Office of the Public
3 Defender. The County of San Diego is organized under the laws of

the State of

4 California.
5 3. Answering paragraphs 4, 5, 6, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or
6 information to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations, and on that basis, deny.

7 4. Answering paragraphs 7 and 20, Defendant admits that the County of

8 San Diego is an employer, the remaining allegations in this paragraph call for a legal
9 conclusion, requiring no response.

10 5. Answering paragraphs 8 and 9, the paragraphs call for a legal conclusion,

11 reqUlring no response.
12 6. Answering paragraph 10, Defendant admits that plaintiff

was first employed

13 by the County of

San Diego as a Deputy Public Defender in January 1989. As to the

14 remainder of paragraph 10, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form
15 a belief as to the truth of

the remaining allegation, and on that basis, deny.

16 7. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
17 the truth of

the allegations contained in paragraphs 11, 15,25,32, and 38.

18 8. Answering paragraph 12, Defendant admits that plaintiff

was assigned to

19 work in the EI Cajon branch of the San Diego Superior Court. As to the remaining
20 allegations in this paragraph, deny.
21 9. Answering paragraph 14, Defendant admits that four female candidates filed

22 a civil service administrative action appealing their deniaL. As to the remaining
23 allegations in this paragraph, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
24 form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations, and on that basis, deny.

25 10. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 13, 18, 19,21,27,

26 28, and 34, except to the extent such allegations contain legal conclusions requiring no

27 response.

28 III
2
CASE NO. 08-cv-0639 JLS (LSP)

Case 3:08-cv-00639-JLS-LSP

Document 4

Filed 04/17/2008

Page 3 of 5

1 11. Answering paragraph 16, Defendant admits that plaintiff was transferred
2 from the EI Cajon branch to the Juvenile Delinquency branch of the San Diego Superior

3 Court. As to the remaining allegations in this paragraph, deny.
4 12. Defendant repeats and incorporates by reference the responses contained in
5 paragraphs 17,26, and 33.

6 13. Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation
7 contained in paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 29, 30,31,35,36, and 37.

8 AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSES
9 FIRST AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSE
10 As a first, separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant

11 County of San Diego alleges that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute
12 a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.

13 SECOND AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSE
14 As a second, separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant
15 alleges that the alleged actions, communications, and conduct, if any, of Defendant's

16 were not a proximate cause of damages to plaintiff.

17 THIRD AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSE
18 As a third, separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant

19 County of San Diego alleges that plaintiff s claims are barred in whole or in part by her

20 failure to exhaust her administrative remedies.

21 FOURTH AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSE
22 As a fourth, separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant
23 alleges that Defendant's agents were privileged to perform any and all of the actions

24 alleged and otherwise exercised reasonable diligence in the discharge of duties applicable
25 to them. Therefore, Defendant is immune from suit under both absolute and qualified
26 immunity.

27 III 28 III
3
CASE NO. 08-cv-0639 JLS (LSP)

Case 3:08-cv-00639-JLS-LSP

Document 4

Filed 04/17/2008

Page 4 of 5

1 FIFTH AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSE
2 As a fifth, separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant
3 alleges that it had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its alleged actions,

4 communications and/or conduct.

5 SIXTH AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSE
6 As a sixth, separate and distinct affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant
7 asserts it presently lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

8 whether other affirmative defenses exist. Defendant therefore reserves the right to assert
9 additional affirmative defenses if it appears from discovery that other affirmative

10 defenses are applicable.

11 WHREFORE, said Defendant prays as follows:
12 1. That the action be dismissed with prejudice;

13 2. That Plaintiff takes nothing by this action;
14 3. That Defendant recovers its costs of suit incurred herein, including

15 attorney's fees; and for other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
16

17 DATED:

JOHN J. SANSONE, County Counsel

18 L/ l¡7 ! Ó g
19

By

20
21

WILLIAM H. SONGER, Senior Deputy Attorneys for Defendant County of San Diego

~ ~ ------.

22
23

24
25

26 27
28
4
CASE NO. 08-cv-0639 JLS (LSP)

Case 3:08-cv-00639-JLS-LSP

Document 4

Filed 04/17/2008

Page 5 of 5

Declaration of Service

I, the undersigned, declare:
That I am over the age of eighteen years and not a par to the case; I am

employed in, or am a resident of, the County of San Diego, California where the service occurred; and my business address is: 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 355, San Diego, California.
On April 17, 2008, I served the following documents: Defendant County Of San Diego's Answer To Complaint in the following manner:

D By personally delivering copies to the person served. D By placing a copy in a separate envelope, with postage fully prepaid, for each
addressee named below and depositing each in the U. S. Mail at San Diego, California.

D By faxing a copy to the person served. The document was transmitted by
facsimile transmission and the transmission was reported as complete and
without error. The transmission report was properly issued by the

transmitting facsimile machine.

IZ By electronic filing, I served each of the above referenced documents by Efiling, in accordance with the rules governing the electronic filing of documents in the United States District Cour for the Southern District of California, as to the following parties:
Mark A. Bennett, Esq. Law Office of Mark Alan Bennett 1111 Sixth Avenue, Suite 404 San Diego, California 92101 TeL. (619) 237-5308 Fax. (619) 237-5309 Kathleen A. Coyne)
(Attorneys for Plaintiff

Executed on April

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 17 , 2008, at San Diego, California.

By: s/ATTORNY'S NAM

sN ALERIE P ALID

~!ah
or

(Kathleen A. Coyne v. County of San Diego, et al.; USDC No. 08-cv-0639 JLS (LSP))