Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cv-03066-PVT 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 vs. NANCY NAVA, Plaintiff,

Document 47

Filed 07/23/2008

Page 1 of 9

JON A. HEABERLIN (SBN 199810) RANKIN, LANDSNESS, LAHDE, SERVERIAN & STOCK 96 No. Third Street, Suite 500 San Jose, California 95112 (408) 293-0463 Attorneys for Defendants MIKE SEADLER, CLYDE CHENG, ALEX TORKE, ALAN WOLF, STEVEN MAJOROS, TYSON SHEARER, JOHNNY FANUCCHI, TRAVIS NIESEN, MARTIN OVER, DAN WINTER, ALAEC LANGE, ROBERT CIRAULO, JOHN MASTILOCK, ANTHONY LAYTON, JOHANNA GREEN, DEREK RUSH, FRANK SAUNDERS, DAVID MACHADO, JOE OLIVER, BRYAN STERKEL AND CITY OF SANTA CLARA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHER DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKE SEADLER, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; CLYDE CHENG, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer, ALEX TORKE, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; A. WOLF, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; S. MAJOROS, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; T. SHEARER, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; J. FANUCCHI, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; T. NIESEN, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; M. OVER, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; DAN WINTER, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; A. LANGE, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; R. CIRAULO, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; J.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. C08 03066 PVT DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1 Defendants' Answer To Com plaint For Violation Of Civil Rights

Case 5:08-cv-03066-PVT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Defendants. 14

Document 47 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Filed 07/23/2008

Page 2 of 9

MASTILOCK, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; A. LAYTON, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; J. GREEN, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; D. RUSH, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; F. SAUNDERS, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; D. MACHADO, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; J. OLIVER, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; B. STERKEL, individually and in his capacity as a Santa Clara police officer; JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE, individually and in their capacities as Santa Clara police officers, the true names and exact numbers of whom are unknown at this time; CITY OF SANTA CLARA, a municipal corporation,

_____________________________ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 1.

Defendants MIKE SEADLER, CLYDE CHENG, ALEX TORKE, ALAN WOLF, STEVEN MAJOROS, TYSON SHEARER, JOHNNY FANUCCHI, TRAVIS NIESEN, MARTIN OVER, DAN WINTER, ALAEC LANGE, ROBERT CIRAULO, JOHN MASTILOCK, ANTHONY LAYTON, JOHANNA GREEN, DEREK RUSH, FRANK SAUNDERS, DAVID MACHADO, JOE OLIVER, BRYAN STERKEL, AND CITY OF SANTA CLARA answer Plaintiff's Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights ("the Complaint"), as follows: JURISDICTION In answer to Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendants acknowledge the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court. Defendants deny any unlawful acts or practices. PARTIES In answer to Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Defendants do not have

2 Defendants' Answer To Com plaint For Violation Of Civil Rights

Case 5:08-cv-03066-PVT 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

Document 47

Filed 07/23/2008

Page 3 of 9

sufficient information to respond, and accordingly deny the allegations stated therein. 3. In answer to Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Defendants admit the allegations

contained therein. 4. In answer to Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that the

individual defendants were employed as police officers for the City of Santa Clara, but lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations regarding color of law and course and scope of employment, and therefore denies those allegations. Defendants deny the allegations contained within the last sentence of Paragraph 4. 5. In answer to Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that there was

a police encounter on September 18, 2007 at the Bank of America located at 2900 El Camino Real in the City of Santa Clara that possibly involved Plaintiff and/of her grandson, but do not have sufficient information to respond, and accordingly deny the allegations stated therein. 6. In answer to Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Defendants do not have

sufficient information to respond, and accordingly deny the allegations stated therein. 7. In answer to Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that an

occupant of a vehicle in the parking lot, possibly Plaintiff, was ordered out of her vehicle. Defendants do not have sufficient information to respond to the balance of the Paragraph, and accordingly deny the allegations stated therein. 8. In answer to Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that an

occupant of a vehicle in the parking lot, possibly Plaintiff, was ordered out of her vehicle and the officers had weapons drawn. Defendants do not have sufficient information to respond to the balance of the Paragraph, and accordingly deny the allegations stated therein. 9. In answer to Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Defendants do not have

sufficient information to respond, and accordingly deny the allegations stated therein. 10. In answer to Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein.

3 Defendants' Answer To Com plaint For Violation Of Civil Rights

Case 5:08-cv-03066-PVT 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. 15. 11.

Document 47

Filed 07/23/2008

Page 4 of 9

In answer to Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Defendants do not have

sufficient information to respond, and accordingly deny the allegations stated therein. 12. In answer to Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Defendants do not have

sufficient information to respond, and accordingly deny the allegations stated therein. 13. In answer to Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. 14. In answer to Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF In answer to Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, there are no charging

allegations upon which to respond. 16. In answer to Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. 17. In answer to Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF In answer to Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, there are no charging

allegations upon which to respond. 19. In answer to Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. 20. In answer to Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF In answer to Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, there are no charging

allegations upon which to respond. 22. In answer to Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that an

occupant of a vehicle, possibly Plaintiff, was ordered from her vehicle with weapons

4 Defendants' Answer To Com plaint For Violation Of Civil Rights

Case 5:08-cv-03066-PVT 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 32. 29. 25.

Document 47

Filed 07/23/2008

Page 5 of 9

drawn. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained therein. 23. In answer to Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. 24. In answer to Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF In answer to Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, there are no charging

allegations upon which to respond. 26. In answer to Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, Defendants do not have

sufficient information to respond to the allegation regarding a December 27, 2003 encounter, and therefore deny that allegation. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained therein. 27. In answer to Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. 28. In answer to Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF In answer to Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, there are no charging

allegations upon which to respond. 30. In answer to Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. 31. In answer to Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF In answer to Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, there are no charging

allegations upon which to respond. 33. In answer to Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein.

5 Defendants' Answer To Com plaint For Violation Of Civil Rights

Case 5:08-cv-03066-PVT 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 42. 38. 36. 34.

Document 47

Filed 07/23/2008

Page 6 of 9

In answer to Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. 35. In answer to Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF In answer to Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, there are no charging

allegations upon which to respond. 37. In answer to Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF In answer to Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, there are no charging

allegations upon which to respond. 39. In answer to Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. 40. In answer to Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. 41. In answer to Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF In answer to Paragraph 42 of the Complaint, there are no charging

allegations upon which to respond. 43. In answer to Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. 44. In answer to Paragraph 44 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. 45. In answer to Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

allegations contained therein. 46. In answer to Paragraph 46 of the Complaint, Defendants deny the

6 Defendants' Answer To Com plaint For Violation Of Civil Rights

Case 5:08-cv-03066-PVT 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

Document 47

Filed 07/23/2008

Page 7 of 9

allegations contained therein. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Plaintiff was careless and negligent in and/or about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and further that the Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary or any care for Plaintiff's own safety and such carelessness and negligence on the part of Plaintiff proximately caused and contributed to the damage, detriment or injury sustained by Plaintiff , if any, and that Plaintiff's recovery should therefore either be barred or reduced to the extent of her negligence. AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, any harm suffered was a result of a negligent or otherwise wrongful conduct of persons other than Defendants and that the conduct of the person other than Defendants was the sole and proximate cause of the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiffs. AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, all actions taken by Defendants, including actions of DOE Defendants, were undertaken in good faith and with a reasonable belief that the actions were valid, necessary, constitutionally proper and objectively reasonable for a police officer in the same circumstances, entitling Defendants to qualified immunity from Plaintiff's claimed injuries and damages. AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages, if any. AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants are immune from the state law causes of action pursuant to Government Code §§800-1000, including but not limited §§820.2, 820.4, 820.8, 821.6, 821.8, and 822.2. Defendants are further immune by virtue of Penal Code §836.5(b) and §847. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the Doctrine of Unclean Hands. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants are entitled to

7 Defendants' Answer To Com plaint For Violation Of Civil Rights

Case 5:08-cv-03066-PVT 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

Document 47

Filed 07/23/2008

Page 8 of 9

immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants contend that they are immune from liability pursuant to the Federal Civil Rights Act because they were acting in good faith and entertained a reasonable belief that its actions were necessary. AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants contend that they are immune pursuant to the principals of qualified immunity. AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants allege that they have not deprived any person, including Plaintiff, of any right, privilege, or immunity guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States or the State of California, and, therefore, Defendants are not liable. AS AND FOR A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, any alleged use of force to subdue and/or detain plaintiff was reasonable under the circumstances, and was in defense to the improper actions of the plaintiff. AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, and their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or Constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. WHEREFORE, Defendants prays as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice; Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of her Complaint; Defendants be awarded reasonable attorney's fees; Defendants be awarded costs of suit; and, For such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. RANKIN, LANDSNESS, LAHDE, SERVERIAN & STOCK

Dated: July 23, 2008

By: /s/ Jon A. Heaberlin JON A. HEABERLIN Attorney for Defendants

8 Defendants' Answer To Com plaint For Violation Of Civil Rights

Case 5:08-cv-03066-PVT 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 Dated: July 23, 2008

Document 47

Filed 07/23/2008

Page 9 of 9

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants MIKE SEADLER, CLYDE CHENG, ALEX TORKE, ALAN WOLF, STEVEN MAJOROS, TYSON SHEARER, JOHNNY FANUCCHI, TRAVIS NIESEN, MARTIN OVER, DAN WINTER, ALAEC LANGE, ROBERT CIRAULO, JOHN M ASTILOCK, ANTHONY LAYTON, JOHANNA GREEN, DEREK RUSH, FRANK SAUNDERS, DAVID MACHADO, JOE OLIVER, BRYAN STERKEL AND CITY OF SANTA CLARA hereby request a jury trial in this action.

RANKIN, LANDSNESS, LAHDE, SERVERIAN & STOCK

By: /s/ Jon A. Heaberlin JON A. HEABERLIN Attorneys for Defendants

9 Defendants' Answer To Com plaint For Violation Of Civil Rights