Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 4:08-cv-01776-CW

Document 4

Filed 06/17/2008

Page 1 of 5

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

MARK D. PETERS (sbn110981) Peters & Peters 645 Fourth Street, Suite 213 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 (707) 545-9250 Attorney for Defendant HEALDSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A.S., a minor; JUDITH SANDERSON, individually and as parent of her minor child, Plaintiffs, v.

No. C 08-01776 CW ANSWER OF DEFENDANT HEALDSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

HEALDSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. ________________________________/ COMES NOW Defendant Healdsburg Unified School District, a public entity, which specifically admits and denies the allegations of Plaintiffs' Complaint for Damages as follows: Defendant admits that the Healdsburg Unified School District is a public entity School District located in the County of Sonoma, State of California, that this Court has jurisdiction over the matter, that Plaintiff A.S. is of Asian (Chinese) ancestry and attended Healdsburg Junior High School during the 2006-2007 school year which is operated by the School District, that Judith Sanderson is employed as an elementary school teacher by the School District, and that the School District is a recipient of funds from the federal Government. Defendants specifically deny all of the remaining allegations of Plaintiffs' Complaint for Damages.

DEFENDANT'S ANSW ER

1

Case 4:08-cv-01776-CW

Document 4

Filed 06/17/2008

Page 2 of 5

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

AS AND FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint herein, this answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against it. AS AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint herein, this answering Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. AS AND FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint herein, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs were themselves negligent in and about the matters set forth, and that such negligence contributed as a proximate cause to the injuries and damages of which they complain. AS AND FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint herein, this answering Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Sections 815 through 840.6, inclusive. AS AND FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint herein, this answering Defendant alleges that the causes of action of the Complaint are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and by Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the claims presentation requirements of the California Government Code. AS AND FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint herein, this answering Defendant alleges that the injuries alleged by Plaintiffs, if any, were proximately caused by the acts of a third person or persons for which this Defendant may not be held liable. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint herein, this answering Defendant alleges that it enjoys qualified and unqualified immunity from liability for each of the causes of action

DEFENDANT'S ANSW ER

2

Case 4:08-cv-01776-CW

Document 4

Filed 06/17/2008

Page 3 of 5

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

in the Complaint. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint herein, this answering Defendant alleges that, should Plaintiffs recover damages against Defendant, said Defendant should be entitled to have the amount reduced or eliminated to the extent that Plaintiffs have failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate those damages. AS AND FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint herein, this answering Defendant alleges that some or all of Plaintiffs' claims may be precluded by the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation. WHEREFORE, this answering Defendant prays that judgment be entered as follows: 1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by their Complaint; 2. For attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred herein; 3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

DATED: June 17, 2008

/s/ Mark D. Peters Mark D. Peters Attorney for Defendant

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants hereby demand a trial by jury of all of the causes of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

DATED: June 16, 2008

DEFENDANT'S ANSW ER

3

Case 4:08-cv-01776-CW

Document 4

Filed 06/17/2008

Page 4 of 5

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
DEFENDANT'S ANSW ER

/s/ Mark D. Peters Mark D. Peters Attorney for Defendant

4

Case 4:08-cv-01776-CW

Document 4

Filed 06/17/2008

Page 5 of 5

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
DEFENDANT'S ANSW ER

PROOF OF SERVICE I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of SONOMA. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within above-entitled action. My business address is 645 Fourth St., Suite 213, Santa Rosa, California 95404. On the below mentioned date, I served the ANSWER AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL on the attorneys of record in said action by entering it into the ECF System accessible to opposing Counsel: Mr. Stephen J. Duggan 640 Healdsburg Avenue Healdsburg, CA 95448 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: June 17, 2008

/s/ Mark D. Peters Mark D. Peters

5