1 2 3 4 5 6 RAYMOND J. FULLERTON, ESQ. SBN 219264 MAGDALENA R. MCQUILLA, ESQ., SBN 307578 GEARY, SHEA, O'DONNELL, GRATTAN & MITCHELL, P.C. 90 South E Street, Suite 300 Santa Rosa, California 95404 Telephone: (707) 545-1660 Facsimile: (707) 545-1876 f ILED Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, BRENDON JACY TATUM, and NICHOLAS MILLER SEP 15 2017 Clerk "f the Supsrior Ccwrt of Catifomia County of Sonoma ~ B:t-~~~~~~~--­ - DeP'.rty Cler~ 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 11 Case No. SCV 260271 LUCAS SERAFINE, 12 Plaintiff, Unlimited Civil Action 13 V. DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED 14 CITYOFROHNERTPARK,BRENDON JACY TATUM, and NICHOLAS MILLER, IS COMPLAINT Assigned to Honorable Allen Hardcastle Dept. 19 Defendants. 16 17 ----------------------~' Action Filed: S/12/2017 Trial Date: TBD 18 Comes now defendants City of Rohnert Park, Brendon Jacy Tatum, and Nicholas Miller, 19 and answer plaintiff's First Amended Complaint as follows: 20 GENERAL DENIAL 21 Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in the First Amended Complaint, 22 both generally and specifically, and each and every part thereof, and further deny that plaintiff 23 has been damaged as alleged, or in any other manner or sum whatsoever. 24 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 25 LAW OFACES Of GEARY, AS A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the First Amended Complaint, these 26 answering defendants allege that said First Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to SHEA, O'DONNELL, GRATTAN& MITCHELL P.C. 27 constitute a cause of action. 28 Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Page I 1 2 answering defendants allege that at the time and place of the incident in question, plaintiff was 3 himself careless and negligent in and about the matters and things set forth in plaintiffs First 4 Amended Complaint; that said carelessness and negligence on plaintiffs own part proximately 5 caused and contributed to the happening of the incident in question and the resultant alleged 6 injuries and damages to plaintiff, if any there were. 7 8 9 O'DONNELL, GRATTAN& MITCHELL P.C. AS A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the First Amended Complaint, these 11 plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, if any there were, were the result of an unavoidable I2 incident insofar as these answering defendants are concerned, and occurred without any 13 negligence, want of care, default or other breach of duty to plaintiff on the part of these 14 answering defendants. AS A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the First Amended Complaint, these 16 answering defendants allege that plaintiffs damages, if any there were, are attributable to the 17 negligence and fault, if any, of other parties in this action and/or other parties not presently 18 named in this action and these answering defendants' liability should be limited to their 19 percentage share of liability, which liability is expressly denied and contested, subject to Civil 20 Code§ 1431, et seq. (the California Fair Responsibility Act of 1986). AS A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the First Amended Complaint, these 22 answering defendants allege that at the time and place of the incident in question, plaintiff was 23 the sole proximate cause of the happening of the incident in question and the resultant alleged 24 injuries and damages to plaintiff, if any there were. 25 GEARY, answering defendants allege that plaintiff has failed to mitigate his alleged damages. answering defendants allege that the events, injuries, losses and damages complained of in 21 SHEA, AS A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the First Amended Complaint, these 10 15 LAW OFACES OF AS A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the First Amended Complaint, these AS A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the First Amended Complaint, these 26 answering defendants allege that at the time and place set forth in said First Amended Complaint, 27 plaintiff had knowledge of, appreciated and voluntarily assumed the risk of those matters and 28 happenings alleged in said First Amended Complaint. The damages, if any, alleged by plaintiff Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Page2 1 were caused and arose out of such risks so voluntarily assumed. AS AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the First Amended Complaint, these 2 3 answering defendants allege that plaintiff has failed to comply with the claims procedure ser fo 4 in the Government code. AS A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the First Amended Complaint, these 5 6 answering defendants allege that plaintiff has failed to comply with the applicable statutes of 7 limitation. 8 AS A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the First Amended Complaint, these 9 answering defendants allege that these answering defendants are entitled to the immunities 10 provided under the Government Code, including but not limited to, those set forth in§§ 815; 11 820.2; 830.2; 830.4; 830.6; 830.8; 831; 835; and 835.4(a). AS AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the First Amended Complaint, these 12 13 answering defendants allege that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 14 AS A TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the First Amended Complaint, these 15 answering defendants allege that they are entitled to whatever offsets and credits are available 16 pursuant to Government Code §985, et seq. 17 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 18 Defendants hereby demand a jury trial for all triable issues. 19 WHEREFORE, defendants City of Rohnert park, Brendan Jacy Tatum, and Nicholas 20 Miller pray for judgment as follows: 21 1. That plaintiff take nothing by reason of his First Amended Complaint on file 23 2. For costs of suit, including attorney's fees as a result of this litigation; and 24 3. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. 22 LAW OFFICES OF GEARY, SHEA1 O'DONNELL, GRATTAN& MITCHELL P.C. herein; 25 Ill 26 Ill 27 Ill 28 Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Page3 1 2 DATED: September!.S_, 2017 GEARY, SHEA, O'DONNELL, GRATTAN & MITCHELL, P.C. 3 4 5 By RA~TON Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, BRENDON JACY TAWM, and NICHOLAS MILLER 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lAW OFFlCES OF GEARY, 26 SHEA. O'DONNELL, GRATTAN& MITCHELL P.C. 27 28 Defimdants' Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Page4