Answer of Defendant City of Carmel To Plaintiff's Amended Verified Petition and Complaint Mcinchak

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JEFFREY A. DINKIN, SBN 111422

jdinkin@sycr. com
ALLISON E. BURNS, SBN 198231
aburns@sycr. com
DAVID C. PALMER, SBN 251609
dpalmer@sycr. com
S1RADLING YOCCACARLSON &RAUIH
A Professional Corporation
800 Anacapa Street, Suite A
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 730-6800
Facsimile: (805) 730-6801
Exempt from filing fee

Government Code 6103
Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant

City of Carmel-by-the Sea
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
12
13
STEVEN MCINCHAK
14
Petitioner/Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
17
18
19
20
21
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, JASON

STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA,
SUSAN PAUL, ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,
CASE NO. M128062
ANSWER OF
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
Action Filed: June 4, 2014
Discovery Cutoff: Not Set
Trial Date: Not Set
Respondents/Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NeWPORT BEACH
ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
1
2
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Respondent/Defendant the City of Cannel-By-The-Sea ("City") for itself and for no other
3 defendant, hereby answers the Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint
4 for Declaratory Judgment, Breach of Contract, Defamation and Intentional and Negligent
5 Infliction of Emotional Distress filed in the above-captioned action ("Amended Complaint") by
6 Petitioner/Plaintiff Steven Mclnchak ("Petitioner") as follows:
7
8
9
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In response to the introductory paragraph of the Amended Complaint, the City admits
10 that Petitioner has been employed by the City since 1997 as its Information Systems Network
11 Manager, responsible for managing and supervising the City's entire computer system. The
12 City further admits that on June 5, 2013 the City of Carmel-by-the Sea unilaterally placed
13 Petitioner on paid administrative leave from his position as Information Systems Network
14 Manager without notice or hearing because no such notice or hearing was required. The City is
15 not able to admit or deny whether there was cause for placing Petitioner on paid administrative
16 as the term "without cause" as used in the context of the Amended Complaint is uncertain and
17 indefinite, and while cause was not required to place Petitioner on paid administrative leave,
18 there was cause for doing so. The City further admits that the City has kept Petitioner on paid
19 administrative leave, preventing him from performing his job duties or returning to work since
20 June 6, 2013, a period of nearly 12 months at the time the Amended Complaint was filed. The
21
City further responds that the balance of the allegations set forth in the introductory paragraph
22 constitute legal argument or legal conclusions and the City is not required to admit or deny the
23
same. To the extent the balance of the introductory paragraph contains factual allegations, the
24 City denies the same. The City further denies the implication that any of actions refened to in
25 the introductory paragraph violated any statute or other legal right held by Petitioner.
26
27
28
-2-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
PARTIES
2
3
1. Answering Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits all allegations
therein.
5
6
therein.
10 therein.
11
12
13
therein.
14
15
5. Answering Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint, the City is without sufficient
16 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein, and
17
on that basis denies each and every such allegation.
18
19
COMMON FACTS
20
21
6. Answering Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies that Petitioner
22
"reported directly to the City Administrator until 2013 when he was directed to report instead to
23
the administrative Services Director." The City admits the balance of the allegations contained in
24
Paragraph 6.
25
26
7. Answering Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies that Petitioner
27
was "required to be accessible to the City, its Administrators, its elected officials and employees
28
twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week to solve problems or answer questions about the
-3-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
City's Computer system." The City admits the balance of the allegations contained in Paragraph
7.
3
4
5
8. Answering Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies all allegations
contained therein.
6
7
9. Answering Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies that: (i)
Petitioner "is a permanent, long-term employee of the City of Carmel;" (ii) Petitioner "accrued a
property interest in his employment as a public employee under the Constitution of the State of
10
California, including the right to retain his employment in the absence of just cause for
11
termination;" (iii) Petitioner "was informed that he was required to sign that Agreement as a
12
condition of remaining employed by the City of Carmel"; (iv) Petitioner "received no ...
13
consideration or other benefit in connection with the Employment Agreement;" (v) Petitioner
14
"was compelled to sign ... with no notice or intent to waive his vested rights and under threat
15
that if he did not sign the Employment Agreement his employment would be immediately
16
terminated without cause." The City admits the balance of the allegations contained in Paragraph
17
9, except those that constitute legal argument or legal conclusions which the City is not required
18
to admit or deny the same.
19
20
10. Answering Paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that on June 5,
21
2013: "agents of the City of Carmel appeared at Petitioner/Plaintiff's home together with the
22
Chief of Police and three law enforcement officers from the City of Carmel and the Monterey
23
County Sheriff's Department who served upon Petitioner/Plaintiff a search warrant and
24
proceeded to search his residence." The City admits " ... the City of Carmel took possession of
25
Petitioner/Plaintiff's home computer ... [and] ... [c]ity laptop computer and multiple thumb drives
26
and disks, including all back-up disks ... None of the property taken on June 5, 2013 has been
27
returned to Petitioner/Plaintiff." The City denies each and every other allegation contained in
28
Paragraph 10.
-4-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEII'PORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
11. Answering Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that Karen
2 Mclnchak is not now, and never has been, an employee of the City of Carmel. The City admits
3 that Petitioner's home computer was not returned from June 5, 2013 to the date this action was
4 filed. The City is informed and believes that Petitioner has retrieved his home computer during
5 the pendency of this action. The City is without sufficient knowledge or infonnation to form a
6 belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 11 and on that basis denies each
7 and every remaining allegation.
8
9
12. Answering Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies the allegation
10 that "at the same time on June 5, 2013 agents of the City of Carmel including
11
Respondent/Defendant Susan Paul notified Petitioner/Plaintiff that he was placed on
12 administrative leave pending investigation of criminal charges against him." The City admits
13
that no criminal or other charges have ever been filed against Petitioner and that the Carmel
14 Police Department has not requested the filing of any criminal charges against Petitioner. The
15
City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
16 allegation that "nor any other law enforcement agency has requested the filing of any criminal
17
charges against Petitioner/Plaintiff, Steven Mclnchak," and on that basis denies the foregoing
18
allegation.
19
20
13. Answering Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that to date,
21
Petitioner has not received notice of charges from the City of Carmel. The City further admits (i)
22 that Petitioner was directed to appear at an investigative interview, (ii) that not appearing at said
23
investigative interview would be insubordination, (iii) that an attorney engaged by the City was
24 present with Ms. Paul at the investigative interview. The City admits that Petitioner did not have
25
an opportunity to review, respond to or rebut charges because the interview was investigatory
26
and there were no charges yet alleged to which Petitioner could respond. The City denies that
27
Petitioner was not given the opportunity to respond to the questions about his activity.
28
Petitioner's allegation that "the allegations against Petitioner by the City of Carmel are false" is
-5-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
1 not sufficiently definite to allow The City to form a belief as to the truth of the foregoing
2 allegation and on that basis the City denies the same. The City is without sufficient knowledge
3 or information to form a belief as to the truth of the following allegations, and on that basis the
4 City denies the same: (i) Petitioner "had no knowledge or notice of any allegations against him
5 by the City of Carmel" prior to the search of his home and seizure of his property; and (ii) that
6 any purported "allegations of wrongdoing made by the City of Carmel against [Petitioner] ...
7 have been widely published and republished throughout the community." The City denies each
8 and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 13.
9
10
14. Answering Paragraph 14, the City responds that the following allegation constitutes
11
legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is not required to admit or deny the same: "such
12
false and defamatory allegations, including allegations of criminal conduct, irreparably damaged
13
Petitioner/Plaintiff's reputation in his profession, his employment and his community, violated
14 his privacy, impaired his contract of employment, and violated his liberty interest in his
15
employment, all in violation of his right to due process of law under the Constitution of the State
16
of Califomia, and in violation of Califomia law." The City denies each and every other
17
allegation contained in Paragraph 14.
18
19
15. Answering Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that from the
20 time Petitioner was placed on paid administrative leave on June 5, 2013 to the present, Petitioner
21
has been prevented from performing his job duties and accessing his work computers. The City
22
admits that from the time Petitioner was placed on paid administrative leave on June 5, 2013 to
23
the date this action was filed, Petitioner was prevented from retrieving the personal property
24
seized by the Police pursuant to the search warrant, or accessing his home computer. The City is
25
informed and believes that Petitioner has since retrieved the personal property seized by the
26
Police pursuant to the search warrant, and his home computer, during the pendency of this
27
action. The City further responds that the remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 constitute legal
28
argument or legal conclusion and the City is not required to admit or deny the same.
-6-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
1 Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining allegations constitute factual averments, the City
2 denies the same.
3
4
16. Answering Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that Petitioner
5 is 62 years of age. The City admits that employees of the City of Carmel by-the-Sea over the age
6 of 40 years old have been terminated since March 1, 2013. The City denies that " ... at least seven
7 long-term employees over the age of 40 years who have been terminated, placed on involuntary
8 leave of absence pending an investigation of allegations of misconduct, placed under disciplinary
9 investigation by the City of Carmel or forced to resign since on or about March 1, 2013." The
10
City denies that "the City Administrator and other agents of the City of Carmel have instituted a
11
pattern and practice of discrimination based on age causing a disparate impact on older
12
employees which is continuing in violation of California law." The City denies that Petitioner
13
has been "subjected to disparate treatment because of his age." The City is without sufficient
14 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Petitioner "has
15
never been convicted of any crime of moral turpitude", and on that basis, denies the allegation.
16 With regard to Petitioner's allegations that "a female employee who is more than twenty years
17 younger than Petitioner was convicted of welfare fraud during her employment with the City as
18
its Finance Specialist without suffering any discipline, discharge, involuntary leave of absence or
19 investigation of wrongdoing," such allegation is inflammatory and irrelevant as well as factually

20
incorrect; the City denies the same. The City admits that in May 16, 2014 Petitioner filed a
21
Complaint of Discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
22
against the City of Cmmel-by-the-Sea and certain individuals. The City further responds that the
23
remaining allegations of Paragraph 16 constitute legal argument or legal conclusions and the
24
City is not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining
25
allegations constitute factual averments, the City denies the same.
26
27
17. Answering Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that on or
28
about December 4, 2013 Petitioner submitted a Notice of Government Claim to the City Clerk of
-7-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
1 the City of Cannel-by-the-Sea. The City admits that on January 9, 2014 the City rejected
2 Petitioner's Government Claim. The City further responds that the remaining allegations of
3 Paragraph 17 constitute legal argument or legal conclusions and the City is not required to admit
4
or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining allegations constitute factual
5 averments, the City denies the same.

6
7
18. Answering Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the
8 allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
9 not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 18 contains
10
factual allegations, the City denies the same.
11
12
13
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Petition for Writ of Mandamus:
Performance of Ministerial Duty (CCP Section 1085)
(Against AU Respondents/Defendants their Official Capacities)
14
15
16
19. Answering Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint, the City incorporates by

reference each and every response in paragraphs 1 through 18 as though fully set fmih herein.
17
18
19
allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
20
not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 20 contains
21
factual allegations, the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to
22
the truth of such allegations and on that basis denies the same.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
22. Answering Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that on June 5,
2 2013 agents of the City of Cmmel placed, and now continue to maintain, Petitioner on paid
3 administrative leave pending an investigation that remains ongoing. The City denies that the City
4 is "without good cause, without investigation and without any evidence of grounds to believe
5 that he is guilty of conduct which warrants disciplinary action." The City further respond that
6 the remaining allegations of Paragraph 22 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the
7 City is not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining
8 allegations constitute factual averments, the City denies the same.
9
10
23. Answering Paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that each
11
and every allegation of Paragraph 23 constitutes legal argument or legal conclusion and the City
12
is not required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent Paragraph 23 contains
13
14
15
24. Answering Paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that
16
"Respondents/Defendants have refused, and continued to refuse, to permit him to perform his
17
duties as Information Systems Network Manager for the City of Carmel." The City denies that
18
"Respondents/Defendants have refused, and continued to refuse, to reinstate Petitioner/Plaintiff'
19
as Petitioner remains employed by the City.
20
allegations of Paragraph 24 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is not
21
required to admit or deny the same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining allegations
22
constitute factual averments, the City denies the same.
The City further responds that the remaining
23
24
25
allegations set f01ih therein constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is not
26
required to admit or deny the same. To the extent Paragraph 25 contains factual allegations, the
27
City denies the same.
28
-9-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
4 factual allegations, the City denies the same.
5
6
7
8
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Petition For Writ of Mandate: Abuse of Discretion
(Against All Respondents/Defendants in their Official Capacities)
9 reference each and every response in paragraphs 1 through 26 as though fully set forth herein.
10
11
28. Answering Paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint, The City responds that the
12
13
14
15
16
17
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Written Contract of Employment
(Against Respondent/Defendant Employer Only)
18
19
reference each and every response in paragraphs 1 through 28 as though fully set forth herein.
20
21
30. Answering Paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the City
22
is without sufficient knowledge or infonnation to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation
23
that Petitioner "has not engaged in any such conduct, nor has he been charged or convicted of
24
any crime .... " The City admits that Petitioner has not been charged or convicted of any crime.
25
As for the allegation that Petitioner "has not engaged in any such conduct," the City responds
26
that the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
27
28
-10-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BE.-\CH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
1 allegation as Petitioner's conduct remains under investigation as of the date of this Answer. The
2
City denies each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 30.
3
4
31. Answering Paragraph 31 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies each and every
5 allegation contained therein.

6
7
10
11
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defamation
(Against All Respondents/Defendants)
12
13
14
15

16
17
34. Answering Paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint, the City responds that the City
18
without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that
19
The City caused "excessive and unsolicited internal and external publications of defamation of
20
and concerning Petitioner/Plaintiff to third persons and to the community" and on that basis
21
denies the same. The City denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph
22
34.
23
24
35. Answering Paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint, the allegations are uncertain
25
and general, and on that basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or inf01mation to form a
26
belief as to the truth of each and every allegation contained therein, and on that basis denies the
27
same.
28
-11-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYCRS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
2 and general, and on that basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a
3 belief as to the truth of each and every allegation contained therein, and on that basis denies the
4 same.
5
6
9
factual allegations, the City responds that the allegations are uncertain and general, and on that
10 basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of
11
the allegations, and on that basis denies the same.
12
13
14
15
16 factual allegations, the City responds that the allegations are uncertain and general, and on that
17 basis is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
18
allegations, and on that basis denies each and every allegation therein.
19
20
21
and general, and on that basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a
22
23
same.
24
25
26
and general, and on that basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a
27
28
same.
-12-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/1681837v3/l 02910-0006
4 factual allegations, the City responds that the allegations are uncertain and general, and on that
5 basis is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
6 allegations, and on that basis denies each and every allegation therein.
7
8
11
factual allegations, the City responds that the allegations are uncertain and general, and on that
12
basis the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of
13
the allegations, and on that basis denies each and every allegation therein.
14
15
17
18
factual allegations, the City denies each and every allegation therein.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
II
26
27
II
28
-13-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/1 02910-0006
Intentional
(Against
2
3
of Emotional Distress
Respondents/Defendants)
4 reference each and every response in paragraphs 1 through 44 as though fully set forth herein.
5
6
46. Answering Paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint, the City admits that on or
7 about June 5, 2013 agents of the City, including Ms. Paul, entered Petitioner's home pursuant to
8 a search wanant. The City further responds that the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph
9 46 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is not required to admit or deny the
10 same. Notwithstanding, to the extent the remaining allegations constitute factual averments, the
11
City denies the same.
12
13
47. Answering paragraph 47 of the Amended Complaint, the City denies each and every
14 allegation therein.
15
16
19 factual allegations, the City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to
20 the truth of the allegations and on that basis denies each and every allegation therein.
21
22
23
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
(Against AU Respondents/Defendants)
24
25
26
27
28
-14-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/1 02910-0006
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Declaratory Relief
(Against All Respondents/Defendants their Official Capacities)
13
14
15

reference each and every response in paragraphs 1 through 51 as though fully set fmih herein.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
allegations set fmih in Paragraph 55 constitute legal argument or legal conclusion and the City is
-15-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LA\VYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
2 factual allegations, the City denies each and every allegation therein.
3
4
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The City denies each and every allegation and request for relief, including all subparts, set
6 forth in Petitioner's "PRAYER FOR RELIEF."

7
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10
Failure to State a Claim
11
As a first and separate affirmative defense, the City is informed and believes and on that
12
basis alleges that the Amended Complaint and all of the purported causes of action therein are
13
barred in whole or in part, by the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
14
15
16
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17
Standing
18
19
As a second and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that Petitioner lacks
standing to bring his Amended Complaint and all of the purported causes of action therein.
20
21
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22
Waiver
23
24
As a third and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the Amended Complaint
25
and all the purported causes of action therein are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
26
wmver.
27
28
-16-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1
2
3
As a fourth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that all of Petitioner's
4 purported causes of action, and each of them, are not ripe for adjudication.
5
6
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7
Justification and Privilege
As a fifth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the City's actions
10 respecting the subject matters in the Amended Complaint and all the purported causes of action
11
therein were undertaken in good faith, with the absence of discriminatory and/or malicious intent
12 to injure Petitioner, and constitute lawful, proper and justified means to further the purpose of
13 engaging in and continuing the City's affairs.
14
15
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16
Conformance with Statutes and Regulations
17
As a sixth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that to the extent any of the
18
19 City's activities as alleged in the Amended Complaint and all the purpmied causes of action
20 therein were pursuant to state or local law or govemment regulations, Petitioner's claims must
21
fail in that such activities were authorized, appropriate or permitted and therefore cannot form
22
23
the basis of any liability.
24
25
II
26
27 II
28
-17-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
to
2
3
As seventh and separate affirmative defense, the City is informed and believes and on
4 that basis alleges that the Amended Complaint and all the purported causes of action therein are
5 barred in whole or in part, by the failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
6
7
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
No Protectable Property Interest
9
10
As an eighth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the Amended
11
Complaint and all the purported causes of action therein are barred because the City has not
12
interfered with any protectable prope1iy interest alleged in the Amended Complaint.
13
14
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15
No Damages
16
17
As an ninth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the Amended
18
Complaint and all the purported causes of action therein are barred because Petitioner has failed
19
to show any cognizable damages.
20
21
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22
Unclean Hands
23
24
25
As a tenth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the Amended Complaint
and all the purported causes of action therein are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
26
27
28
-18-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1
2
3
As an eleventh and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that the Amended
Complaint and all the purported causes of action therein are baned because the relief sought
5 would improperly interfere with the City's discretionary authority.

6
7
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Employment At-Will
9
10
As a twelfth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that all of Petitioner's
purpotied causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, on the basis that at all times relevant
11
12
hereto, Petitioner was an at-will employee of the City.
13
14
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15
Other Defenses Reserved
16
17
As a thirteenth and separate affirmative defense, the City alleges that all of Petitioner's
purported causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, on the basis of other facts and
18
allegations which are either not yet known or whose materiality or relevance are not yet fully
19
20
21
appreciated, and the City reserves the right to amend this answer and to assert additional
defenses.
22
23
II
24
25
II
26
27
II
28
-19-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/1681837v3/10291 0-0006
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2
3
WHEREFORE, the City prays as follows:
4
5
6
1. That Petitioner take nothing by way ofhis Amended Complaint;

2. That this Comi deny every item of relief requested in the Amended Complaint;
7
3. That judgment be entered in favor of the City;
4. That the City recover attorneys' fees, as applicable;
10
11
12
5. That the City recover costs of suit incurred herein; and

6. That the City receive such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
13
14
15
DATED: October 7, 2014
16
17
STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH

A Professional Corporation
By:
18
19
Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant
City of Carmel-by-the Sea
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-20-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH

DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
2
3
4
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the State of Califomia, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600, Newpmi
Beach, Califomia 92660-6422. On October 7, 2014, I served the within documents:
ANSWER OF RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
BY FACSIMILE: by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed

above to the facsimile number(s) set forth below. I certify that said
transmission was completed without error and that a report was generated
by facsimile machine (949) 725-4100 which confirms said transmission.
6
7
8
BY EMAIL: by transmitting via electronic mail the document(s) listed

above to the email address(es) set forth below.
9
10
11
12
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: by placing the document(s) listed

above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, and
delivering via overnight courier and addressed as set forth below,
respectively.
BY MAIL: by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope
with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail in Newport
Beach, California, addressed as set forth below.
13
14
D
16
BY PERSONAL DELIVERY:
by causing personal delivery by
Nationwide Legal, Inc. of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at
the address(es) set forth below.
17
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence
for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
meter date is more than on day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the above
is true and conect.
Executed on October 7, 2014 at Newport Beach, California.
24
25
26
27
1)0
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NE\\'PORT BEACH
PROOF OF SERVICE
DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006
1
et
Case1Vo.A1128062
2
3
4
5
6
Michelle A. Welsh
Stoner, Welsh & Schmidt
413 Forest A venue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950-4201
Telephone: (831) 373-1993
Facsimile: (831) 373-1492
Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

Steven Afclnchak
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
'")Q
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
SERVICE LIST
DOCSOC/168183 7v3/l 02910-0006

Answer of Defendant City of Carmel To Plaintiff's Amended Verified Petition and Complaint Mcinchak

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Answer of Defendant City of Carmel To Plaintiff's Amended Verified Petition and Complaint Mcinchak

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

JEFFREY A. DINKIN, SBN 111422

Exempt from filing fee

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, JASON

CASE NO. M128062

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

5. Answering Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint, the City is without sufficient

on that basis denies each and every such allegation.

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

to admit or deny the same.

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

Respondent/Defendant Susan Paul notified Petitioner/Plaintiff that he was placed on

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

allegation contained in Paragraph 14.

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

19 investigation of wrongdoing," such allegation is inflammatory and irrelevant as well as factually

allegations constitute factual averments, the City denies the same.

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

5 averments, the City denies the same.

factual allegations, the City denies the same.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

19. Answering Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint, the City incorporates by

factual allegations, the City denies the same.

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

factual allegations, the City denies the same.

"Respondents/Defendants have refused, and continued to refuse, to reinstate Petitioner/Plaintiff'

as Petitioner remains employed by the City.

constitute factual averments, the City denies the same.

The City further responds that the remaining

City denies the same.

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

factual allegations, the City denies the same.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

5 allegation contained therein.

factual allegations, the City denies the same.

33. Answering Paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint, the City incorporates by

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

the allegations, and on that basis denies the same.

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

45. Answering Paragraph 45 of the Amended Complaint, the City incorporates by

City denies the same.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

52. Answering Paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint, the City incorporates by

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

6 forth in Petitioner's "PRAYER FOR RELIEF."

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Failure to State a Claim

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION AND COMPLAINT

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Conformance with Statutes and Regulations