Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 1 of 33

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

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP GREGORY F. HURLEY (SBN 126791) MICHAEL CHILLEEN (SBN 210704) 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 732-6500 Facsimile: (949) 732-6501 Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant, Pizza Hut, Inc. dba Pizza Hut #315059 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BARBARA HUBBARD, Plaintiff, vs. PIZZA HUT, INC. dba PIZZA HUT #315059; JEHOVA JIREH, INC. dba SUBWAY; HANAOKA ENTERPRISE, INC. dba HANAOKA JAPANESE RESTAURANT; CLEMENTINE DENIZ dba CASA DE ORO, Defendants. DEFENDANT PIZZA HUT, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 2 of 33

1

Defendant PIZZA HUT, INC., DBA PIZZA HUT # 315059("Defendant"), in I. SUMMARY 1. In response to Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendant is without sufficient

2 answer to plaintiff's Complaint, admits, denies, and alleges as follows: 3 4

5 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations therein, and on 6 that basis denies each and every allegation in this paragraph. 7

2.

In response to Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, the allegations purport to

8 summarize the Complaint to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 9 deemed required, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a 10 belief as to the truth of the allegations therein, and on that basis denies each and every 11 allegation in this paragraph. 12 13

II. JURISDICTION 3. In response to Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Defendant admits only that

14 original jurisdiction in this Court would appear to be appropriate for the alleged 15 violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) claims. 16

4.

In response to Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Defendant states that

17 supplemental jurisdiction in this Court may be appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 18

5.

In response to Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Defendant admits only that

19 plaintiff's allegations/claims appear to be authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 20 2202. 21 22

III. VENUE 6. In response to Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Defendant admits only that IV. PARTIES 7. Responding to Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that it

23 venue in this Court would appear to be proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c). 24 25

26 operates the store. 27 28 1 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 3 of 33

1

8.

Responding to Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

2 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 3 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 4

9.

Responding to Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

5 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 6 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 7

10.

Responding to Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

8 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 9 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph 10

11.

Responding to Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

11 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 12 that basis denies all the allegations in this paragraph. 13 14

V. FACTS 12. 13. Responding to Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Defendant admits only that Responding to Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

15 the store is a retail establishment and that it is open to the public. 16

17 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 18 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 19

14.

Responding to Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

20 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 21 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph 22

15.

Responding to Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

23 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 24 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph 25

16. 17.

Responding to Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Responding to Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the

26 allegations. 27

28 allegations. 2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 4 of 33

1

18. 19.

Responding to Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Responding to Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

2 allegations. 3

4 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 5 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 6

20.

Responding to Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

7 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 8 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 9

21.

Responding to Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

10 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 11 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 12

22.

Responding to Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

13 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 14 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 15

23.

Responding to Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

16 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 17 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 18

24.

Responding to Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

19 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 20 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 21

25. 26.

Responding to Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Responding to Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the

22 allegations. 23

24 allegations. 25

27. 28.

Responding to Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Responding to Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the

26 allegations. 27

28 allegations and further states that the store is currently in the process of being remodeled. 3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 5 of 33

1

29.

Responding to Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

2 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 3 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 4

30.

Responding to Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

5 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 6 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 7

31.

Responding to Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

8 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 9 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 10

32.

Responding to Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

11 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 12 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 13

33.

Responding to Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

14 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 15 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 16

34.

Responding to Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

17 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 18 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 19

35.

Responding to Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

20 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 21 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 22

36.

Responding to Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

23 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 24 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 25

37.

Responding to Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

26 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 27 that basis denies all of the allegations in this paragraph. 28 4 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 6 of 33

1 2 3 4 5

VI. FIRST CLAIM American with Disabilities Act of 1990 Denial of "Full and Equal" Enjoyment and Use (The Pizza Hut Facility) 38. 39. Responding to Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and Responding to Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, the Americans With

6 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Answer as set forth above. 7

8 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 9 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 10

40.

Responding to Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Failure to Remove Architectural Barriers in an Existing Facility

11 allegations. 12 13

41.

Responding to Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, the Americans With

14 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 15 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 16

42.

Responding to Paragraph 42 of the Complaint, the Americans With

17 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 18 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 19

43.

Responding to Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the

20 allegations. 21

44.

Responding to Paragraph 44 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Failure to Design and Construct an Accessible Facility

22 allegations. 23 24

45.

Responding to Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

25 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 26 that basis denies the allegations. 27

46.

Responding to Paragraph 46 of the Complaint, the Americans With

28 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 5 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 7 of 33

1 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 2

47. 48.

Responding to Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Responding to Paragraph 48 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

3 allegations. 4

5 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 6 that basis denies the allegations. 7

49.

Responding to Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, the Americans With

8 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 9 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 10

50.

Responding to Paragraph 50 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Failure to Modify Existing Policies and Procedures

11 allegations. 12 13

51.

Responding to Paragraph 51 of the Complaint, the Americans With

14 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 15 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 16

52.

Responding to Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the

17 allegations. 18

53.

Responding to Paragraph 53f the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

19 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief, but denies that she is entitled to any such relief and denies 20 the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 21

54.

Responding to Paragraph 54f the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

22 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief, but denies that she is entitled to any such relief and denies 23 the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 24 25 26 27

VII. SECOND CLAIM Disabled Persons Act (The Pizza Hut Facility) 55. Responding to Paragraph 55 the Complaint, Defendant realleges and

28 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 54 of this Answer as set forth above. 6 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 8 of 33

1

56.

Responding to Paragraph 56 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

2 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 3 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 4

57.

Responding to Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

5 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 6 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 7

58.

Responding to Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

8 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 9 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 10

59. 60.

Responding to Paragraph 59 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Responding to Paragraph 60 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

11 allegations. 12

13 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief, but denies that she is entitled to any such relief and denies 14 the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 15

61.

Responding to Paragraph 61 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

16 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief, but denies that she is entitled to any such relief and denies 17 the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 18 19 20 21

VIII. THIRD CLAIM Unruh Civil Rights Act (The Pizza Hut Facility) 62. 63. Responding to Paragraph 62 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and Responding to Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

22 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 61 of this Answer as set forth above. 23

24 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 25 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 26

64.

Responding to Paragraph 64 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

27 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 28 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 7 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 9 of 33

1

65.

Responding to Paragraph 65 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

2 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 3 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 4

66. 67. 68. 69.

Responding to Paragraph 66 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Responding to Paragraph 67 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Responding to Paragraph 68 of the Complaint, Defendant denies all of the Responding to Paragraph 69 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

5 allegations. 6

7 allegations. 8

9 allegations. 10

11 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief, but denies that she is entitled to any such relief and denies 12 the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 13 14 15 16

IX. FOURTH CLAIM Denial of Full and Equal Access to Public Facilities (The Pizza Hut Facility) 70. Responding to Paragraph 70 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and

17 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 69 of this Answer as set forth above. 18

71.

Responding to Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, Health & Safety Code §§

19 19955, et seq. speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of 20 these sections to the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of 21 these sections. 22

72.

Responding to Paragraph 72 of the Complaint, Health & Safety Code §§

23 19955, et seq. speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of 24 these sections to the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of 25 these sections. 26

73.

Responding to Paragraph 73 of the Complaint, Defendant admits only that

27 the subject store is a "public accommodation," but denies all remaining allegations 28 contained in this paragraph. 8 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 10 of 33

1

74.

Responding to Paragraph 74 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

2 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief, but denies that she is entitled to any such relief and denies 3 the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 4 5 6 7 8

X. FIFTH CLAIM Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Denial of "Full and Equal" Enjoyment and Use (The Subway Facility) 75. 76. Responding to Paragraph 75 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and Responding to Paragraph 76 of the Complaint, the Americans With

9 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 74 of this Answer as set forth above. 10

11 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 12 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 13

77.

Responding to Paragraph 77 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

14 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 15 that basis denies the allegations. 16 17

Failure to Remove Architectural Barriers in an Existing Facility 78. Responding to Paragraph 78 of the Complaint, the Americans With

18 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 19 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 20

79.

Responding to Paragraph 79 of the Complaint, the Americans With

21 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 22 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 23

80.

Responding to Paragraph 80 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

24 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 25 that basis denies the allegations. 26

81.

Responding to Paragraph 81 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

27 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 28 that basis denies the allegations. 9 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 11 of 33

1 2

Failure to Design and Construct an Accessible Facility 82. Responding to Paragraph 82 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

3 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 4 that basis denies the allegations. 5

83.

Responding to Paragraph 83 of the Complaint, the Americans With

6 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 7 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 8

84.

Responding to Paragraph 84 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

9 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 10 that basis denies the allegations. 11 12

Failure to Make an Altered Facility Accessible 85. Responding to Paragraph 85 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

13 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 14 that basis denies the allegations. 15

86.

Responding to Paragraph 86 of the Complaint, the Americans With

16 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 17 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 18

87.

Responding to Paragraph 87 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

19 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 20 that basis denies the allegations. 21 22

Failure to Modify Existing Policies and Procedures 88. Responding to Paragraph 88 of the Complaint, the Americans With

23 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 24 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 25

89.

Responding to Paragraph 89 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

26 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 27 that basis denies the allegations. 28 10 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 12 of 33

1

90.

Responding to Paragraph 90 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

2 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 3 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 4 the allegations. 5

91.

Responding to Paragraph 91 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

6 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 7 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 8 the allegations. 9 10 11 12

XI. SIXTH CLAIM Disabled Persons Act (The Subway Facility) 92. 93. Responding to Paragraph 92 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and Responding to Paragraph 93 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

13 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 91 of this Answer as set forth above. 14

15 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 16 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 17

94.

Responding to Paragraph 94 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

18 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 19 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 20

95.

Responding to Paragraph 95 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

21 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 22 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 23

96.

Responding to Paragraph 96 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

24 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 25 that basis denies the allegations. 26

97.

Responding to Paragraph 97 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

27 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 28 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 11 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 13 of 33

1 the allegations. 2

98.

Responding to Paragraph 98 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges that

3 Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 4 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 5 the allegations. 6 7 8 9

XII. SEVENTH CLAIM Unruh Civil Rights Act (The Subway Facility) 99. Responding to Paragraph 99 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and

10 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 98 of this Answer as set forth above. 11

100. Responding to Paragraph 100 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

12 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 13 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 14

101. Responding to Paragraph 101 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

15 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 16 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 17

102. Responding to Paragraph 102 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

18 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 19 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 20

103. Responding to Paragraph 103 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

21 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 22 that basis denies the allegations. 23

104. Responding to Paragraph 104 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

24 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 25 that basis denies the allegations. 26

105. Responding to Paragraph 105 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

27 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 28 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 12 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 14 of 33

1 the allegations. 2

106. Responding to Paragraph 106 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

3 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 4 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 5 the allegations. 6 7 8 9

XIII. EIGHTH CLAIM Denial of Full and Equal Access to Public Facilities (The Subway Facility) 107. Responding to Paragraph 107 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and 108. Responding to Paragraph 108 of the Complaint, Health & Safety Code §§

10 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 106 of this Answer as set forth above. 11

12 19955, et seq. speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of 13 these sections to the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of 14 these sections. 15

109. Responding to Paragraph 109 of the Complaint, Health & Safety Code §§

16 19955, et seq. speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of 17 these sections to the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of 18 these sections. 19

110. Responding to Paragraph 110 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

20 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 21 that basis denies the allegations. 22

111. Responding to Paragraph 111 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

23 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 24 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 25 the allegations. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 13 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 15 of 33

1 2 3 4 5

XIV. NINTH CLAIM Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Denial of "Full and Equal" Enjoyment and Use (The Hanaoka Facility) 112. Responding to Paragraph 112 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and 113. Responding to Paragraph 113 of the Complaint, the Americans With

6 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 111 of this Answer as set forth above. 7

8 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 9 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 10

114. Responding to Paragraph 114 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

11 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 12 that basis denies the allegations. 13 14

Failure to Remove Architectural Barriers in an Existing Facility 115. Responding to Paragraph 115 of the Complaint, the Americans With

15 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 16 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 17

116. Responding to Paragraph 116 of the Complaint, the Americans With

18 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 19 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 20

117. Responding to Paragraph 117 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

21 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 22 that basis denies the allegations. 23

118. Responding to Paragraph 118 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

24 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 25 that basis denies the allegations. 26 27

Failure to Design and Construct an Accessible Facility 119. Responding to Paragraph 119 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

28 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 14 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 16 of 33

1 that basis denies the allegations. 2

120. Responding to Paragraph 120 of the Complaint, the Americans With

3 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 4 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 5

121. Responding to Paragraph 121 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

6 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 7 that basis denies the allegations. 8 9

Failure to Make an Altered Facility Accessible 122. Responding to Paragraph 122 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

10 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 11 that basis denies the allegations. 12

123. Responding to Paragraph 123 of the Complaint, the Americans With

13 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 14 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 15

124. Responding to Paragraph 124 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

16 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 17 that basis denies the allegations. 18 19

Failure to Modify Existing Policies and Procedures 125. Responding to Paragraph 125 of the Complaint, the Americans With

20 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 21 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 22

126. Responding to Paragraph 126 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

23 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 24 that basis denies the allegations. 25

127. Responding to Paragraph 127 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

26 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 27 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 28 the allegations. 15 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 17 of 33

1

128. Responding to Paragraph 128 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

2 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 3 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 4 the allegations. 5 6 7 8

XV. TENTH CLAIM Disabled Persons Act (The Hanaoka Facility) 129. Responding to Paragraph 129 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and 130. Responding to Paragraph 130 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

9 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 128 of this Answer as set forth above. 10

11 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 12 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 13

131. Responding to Paragraph 131 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

14 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 15 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 16

132. Responding to Paragraph 132 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

17 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 18 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 19

133. Responding to Paragraph 133 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

20 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 21 that basis denies the allegations. 22

134. Responding to Paragraph 134 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

23 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 24 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 25 the allegations. 26

135. Responding to Paragraph 135 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

27 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 28 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 16 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 18 of 33

1 the allegations. 2 3 4 5

XVI. ELEVENTH CLAIM Unruh Civil Rights Act (The Hanaoka Facility) 136. Responding to Paragraph 136 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and 137. Responding to Paragraph 137 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

6 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 135 of this Answer as set forth above. 7

8 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 9 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 10

138. Responding to Paragraph 138 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

11 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 12 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 13

139. Responding to Paragraph 139 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

14 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 15 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 16

140. Responding to Paragraph 140 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

17 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 18 that basis denies the allegations. 19

141. Responding to Paragraph 141 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

20 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 21 that basis denies the allegations. 22

142. Responding to Paragraph 142 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

23 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 24 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 25 the allegations. 26

143. Responding to Paragraph 143 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

27 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 28 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 17 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 19 of 33

1 the allegations. 2 3 4 5

XVII. TWELFTH CLAIM Denial of Full and Equal Access to Public Facilities (The Hanaoka Facility) 144. Responding to Paragraph 144 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and 145. Responding to Paragraph 145 of the Complaint, Health & Safety Code §§

6 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 143 of this Answer as set forth above. 7

8 19955, et seq. speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of 9 these sections to the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of 10 these sections. 11

146. Responding to Paragraph 146 of the Complaint, Health & Safety Code §§

12 19955, et seq. speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of 13 these sections to the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of 14 these sections. 15

147. Responding to Paragraph 147 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

16 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 17 that basis denies the allegations. 18

148. Responding to Paragraph 148 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

19 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 20 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 21 the allegations. 22 23 24 25 26

XVIII. THIRTEENTH CLAIM Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Denial of "Full and Equal" Enjoyment and Use (The Casa de Oro Facility) 149. Responding to Paragraph 149 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and

27 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 148 of this Answer as set forth above. 28 18 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 20 of 33

1

150. Responding to Paragraph 150 of the Complaint, the Americans With

2 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 3 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 4

151. Responding to Paragraph 151 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

5 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 6 that basis denies the allegations. 7 8

Failure to Remove Architectural Barriers in an Existing Facility 152. Responding to Paragraph 152 of the Complaint, the Americans With

9 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 10 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 11

153. Responding to Paragraph 153 of the Complaint, the Americans With

12 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 13 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 14

154. Responding to Paragraph 154 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

15 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 16 that basis denies the allegations. 17

155. Responding to Paragraph 155 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

18 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 19 that basis denies the allegations. 20 21

Failure to Design and Construct an Accessible Facility 156. Responding to Paragraph 156 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

22 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 23 that basis denies the allegations. 24

157. Responding to Paragraph 157 of the Complaint, the Americans With

25 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 26 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 27

158. Responding to Paragraph 158 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

28 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 19 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 21 of 33

1 that basis denies the allegations. 2 3

Failure to Make an Altered Facility Accessible 159. Responding to Paragraph 159 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

4 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 5 that basis denies the allegations. 6

160. Responding to Paragraph 160 of the Complaint, the Americans With

7 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 8 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 9

161. Responding to Paragraph 161 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

10 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 11 that basis denies the allegations. 12 13

Failure to Modify Existing Policies and Procedures 162. Responding to Paragraph 162 of the Complaint, the Americans With

14 Disabilities Act speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act 15 to the extent that such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 16

163. Responding to Paragraph 163 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

17 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 18 that basis denies the allegations. 19

164. Responding to Paragraph 164 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

20 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 21 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 22 the allegations. 23

165. Responding to Paragraph 165 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

24 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 25 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 26 the allegations. 27 //// 28 //// 20 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 22 of 33

1 2 3 4

XIX. FOURTEENTH CLAIM Disabled Persons Act (The Casa de Oro Facility) 166. Responding to Paragraph 166 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and 167. Responding to Paragraph 167 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

5 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 165 of this Answer as set forth above. 6

7 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 8 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 9

168. Responding to Paragraph 168 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

10 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 11 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 12

169. Responding to Paragraph 169 of the Complaint, Civil Code §§ 54, et seq.

13 speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of these sections to 14 the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of these sections. 15

170. Responding to Paragraph 170 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

16 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 17 that basis denies the allegations. 18

171. Responding to Paragraph 171 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

19 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief, Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 20 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 21 the allegations. 22

172. Responding to Paragraph 172, Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff

23 "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge necessary to form 24 a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on that basis denies the allegations. 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 21 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 23 of 33

1 2 3 4

XX. FIFTEENTH CLAIM Unruh Civil Rights Act (The Casa de Oro Facility) 173. Responding to Paragraph 173 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and 174. Responding to Paragraph 174 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

5 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 172 of this Answer as set forth above. 6

7 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 8 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 9

175. Responding to Paragraph 175 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

10 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 11 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 12

176. Responding to Paragraph 176 of the Complaint, the Unruh Civil Rights Act

13 speaks for itself. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the Act to the extent 14 such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 15

177. Responding to Paragraph 177 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

16 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 17 that basis denies the allegations. 18

178. Responding to Paragraph 178 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

19 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 20 that basis denies the allegations. 21

179. Responding to Paragraph 179 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

22 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 23 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 24 the allegations. 25

180. Responding to Paragraph 180 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

26 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 27 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 28 the allegations. 22 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 24 of 33

1 2 3 4

XXI. SIXTEENTH CLAIM Denial of Full and Equal Access to Public Facilities (The Casa de Oro Facility) 181. Responding to Paragraph 181 of the Complaint, Defendant realleges and 182. Responding to Paragraph 182 of the Complaint, Health & Safety Code §§

5 reincorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 180 of this Answer as set forth above. 6

7 19955, et seq. speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of 8 these sections to the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of 9 these sections. 10

183. Responding to Paragraph 183 of the Complaint, Health & Safety Code §§

11 19955, et seq. speak for themselves. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of 12 these sections to the extent such characterization is inconsistent with the provisions of 13 these sections. 14

184. Responding to Paragraph 184 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks the

15 information and knowledge necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's allegations, and on 16 that basis denies the allegations. 17

185. Responding to Paragraph 185 of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledges

18 that Plaintiff "seeks" certain relief. Defendant lacks the information and knowledge 19 necessary to form a belief as to Plaintiff's remaining allegations, and on that basis denies 20 the allegations. 21 22

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES For a further answer to Plaintiff's Complaint and by way of affirmative defenses, FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a First Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action alleged

23 Defendant alleges as follows: 24 25

26 therein, it is alleged that the Complaint and said causes of action fail to state a claim upon 27 which relief may be granted. 28 //// 23 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 25 of 33

1 2

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Second Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

3 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff failed, subsequent to the occurrence described 4 in the Complaint, to properly mitigate his damages, if any, and thereby is precluded from 5 recovering those damages which could have reasonably been avoided by the exercise of 6 due care on his part. 7 8

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Third Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action alleged

9 therein, it is alleged that plaintiff voluntarily and with full knowledge of the matters 10 referred to in the Complaint assumed any and all of the risk, hazards, and perils of the 11 circumstances referred to in the Complaint and, therefore, assumed the risk of any 12 injuries or damages sustained by said plaintiff, if any at all. 13 14

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Fourth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action alleged

15 therein, it is alleged that this incident(s) was caused by the negligence and/or fault of 16 other persons, corporations, and entities, whether named or not named in the Complaint, 17 and that Defendant's liability, if any, should be reduced accordingly. 18 19

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Fifth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action alleged

20 therein, it is alleged that said Complaint is barred by the Statute of Limitations; including 21 but not limited to, §§ 335.1, 337.1, 338, 339, 340, and 343 of the California Code of Civil 22 Procedure. 23 24

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Sixth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action alleged

25 therein, it is alleged that if any injuries or damages were sustained by plaintiff, those 26 injuries and damages were proximately caused and contributed to by plaintiff herself. 27 Any recovery to which plaintiff is entitled, if any, should be reduced by the amount 28 proportionate to the amount by which plaintiff's fault contributed to the damages plaintiff 24 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 26 of 33

1 alleges she sustained. 2 3

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Seventh Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

4 alleged therein, it is alleged that in the event Defendant prevails in this action, Defendant 5 shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of this matter under 6 the provisions of the ADA and California Civil Code Sections 51, 52 and 54. 7 8

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As an Eighth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

9 alleged therein, it is alleged that Defendant's conduct was privileged because it was 10 undertaken pursuant to the terms of the applicable laws, regulations, orders, and 11 approvals relating to building construction and/or fire safety and public safety. 12 13

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Ninth Affirmative Defense, it is alleged that plaintiff's Complaint and each

14 cause of action alleged therein, is barred by reason of the issuance by local building 15 authorities of appropriate building permits and Certificates of Occupancy for said 16 facilities. 17 18

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Tenth Affirmative Defense, it is alleged that any and all injuries or damages,

19 if any, suffered by plaintiff were caused, in whole or in part, by other persons or entities 20 for whose acts or omissions Defendant has no responsibility. 21 22

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As an Eleventh Affirmative Defense, it is alleged that the Complaint and each

23 cause of action alleged therein, is barred by reason of Defendant's good faith reliance 24 upon the advice of architects with respect to said facilities. 25 26

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twelfth Affirmative Defense, it is alleged that the Complaint and each cause

27 of action alleged therein is barred because the relief demanded in plaintiff's complaint 28 would, if granted result in a fundamental alteration of Defendant's services. 25 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 27 of 33

1 2

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Thirteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

3 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because 4 of their failure to name indispensable parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 19. 5 6

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Fourteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

7 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the 8 equitable doctrine of waiver. 9 10

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Fifteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

11 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the 12 doctrine of equitable estoppel. 13 14

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Sixteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

15 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the 16 doctrine of judicial estoppel. 17 18

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Seventeenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

19 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the 20 doctrine of laches. 21 22

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As an Eighteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

23 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because 24 Defendant was justified in acting as it did, in that Defendant acted in good faith and in 25 the lawful exercise of their legitimate rights in connection with all matters alleged in the 26 Complaint. 27 //// 28 //// 26 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 28 of 33

1 2

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Nineteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

3 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because 4 the laws that plaintiff seeks to enforce are unconstitutionally vague and/or 5 unconstitutionally overbroad 6 7

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twentieth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

8 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because 9 Defendant relied in good faith on the law as it existed at the time of the construction of 10 the facilities at issue. 11 12

TWENTY FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty First Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

13 alleged therein, it is alleged that Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the 14 doctrine of unclean hands. 15 16

TWENTY SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty Second Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of

17 action, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred as a matter of law because plaintiff 18 lacks standing to seek the relief she requests. 19 20

TWENTY THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a further, separate and distinct Twenty Third Affirmative Defense to the

21 Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein, it is alleged that the features 22 identified in the Complaint substantially comply with the applicable law and are within 23 "dimensional tolerances." 24 25

TWENTY FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty Fourth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of

26 action alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiff's claims are barred as a matter of law 27 because plaintiff failed to provide any notice to Defendant regarding the alleged 28 accessibility issues prior to filing this lawsuit. 27 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 29 of 33

1 2

TWENTY FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty Fifth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

3 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiffs' claims for damages under the Unruh Act are 4 barred as a matter of law because plaintiff cannot meet his burden of establishing 5 intentional conduct on the part of Defendant. 6 7

TWENTY SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty Sixth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

8 alleged therein, it is alleged that any allegedly wrongful acts or omissions performed by 9 Defendant or its agents, if there were any, do not subject Defendant to liability because 10 the removal of alleged architectural barriers was not readily achievable. 11 12

TWENTY SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty Seventh Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of

13 action alleged therein, Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer to assert 14 additional affirmative defenses as such additional defenses are discovered during the 15 course of this case. 16 17

TWENTY EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty Eighth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of

18 action alleged therein, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(3), Defendant is not required to 19 permit Plaintiff to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 20 advantages and/or accommodations where Plaintiff poses a direct threat to the health and 21 safety of Plaintiff and others. 22 23

TWENTY NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Twenty Ninth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

24 alleged therein, it is alleged that Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the 25 doctrine of res judicata. 26 27

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Thirtieth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

28 alleged therein, it is alleged that Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the 28 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 30 of 33

1 doctrine of collateral estoppel. 2 3

THIRTY FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Thirty First Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

4 alleged therein, it is alleged that Plaintiff's claims are barred because the purported 5 architectural barriers provide effective access to plaintiffs. 6 7

THIRTY SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Thirty Second Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

8 alleged therein, it is alleged that any allegedly wrongful acts or omissions performed by 9 Defendant or its agents, if there were any, do not subject Defendant to liability because 10 full compliance with the accessibility requirements would be structurally impracticable to 11 do so. 12 13

THIRTY THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Thirty Third Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

14 alleged therein, it is alleged that any allegedly wrongful acts or omissions performed by 15 Defendant or its agents, if there were any, do not subject Defendant to liability because 16 any and all alterations to the facility, if any, were made to ensure that the facility would 17 be readily accessible to the maximum extent feasible. 18 19

THIRTY FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Thirty Fourth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

20 alleged therein, it is alleged that any allegedly wrongful acts or omissions performed by 21 Defendant or its agents, if there were any, do not subject Defendant to liability because 22 the cost and scope of any and all alterations to the path of travel to the altered areas 23 containing a primary function, if any, would be disproportionate to the cost of the overall 24 alterations to the primary function, if any. 25 26

THIRTY FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Thirty Fifth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

27 alleged therein, it is alleged that any allegedly wrongful acts or omissions performed by 28 Defendant or its agents, if there were any, do not subject Defendant to liability because 29 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 31 of 33

1 Defendant accommodates plaintiffs' alleged disability by providing services via 2 alternative methods other than the removal of alleged architectural barriers. 3 4

THIRTY SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Thirty Sixth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of action

5 alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiffs' claims are barred because insofar as 6 Defendant has not made the alterations to the facilities at issue, which plaintiffs contend 7 should have been made, those changes were not and are not required under federal or 8 California law, and any requirements to make those changes would impose an undue 9 burden upon Defendant. 10 11

THIRTY SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As a Thirty Seventh Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each cause of

12 action alleged therein, it is alleged that plaintiffs' claims may be barred by any or all of 13 the affirmative defendants contemplated by Rules 8 and 12 of the Federal Rules of 14 Procedure. The extent to which plaintiffs' claims may be barred cannot be determined 15 until Defendant has an opportunity to complete discovery. Therefore, Defendant 16 incorporates all such affirmative defenses as though fully set forth herein. 17 18 19 20 21

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays: 1. 2. 3. 4. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; That Plaintiff take nothing by way of his Complaint; That Defendant recover its cost of suit, including attorneys' fees; and, For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

22 DATED: July 21, 2008 23 24 25 26 27 28

By /s/ Michael J. Chilleen Gregory F. Hurley Michael J. Chilleen Attorneys for Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company, DBA Food 4 Less # 780

30 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 32 of 33

1 2 3 4 5 DATED: July 21, 2008 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant hereby demands a trial by jury.

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

By /s/ Michael J. Chilleen Gregory F. Hurley Michael J. Chilleen Attorneys for Defendant Pizza Hut, Inc., dba Pizza Hut # 315059

31 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Case No. 08 CV 1111 L NLS

Case 3:08-cv-01111-L-NLS

Document 4

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 33 of 33

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE

I am employed in the aforesaid county, State of California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 3161 Michelson Drive, 4 Suite 1000, Irvine, California 92612.
3 5

On the below date, I served: DEFENDANT PIZZA HUT, INC.'S ANSWER TO 6 COMPLAINT with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District, using the CM/ECF System. The Court's CM/ECF System will send an email 7 notification of the foregoing filing to the following parties and counsel of record who are registered with the Court's CM/ECF System:
8 9 Law Offices of Lynn Hubbard 10 12 Williamsburg Lane

Lynn Hubbard, III Chico, CA 95926

11 Telephone: (530) 895-3252 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
OC 286,282,665v1 7-21-08

Fax: (530) 894-8244 Attorney for Plaintiff, Barbara Hubbard (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA CM/ECF SYSTEM) In accordance with the electronic filing procedures of this Court, service has been effected on the aforesaid party(s) above, whose counsel of record is a registered participant of CM/ECF, via electronic service through the CM/ECF system. (FEDERAL) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I am employed at the office of a member of the bar of this Court and at whose direction the service was made. Executed on July 21, 2008, at Irvine, California. /s/ Michael Chilleen Signature

Case No. 07 CV-2301 JLS POR