Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00037-H-WMC

Document 21

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 1 of 10

1 THOMAS M. McINERNEY, Cal. Bar No. 162055
[email protected] OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 2 Steuart Tower, Suite 1300 3 One Market Plaza San Francisco, California 94105 4 Telephone: 415-442-4871 Facsimile: 415-442-4870

5
Attorneys for Defendants 6 BECHTEL CORPORATION and BECHTEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

7 8 9 10 11 JAMES RICHARD STIEFEL, 12 13
v. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff, Case No. 08 CV 0037 H (WMc) DEFENDANT BECHTEL CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 BECHTEL CORPORATION and BECHTEL 15
Defendants.

16 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///
Case No. CV 0037 H (WMc) DEFENDANT BECHTEL CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 3:08-cv-00037-H-WMC

Document 21

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 2 of 10

1

Defendant Bechtel Corporation ("Defendant") hereby files its Answer to Plaintiff James

2 Richard Stiefel's ("Plaintiff") First Amended Complaint for Damages ("the First Amended 3 Complaint"), and would respectfully show the Court as follows: 4 5
1. JURISDICTION AND VENUE In response to paragraph 1 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant objects to

6 various terms including "located" and the "events constituting the conduct set forth in this 7 Complaint" on the basis that they are vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Defendant admits that 8 it has operated or does operate in San Diego County. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge 9 or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 1, and on 10 that basis it denies the remaining allegations. 11
2. In response to paragraph 2 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant objects to

12 various terms including "the wrongful conduct alleged herein," the "records relevant to 13 Defendants' business," and "this Division" on the basis that they are vague, ambiguous, and 14 unintelligible. Defendant admits that it has operated or does operate in San Diego County and 15 that some of the records relevant to Defendant's business operations are or were located in San 16 Diego County. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the 17 truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 2, and on that basis it denies the remaining 18 allegations. 19 20
3. PARTIES In response to paragraph 3 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant objects to

21 various terms including "all relevant times herein" on the basis that they are vague, ambiguous, 22 and unintelligible. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to 23 the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 3, and on that basis it denies the remaining 24 allegations. 25
4. In response to paragraph 4 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant admits that

26 Bechtel Corporation is a corporation and its principal place of business is located in California. 27 Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the 28 remaining allegations in paragraph 4, and on that basis it denies the remaining allegations.
Case No. CV 0037 H (WMc) DEFENDANT BECHTEL CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Case 3:08-cv-00037-H-WMC

Document 21

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 3 of 10

1

5.

In response to paragraph 5 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

2 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 5, 3 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 4
6. In response to paragraph 6 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

5 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 6, 6 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 7
7. In response to paragraph 7 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

8 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 7, 9 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 10
8. In response to paragraph 8 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

11 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 8, 12 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 13
9. In response to paragraph 9 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

14 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 9, 15 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 16
10. In response to paragraph 10 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

17 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 10, 18 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 19
11. In response to paragraph 11 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

20 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 11, 21 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 22
12. In response to paragraph 12 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

23 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 12, 24 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 25
13. In response to paragraph 13 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

26 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 13, 27 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 28
Case No. CV 0037 H (WMc) DEFENDANT BECHTEL CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2

Case 3:08-cv-00037-H-WMC

Document 21

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 4 of 10

1

14.

In response to paragraph 14 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

2 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 14, 3 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 4
15. In response to paragraph 15 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

5 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 15, 6 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 7
16. In response to paragraph 16 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

8 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 16, 9 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 10
17. In response to paragraph 17 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

11 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 17, 12 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 13
18. In response to paragraph 18 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

14 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 18, 15 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 16
19. In response to paragraph 19 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

17 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 19, 18 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 19
20. In response to paragraph 20 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

20 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 20, 21 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 22
21. In response to paragraph 21 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

23 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 21, 24 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 25
22. In response to paragraph 22 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

26 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 22, 27 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 28
Case No. CV 0037 H (WMc) DEFENDANT BECHTEL CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

3

Case 3:08-cv-00037-H-WMC

Document 21

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 5 of 10

1

23.

In response to paragraph 23 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

2 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 23, 3 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 4
24. In response to paragraph 24 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

5 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 24, 6 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 7
25. In response to paragraph 25 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

8 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 25, 9 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 10
26. In response to paragraph 26 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

11 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 26, 12 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 13
27. In response to paragraph 27 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

14 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 27, 15 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 16
28. In response to paragraph 28 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

17 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 28, 18 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 19
29. In response to paragraph 29 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

20 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 29, 21 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 22
30. In response to paragraph 30 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

23 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 30, 24 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 25
31. In response to paragraph 31 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

26 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 31, 27 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 28
Case No. CV 0037 H (WMc) DEFENDANT BECHTEL CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

4

Case 3:08-cv-00037-H-WMC

Document 21

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 6 of 10

1 2
32.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION In response to paragraph 32 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant repeats,

3 reasserts, and incorporates by reference its objections, admissions, and denials herein as though set 4 forth in full. 5
33. In response to paragraph 33 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant admits

6 that the Americans with Disabilities Act was in effect during the period alleged in the First 7 Amended Complaint and that Defendant is subject to it. Defendant is without sufficient 8 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 9 33, and on that basis it denies the remaining allegations. 10
34. In response to paragraph 34 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

11 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 34, 12 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 13
35. In response to paragraph 35 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

14 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 35, 15 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 16
36. In response to paragraph 36 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

17 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 36, 18 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 19
37. In response to paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

20 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 37, 21 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 22
38. In response to paragraph 38 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

23 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 38, 24 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 25
39. In response to paragraph 39 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

26 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 39, 27 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 28
Case No. CV 0037 H (WMc) DEFENDANT BECHTEL CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5

Case 3:08-cv-00037-H-WMC

Document 21

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 7 of 10

1

40.

In response to paragraph 40 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

2 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 40, 3 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 4 5
41. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION In response to paragraph 41 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant repeats,

6 reasserts, and incorporates by reference its objections, admissions, and denials herein as though set 7 forth in full. 8
42. In response to paragraph 42 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

9 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 42, 10 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 11
43. In response to paragraph 43 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant admits

12 that it is subject to the ADA and, as such, it is required to provide reasonable accommodations at 13 particular times when required under its provisions. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or 14 information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 43, and on 15 that basis it denies the remaining allegations. 16
44. In response to paragraph 44 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

17 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 44, 18 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 19
45. In response to paragraph 45 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

20 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 45, 21 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 22
46. In response to paragraph 46 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

23 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 46, 24 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 25
47. In response to paragraph 47 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

26 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 47, 27 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 28
Case No. CV 0037 H (WMc) DEFENDANT BECHTEL CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6

Case 3:08-cv-00037-H-WMC

Document 21

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 8 of 10

1

48.

In response to paragraph 48 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

2 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 48, 3 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 4 5
49. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION In response to paragraph 49 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant repeats,

6 reasserts, and incorporates by reference its objections, admissions, and denials herein as though set 7 forth in full. 8
50. In response to paragraph 50 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

9 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 50, 10 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 11
51. In response to paragraph 51 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

12 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 51, 13 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 14
52. In response to paragraph 52 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant notes that

15 the Court has struck these allegations. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information 16 to form a belief as to the truth of any remaining allegations in paragraph 52 not already stricken, 17 and on that basis it denies any remaining allegations. 18
53. In response to paragraph 53 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

19 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 53, 20 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 21
54. In response to paragraph 54 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

22 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 54, 23 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 24
55. In response to paragraph 55 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

25 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 55, 26 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 27 28
Case No. CV 0037 H (WMc) DEFENDANT BECHTEL CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7

Case 3:08-cv-00037-H-WMC

Document 21

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 9 of 10

1

56.

In response to paragraph 56 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

2 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 56, 3 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 4
57. In response to paragraph 57 of the First Amended Complaint, Defendant is without

5 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 57, 6 and on that basis it denies the allegations. 7 8 9
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a valid claim against

10 Defendant. 11 12 13 14 15 16
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff failed to reasonably mitigate his damages, if any. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any alleged disparate treatment was not based on any disability but on a legitimate

17 nondiscriminatory business reason unrelated to Plaintiff's disability. 18 19 20 21
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant was and has never been Plaintiff's employer. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any requested accommodation was unreasonable or would otherwise constitute an undue

22 burden. 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case No. CV 0037 H (WMc) DEFENDANT BECHTEL CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred by the equitable claim of laches.

8

Case 3:08-cv-00037-H-WMC

Document 21

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 10 of 10

1 2

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred or otherwise preempted by the Labor Management Relations

3 Act of 1947, 29 U.S. §§ 185, et seq. 4 5
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the California Worker's

6 Compensation law. 7 8 9 10
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 1. 2. 3. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of his Complaint; That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; That the Court enter judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff on all his alleged

11 causes of action; 12 13
4. 5. That the Court award Defendant its costs of suit; and The Court grants Defendant such other and further relief as the Court deems just

14 and proper. 15 16 DATED: June 5, 2008 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case No. CV 0037 H (WMc) DEFENDANT BECHTEL CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

By: s/Thomas M. McInerney Thomas M. McInerney Attorneys for Defendants BECHTEL CORPORATION and BECHTEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

9