Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 4:07-cv-04446-SBA

Document 9

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 1 of 5

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

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney WAYNE SNODGRASS, State Bar #148137 SHERRI SOKELAND KAISER, State Bar #197986 Deputy City Attorneys City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4682 Telephone: (415) 554-4691 Facsimile: (415) 554-4747 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION BOARD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VANCE S. ELLIOTT, Plaintiff, vs. THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION BOARD, Defendant. Case No. CV 07-4446 SBA ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Plaintiff's Complaint, filed August 28, 2007, consists of a cover page followed by a three-page "amended complaint," another single-page "amended complaint," and a series of attachments. Defendant San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board hereby answers the Complaint as follows: Answering paragraph 1 of the three-page "amended complaint," Defendant admits the allegations. Answering paragraph 2 of the three-page "amended complaint," Defendant admits the allegations.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. CV 07-4446 SBA

1

n:\govlit\li2007\080353\00441480.doc

Case 4:07-cv-04446-SBA

Document 9

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 2 of 5

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

Answering paragraph 3 of the three-page "amended complaint," Defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and denies the same on that basis. Answering paragraph 4 of the three-page "amended complaint," Defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and denies the same on that basis. Answering paragraph 5 of the three-page "amended complaint," Defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and denies the same on that basis. Answering paragraph 6 of the three-page "amended complaint," Defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and denies the same on that basis. Answering paragraph 7 of the three-page "amended complaint," Defendant admits that the California Constitution contains a right to privacy but denies each and every remaining allegation. Answering paragraph 8 of the three-page "amended complaint," Defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and denies the same on that basis. Answering paragraph 9 of the three-page "amended complaint," Defendant admits that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was enacted shortly after the Civil War to protect the newly won freedom of former slaves. Defendant also admits that the Task Force wrote the Uniform Visitor Policy under the authority of a municipal ordinance. Defendant denies each and every remaining allegation. Answering paragraph 1 of the one-page "amended complaint," Defendant denies each and every allegation. Answering paragraph 2 of the one-page "amended complaint," Defendant denies each and every allegation. Answering paragraph 3 of the one-page "amended complaint," Defendant denies each and every allegation. Answering paragraph 4 of the one-page "amended complaint," Defendant denies each and every allegation.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. CV 07-4446 SBA

2

n:\govlit\li2007\080353\00441480.doc

Case 4:07-cv-04446-SBA

Document 9

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 3 of 5

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

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's Complaint, and each claim contained in it, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE There is a defect or misjoinder of parties, in that plaintiff has failed to join necessary and indispensable parties to this action. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of waiver and/or estoppel. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent such claims are unripe and premature. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the Complaint and each purported claim contained therein. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Because plaintiff's Complaint is uncertain and unclear, defendant reserves its right to amend this Answer, including by asserting additional affirmative defenses, should defendant become aware of additional or different allegations purportedly contained the Complaint. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, defendant prays for judgment as follows: 1. That plaintiff take nothing by reason of his complaint, and that judgment be entered in 3
n:\govlit\li2007\080353\00441480.doc

defendant's favor.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. CV 07-4446 SBA

Case 4:07-cv-04446-SBA

Document 9

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 4 of 5

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

2.

That defendant be awarded its costs incurred in this action, including reasonable

attorney's fees. 3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney WAYNE K. SNODGRASS SHERRI SOKELAND KAISER Deputy City Attorneys

Dated: October 3, 2007

By:

/s/ SHERRI SOKELAND KAISER

.

Attorneys for Defendant SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION BOARD

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. CV 07-4446 SBA

4

n:\govlit\li2007\080353\00441480.doc

Case 4:07-cv-04446-SBA

Document 9

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 5 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. CV 07-4446 SBA

PROOF OF SERVICE I, DIANA QUAN, declare as follows: I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the aboveentitled action. I am employed at the City Attorney's Office of San Francisco, City Hall, Room 234, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94102. On October 3, 2007, I served the following document(s): ANSWER TO COMPLAINT on the following persons at the locations specified: VANCE S. ELLIOTT The Baldwin House 74 Sixth Street, #227 San Francisco, CA 94103-1608 in the manner indicated below: BY UNITED STATES MAIL: Following ordinary business practices, I sealed true and correct copies of the above documents in addressed envelope(s) and placed them at my workplace for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service. I am readily familiar with the practices of the San Francisco City Attorney's Office for collecting and processing mail. In the ordinary course of business, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed for collection would be deposited, postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service that same day. BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I sealed true and correct copies of the above documents in addressed envelope(s) and caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand at the above locations by a professional messenger service. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I sealed true and correct copies of the above documents in addressed envelope(s) and placed them at my workplace for collection and delivery by overnight courier service. I am readily familiar with the practices of the San Francisco City Attorney's Office for sending overnight deliveries. In the ordinary course of business, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed for collection would be collected by a courier the same day. BY FACSIMILE: Based on a written agreement of the parties to accept service by fax, I transmitted true and correct copies of the above document(s) via a facsimile machine at telephone number (415) 554-4747 to the persons and the fax numbers listed above. The fax transmission was reported as complete and without error. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed October 3, 2007, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ DIANA QUAN

5

n:\govlit\li2007\080353\00441480.doc